I was never against the idea of the wall, I just thought that it would be costly and ineffective. Hadrian the Roman proved a long time ago that a wall is no good unless you post guards on it, and that costs money. I do like the idea of tightening up our borders, but it will take more than a wall to do that. I understand that they did a pretty good job of intercepting those banned travelers that were in flight when the ban was announced, so maybe the wall is just a symbol of the total effort. From what I've seen on the news, Trump did not ban Muslims, he just banned people from seven countries that happen to have a Muslim majority. Wiki says that there are about 40 other Muslim countries in the world that are not on the list. I said during Trump's campaign that he couldn't legally ban people of a specific religion, but he could legally ban people from a specific country, it's been done before. They said on the news this evening that Obama did it himself back in 2011, he banned people from Syria for six months. Trump's current order is only for four months because he figures that's how long it will take to develop an effective screening process. (I guess they are calling it "vetting" nowadays, but I don't know why.) Okay, the four months is for the six other countries, Syria has been banned indefinitely, I suppose because it's going to take longer to sort out the good guys and the bad guys in that one.
I don't know what to think about Trump. He's an asshole, to be sure, but he seems to be trying to do the right things. Obama was a nice guy, but he tried to do the wrong things. I usually try to judge people by what they do rather than who they are, but I'm finding that hard to do in Trump's case. I'm beginning to think that being an asshole is what it takes to get elected in this country anymore. Reagan was a nice guy who tried to do the right things, but that was a long time ago.
McCain and Romney were both nice guys who might have done some of the right things if they had gotten elected, but they didn't get elected.
We have had a mild winter so far, but our winter is only half over. We had a couple of cold weeks, but I don't think it ever got below zero, which is fine by me. I don't see why it should ever go below zero. That's why they call it "zero". Most of the snow around Cheboygan melted away in the last thaw. There is actually some bare ground in the open areas, and only a few inches of snow remain in the woods. The last couple of snow events missed us completely, and the current one is predicted to only graze us. Call me "crazy", but I think it's because our county voted mostly voted Republican in the last election. When we had two hard winters in a row after Obama was elected the first time, I blamed it on him. He said he was going to do something about global warming, and he apparently did. After the Republicans won a majority in the House, we had two mild winters in a row. We got two more hard winters after Obama was re-elected, and then two mild ones after the Republicans gained control of the whole Congress. Coincidence? I think not!
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Are we having fun yet?
Indeed, the chickens have come home to roost and they're shitting all over the place. This is a terrible time to be a Republican in Congress; like it or not, they have to own the fact that their guy is a loon, surrounded by enabling sycophants. It's a tragic situation, as if the American body politic is in the throes of a new, possibly fatal, disease and the world is watching with bated breath, wondering if there will be a full recovery to robust health and vigor.
Despite lip service support of #45, you have to figure that many congressional folk are not ignoring the mid-term elections in two years. There will be an accounting, with many constituents asking why there has been such a total lack of integrity and honor among the incumbents. It's their mess and they're going to have to clean it up.
-----
A new expression has popped up on my radar: malignant narcissism. The American Psychiatry Association's "Goldwater Rule" prohibits psychiatrists from making public comments on the mental health of anyone they have not treated but a guy from Johns Hopkins has defied that rule. Other pundits of the shrink persuasion are weighing in with similar observations; it will be interesting to see how or if this plays out. The new regime is nothing less than toxic and could use a good purgative.
-----
My understanding of immigration law and practices is woefully lacking. Who decides where immigrants settle? If it's their choice, I wonder why someone from Somalia would think that North Dakota would be a swell space to settle or if a Libyan family would find that the western part of the upper peninsula of Michigan reminds them of home. Their first winters must have been real eye openers.
-----
I'm not going to begrudge a president from signing executive orders, but in this case they seem to be very poorly thought out and written in haste, probably by that Bannon guy. I would think that some research and vetting by responsible parties would be in order, like running the ideas past the Justice Department or Immigration or Homeland Security, but that seems not to be he case. It's like the orders have been signed without reading or understanding them. Can someone please give these guys a clue?
-----
A good snowfall has yet to appear in Chicago, and the temperatures have been relatively mild this winter. How's the situation up north, Mr. Beagles? Are you having a "normal" winter with a lot of snowmobiling and other winter stuff?
-----
Finally, I see that Oprah Winfrey herself is joining the staff of 60 Minutes. About time they hired a hard hitting journalist; Billy Bush must not have been available.
Despite lip service support of #45, you have to figure that many congressional folk are not ignoring the mid-term elections in two years. There will be an accounting, with many constituents asking why there has been such a total lack of integrity and honor among the incumbents. It's their mess and they're going to have to clean it up.
-----
A new expression has popped up on my radar: malignant narcissism. The American Psychiatry Association's "Goldwater Rule" prohibits psychiatrists from making public comments on the mental health of anyone they have not treated but a guy from Johns Hopkins has defied that rule. Other pundits of the shrink persuasion are weighing in with similar observations; it will be interesting to see how or if this plays out. The new regime is nothing less than toxic and could use a good purgative.
-----
My understanding of immigration law and practices is woefully lacking. Who decides where immigrants settle? If it's their choice, I wonder why someone from Somalia would think that North Dakota would be a swell space to settle or if a Libyan family would find that the western part of the upper peninsula of Michigan reminds them of home. Their first winters must have been real eye openers.
-----
I'm not going to begrudge a president from signing executive orders, but in this case they seem to be very poorly thought out and written in haste, probably by that Bannon guy. I would think that some research and vetting by responsible parties would be in order, like running the ideas past the Justice Department or Immigration or Homeland Security, but that seems not to be he case. It's like the orders have been signed without reading or understanding them. Can someone please give these guys a clue?
-----
A good snowfall has yet to appear in Chicago, and the temperatures have been relatively mild this winter. How's the situation up north, Mr. Beagles? Are you having a "normal" winter with a lot of snowmobiling and other winter stuff?
-----
Finally, I see that Oprah Winfrey herself is joining the staff of 60 Minutes. About time they hired a hard hitting journalist; Billy Bush must not have been available.
trial-balloon-for-a-coup
Dumbo said a billion things, and then he took them back, and then he said them again, and at one point he said he was just saying things and he probably wouldn't do them, and then he said maybe he would, and then he said this and then he said that. These things like the wall and banning muslims are things we hated when he said them. Why should we like them now that he does them? If the big girl had promised to make you marry your gay dog and turn your gun into a plowshare, and then won the election and did it, would you have said, "Oh she's keeping her promises, how nice."
Obama issued about as many executive orders (I did look it up) as Clinton and W, oh and dumbo, except it took those other guys eight years to issue their 45 some orders and dumbo has done that many in eight days. And I seem to remember the reps and dumbo screaming bloody murder (and I think Beagles complained about it a few times, but I may be wrong about that) about Obama's executive orders. If it was bad when Obama did it, why isn't it bad when dumbo does it,
And it's not the executive orders per se, it's the contents of them. This is crappy stuff. Not only is it stupid, in that it hurts the interests of America, but it drags America down in the dirt with the rest of the countries ruled by tin pot dictators. Okay a little strong, but geez just stand back and look at what this guy is doing.
I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories because there are always odd things going on in the world, and if you have a pet theory you can always pick and choose things to prove it. And most of the time they don't draw any solid conclusions. They don't see Colonel Mustard killed the Plum character in the kitchen with the candlestick, they just say, isn't this suspicious. Seems like there didn't use to be as many conspiracy theories, more likely there were, it seems like a human nature thing, but we didn't hear about them as much. Probably the internet right? And maybe a distinction should be made between the bull goose loony ones like the birthers and the truthers, and the more moderate and somewhat better documented trial-balloon-for-a-coup one that Old Dog presents us with from the nether reaches of the internet.
I'm wondering if this theory has a lot of followers or is it just this guy's idea. He begins by making six observations which are kind of scattered, and maybe some of them dubious, (who has time to research all this?), then he puts them all together to come to a conclusion that I have seen part of in the lame stream medial Mainly that Bannon has won dumbo's heart and along with his son in law, Priebus, and some guy named Miller or some bland name like that, are taking the reins of power to themselves and not sharing them.
One odd fact mentioned at the beginning was some White House holocaust announcement that didn't mention Jews specifically and caused a minor uproar, and I wondered how this fit in with anything, and it didn't seem to be mentioned again.
I am a steady viewer of the Sunday shows, and one thing I have noticed with the rise of Trumpism is how rude his people are to the commentators. Sure the politicians always weaseled and lied, but there was always a civility on the shows. But these Trumpists take pride in being rude to the press, you can almost see them looking back to their insider group, hey guys see, I'm being cool too,
Reince didn't use to be like that, he was always civil, a little meek even, among the bigger blowhards, but last week he was mouthing off like there was no tomorrow and appeared to be having the time of his life. Now he is playing with the big boys.
The trial balloon/coup thing never got to the point of an actual coup as in overthrowing the gov, it did link the Russkies in in a vague way that I didn't follow.
As far as our elected officials (and why don't we schlubs at the bar have some responsibility) stepping up to the task, there is nothing much the dems can do but howl, and the reps are craven, though I do suspect there is some whispering going on in the upper reaches about how can we knock this boke off.
"...he kept hounding you, asking you question after question until you said, alright Socrates whatever you say."
Alright, Uncle Ken; whatever you say.
Yeah right, whenever have I heard Old Dog say, "Alright Uncle Ken."?
Obama issued about as many executive orders (I did look it up) as Clinton and W, oh and dumbo, except it took those other guys eight years to issue their 45 some orders and dumbo has done that many in eight days. And I seem to remember the reps and dumbo screaming bloody murder (and I think Beagles complained about it a few times, but I may be wrong about that) about Obama's executive orders. If it was bad when Obama did it, why isn't it bad when dumbo does it,
And it's not the executive orders per se, it's the contents of them. This is crappy stuff. Not only is it stupid, in that it hurts the interests of America, but it drags America down in the dirt with the rest of the countries ruled by tin pot dictators. Okay a little strong, but geez just stand back and look at what this guy is doing.
I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories because there are always odd things going on in the world, and if you have a pet theory you can always pick and choose things to prove it. And most of the time they don't draw any solid conclusions. They don't see Colonel Mustard killed the Plum character in the kitchen with the candlestick, they just say, isn't this suspicious. Seems like there didn't use to be as many conspiracy theories, more likely there were, it seems like a human nature thing, but we didn't hear about them as much. Probably the internet right? And maybe a distinction should be made between the bull goose loony ones like the birthers and the truthers, and the more moderate and somewhat better documented trial-balloon-for-a-coup one that Old Dog presents us with from the nether reaches of the internet.
I'm wondering if this theory has a lot of followers or is it just this guy's idea. He begins by making six observations which are kind of scattered, and maybe some of them dubious, (who has time to research all this?), then he puts them all together to come to a conclusion that I have seen part of in the lame stream medial Mainly that Bannon has won dumbo's heart and along with his son in law, Priebus, and some guy named Miller or some bland name like that, are taking the reins of power to themselves and not sharing them.
One odd fact mentioned at the beginning was some White House holocaust announcement that didn't mention Jews specifically and caused a minor uproar, and I wondered how this fit in with anything, and it didn't seem to be mentioned again.
I am a steady viewer of the Sunday shows, and one thing I have noticed with the rise of Trumpism is how rude his people are to the commentators. Sure the politicians always weaseled and lied, but there was always a civility on the shows. But these Trumpists take pride in being rude to the press, you can almost see them looking back to their insider group, hey guys see, I'm being cool too,
Reince didn't use to be like that, he was always civil, a little meek even, among the bigger blowhards, but last week he was mouthing off like there was no tomorrow and appeared to be having the time of his life. Now he is playing with the big boys.
The trial balloon/coup thing never got to the point of an actual coup as in overthrowing the gov, it did link the Russkies in in a vague way that I didn't follow.
As far as our elected officials (and why don't we schlubs at the bar have some responsibility) stepping up to the task, there is nothing much the dems can do but howl, and the reps are craven, though I do suspect there is some whispering going on in the upper reaches about how can we knock this boke off.
"...he kept hounding you, asking you question after question until you said, alright Socrates whatever you say."
Alright, Uncle Ken; whatever you say.
Yeah right, whenever have I heard Old Dog say, "Alright Uncle Ken."?
Monday, January 30, 2017
The Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost
I don't understand what the fuss is all about. So far, Trump has been doing pretty much what he said he was going to do if he got elected. Maybe, because he lies so often, people are surprised when he tells the truth. Wow, a politician actually keeping his campaign promises! Who would a thunk it? It almost makes me wish that I had voted for him myself, almost but not quite. He's still an asshole after all, there's no denying that.
Without looking it up, I seem to remember that Obama issued a lot of executive orders, stretching his constitutional authority almost to the breaking point. I also seem to remember that some of those orders were challenged in court, and the courts generally ruled in Obama's favor. Now that the precedent has been established, why shouldn't Trump do the same thing? I didn't follow the campaign as closely as you guys did, but I also seem to remember that Trump promised to undo many of Obama's executive orders, and then issue a few of his own. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I usually visit Face Book on the weekends to see what my family has been up to, but there was so much weeping and gnashing of teeth about Trump on there last night that my screen kept locking up. I thought the problem was in my computer, but then I went to Wiki and had no such problems. Wiki had one rather long article about this immigration ban. I kind of scanned over it, but there was a disclaimer on there that said it was breaking news and subject to change at a moment's notice, so I didn't see any point in reading the whole thing. One thing I caught was that two separate lawsuits had been filed in two separate federal courts, and that one court ruled against Trump's action, and one court ruled in favor of it. I suppose that neither of these two judges were aware of what the other was doing. Tune in tomorrow for another thrilling episode in the continuing saga.
I don't eat a lot of candy, and am not particularly fond of chocolate, so I've never tried to make anything like that and don't plan to. I prefer to get my sugar the natural way, from beer. I have become fond of ice cream since I started eating a daily dose of it after I got that bleeding ulcer in 2008. The ulcer cleared up in a few months, but I've been eating ice cream ever since. Come to think of it, I quit drinking beer while the ulcer was healing and, when I started back up again, I only drank two beers a day instead of six. It just occurred to me that the increased sugar intake from the ice cream may have depressed my appetite for beer. Things like that can slip up on you when you're not paying attention, you know.
Without looking it up, I seem to remember that Obama issued a lot of executive orders, stretching his constitutional authority almost to the breaking point. I also seem to remember that some of those orders were challenged in court, and the courts generally ruled in Obama's favor. Now that the precedent has been established, why shouldn't Trump do the same thing? I didn't follow the campaign as closely as you guys did, but I also seem to remember that Trump promised to undo many of Obama's executive orders, and then issue a few of his own. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I usually visit Face Book on the weekends to see what my family has been up to, but there was so much weeping and gnashing of teeth about Trump on there last night that my screen kept locking up. I thought the problem was in my computer, but then I went to Wiki and had no such problems. Wiki had one rather long article about this immigration ban. I kind of scanned over it, but there was a disclaimer on there that said it was breaking news and subject to change at a moment's notice, so I didn't see any point in reading the whole thing. One thing I caught was that two separate lawsuits had been filed in two separate federal courts, and that one court ruled against Trump's action, and one court ruled in favor of it. I suppose that neither of these two judges were aware of what the other was doing. Tune in tomorrow for another thrilling episode in the continuing saga.
I don't eat a lot of candy, and am not particularly fond of chocolate, so I've never tried to make anything like that and don't plan to. I prefer to get my sugar the natural way, from beer. I have become fond of ice cream since I started eating a daily dose of it after I got that bleeding ulcer in 2008. The ulcer cleared up in a few months, but I've been eating ice cream ever since. Come to think of it, I quit drinking beer while the ulcer was healing and, when I started back up again, I only drank two beers a day instead of six. It just occurred to me that the increased sugar intake from the ice cream may have depressed my appetite for beer. Things like that can slip up on you when you're not paying attention, you know.
Do you know the Muffin Man?
As promised, Uncle Ken delivered with his jalapeno/cheddar cornbread muffins. I asked him, in the spirit of determining objective reality, whether or not it is a muffin if it doesn't look like a muffin. Apparently Uncle Ken prefers the free-form, road apple aesthetic with the muffins unconstrained by the harsh limitations of baking with a muffin pan. Since the taste is unaffected I can't argue with his design choice.
Speaking of design choice, his latest show at the Tencat, Corn, is his finest work to date. I usually hound him (that's what Big Dogs do) about ditching the watercolors and moving on to oils or acrylics, but not this time. It's nice to see development and improvement of artwork over time, and as much as he hates links, I'm posting one for the benefit of Mr. Beagles: http://www.bckat.net/KenSchadt/cornshow/index.htm
-----
We also discussed a little cooking at the seminar and it's apparent he tires of discussions of frozen confections which shall not be named. I wanted to point out something I found interesting: except for the addition of butter, the types of ingredients are identical for pudding; only the quantities differ. This is useful information in case I decide to expand the repertoire to include pies.
My throbbing sweet tooth is getting out of hand and I've also been looking at copycat recipes for candy bars: Snickers, Mounds, 3 Musketeers, and a personal favorite, Chunky (What a chunk o' chocolate!). Commercial candy bars have so many cost cutting limitations for the ingredients that I thought it would be interesting to test the difference using higher quality stuff; you guys try anything like that?
-----
It's been quite a shitstorm in Washington with the recent flurry of Executive Orders. It used to be that presidents were considered in the terms of their administration, i.e., the Nixon Administration, the Carter Administration, etc. But now we have a situation where it can be considered a regime and not an administration, which is a significant difference.
There was an interesting post about how all the recent activity is a possible trial balloon for a coup; scary stuff but you can find it if you search for "trial-balloon-for-a-coup."
One point that was mentioned is that on Inauguration Day, Trump filed the paperwork to run in 2020. This is significant because the rules of media coverage are different when you are covering a candidate as opposed to an office holder. Of course, this also allows a revenue stream to flow into the coffers of the candidate.
These are the times that try men's souls and I'm wondering how capable our system of checks and balances really is. The system is rigged and the deck is being stacked in new and unusual ways. Unless our elected officials step up to the task we, and the world, are in for some bleak times.
-----
"...he kept hounding you, asking you question after question until you said, alright Socrates whatever you say."
Alright, Uncle Ken; whatever you say.
Speaking of design choice, his latest show at the Tencat, Corn, is his finest work to date. I usually hound him (that's what Big Dogs do) about ditching the watercolors and moving on to oils or acrylics, but not this time. It's nice to see development and improvement of artwork over time, and as much as he hates links, I'm posting one for the benefit of Mr. Beagles: http://www.bckat.net/KenSchadt/cornshow/index.htm
-----
We also discussed a little cooking at the seminar and it's apparent he tires of discussions of frozen confections which shall not be named. I wanted to point out something I found interesting: except for the addition of butter, the types of ingredients are identical for pudding; only the quantities differ. This is useful information in case I decide to expand the repertoire to include pies.
My throbbing sweet tooth is getting out of hand and I've also been looking at copycat recipes for candy bars: Snickers, Mounds, 3 Musketeers, and a personal favorite, Chunky (What a chunk o' chocolate!). Commercial candy bars have so many cost cutting limitations for the ingredients that I thought it would be interesting to test the difference using higher quality stuff; you guys try anything like that?
-----
It's been quite a shitstorm in Washington with the recent flurry of Executive Orders. It used to be that presidents were considered in the terms of their administration, i.e., the Nixon Administration, the Carter Administration, etc. But now we have a situation where it can be considered a regime and not an administration, which is a significant difference.
There was an interesting post about how all the recent activity is a possible trial balloon for a coup; scary stuff but you can find it if you search for "trial-balloon-for-a-coup."
One point that was mentioned is that on Inauguration Day, Trump filed the paperwork to run in 2020. This is significant because the rules of media coverage are different when you are covering a candidate as opposed to an office holder. Of course, this also allows a revenue stream to flow into the coffers of the candidate.
These are the times that try men's souls and I'm wondering how capable our system of checks and balances really is. The system is rigged and the deck is being stacked in new and unusual ways. Unless our elected officials step up to the task we, and the world, are in for some bleak times.
-----
"...he kept hounding you, asking you question after question until you said, alright Socrates whatever you say."
Alright, Uncle Ken; whatever you say.
dumbo smacks America
I'm sure Socrates was a pain in the ass, all philosophers are pains in the ass, and Socrates, with the vaunted, Socratic method, sounds like more of a pain in the ass than the others. Instead of just giving you his latest book, which you could accept with a smile and say you'll bet around to reading it right away, and tossing it into a corner, he kept hounding you, asking you question after question until you said, alright Socrates whatever you say.
But he wasn't really all that gay, not compared to his fellow Greeks at the time. They had a kind of system where men fooled around with young boys who they were mentoring. They also had wives and that's where more Greeks came fro,m. I am sure they also had men who were out and out gay, and I think they frowned mildly on that. It was okay back then to be a pain in the ass, but having pain in your ass, not so much.
I haven't read that play. I did internet research on Socrate's gayness because I hadn't heard that said of him in particular, but I don't think I want to do anymore this morning so I'll take Beagles' word on this trial of Socrates, though a play is a work of fiction and I'm sure the author reworked some of the details to make his point,
The charge may have been something like blasphemy, but I think the real reason was enemy of the state, and probably a bit of being a pain in the ass. It doesn't seem likely that he would have been a Spartan sympathizer, Spartans were kind of thugs, but in time of war there is a tendency to accuse people you don't like of being in league with the enemy.
I think his friends were urging him to leave, but he was well, being a pain in the ass, of course if he hadn't drank the hemlock he could have continued to be a pain in the ass which is what makes me think he should have slipped away.
I wonder how much of this is true. The only reason that we know anything about Socrates is that Plato told us, and like the guy writing the play he probably altered a few facts to make whatever point he was making.
You know Plato had that thing where all things on earth were like shadows of the perfect object which dwelt somewhere, I don't think he ever specified, he had us all in a dark cave scarce able to glimpse what was really going on, so that sounds a little weak on Objective Reality, still he thought the ideal objects had a solid reality, so I don't know. I hate to have to go to wiki to find out what perzackly he believed, or even worse to have to read one of his books, I have one of them buried somewhere in my bookcases. I got it cheap at a book sale thinking well I really ought to read this sometime, but when the excitement over the bargain faded I thought, yeah right.
Up to now Dumbo has been something of a clown. What he said was repellent, but it was all hot air, This Muslim ban though is just so clearly unAmerican, and this Bannon guy on the National Security Council. Old Dog brought up the subject of impeachment at the last seminar, or more accurately high repubs examining charges of non compos mentis that could be applied,.
Two thirds of the house, that's a lot. I think we can assume all the dems would go along, but we'd still need forty percent of the repubs, that's an awful lot.
Looking back it's hard to remember how they got two thirds of the house against Bill, Just over that comparatively trivial affair, oh and the lying under oath, but hey, that's Bill.
But he wasn't really all that gay, not compared to his fellow Greeks at the time. They had a kind of system where men fooled around with young boys who they were mentoring. They also had wives and that's where more Greeks came fro,m. I am sure they also had men who were out and out gay, and I think they frowned mildly on that. It was okay back then to be a pain in the ass, but having pain in your ass, not so much.
I haven't read that play. I did internet research on Socrate's gayness because I hadn't heard that said of him in particular, but I don't think I want to do anymore this morning so I'll take Beagles' word on this trial of Socrates, though a play is a work of fiction and I'm sure the author reworked some of the details to make his point,
The charge may have been something like blasphemy, but I think the real reason was enemy of the state, and probably a bit of being a pain in the ass. It doesn't seem likely that he would have been a Spartan sympathizer, Spartans were kind of thugs, but in time of war there is a tendency to accuse people you don't like of being in league with the enemy.
I think his friends were urging him to leave, but he was well, being a pain in the ass, of course if he hadn't drank the hemlock he could have continued to be a pain in the ass which is what makes me think he should have slipped away.
I wonder how much of this is true. The only reason that we know anything about Socrates is that Plato told us, and like the guy writing the play he probably altered a few facts to make whatever point he was making.
You know Plato had that thing where all things on earth were like shadows of the perfect object which dwelt somewhere, I don't think he ever specified, he had us all in a dark cave scarce able to glimpse what was really going on, so that sounds a little weak on Objective Reality, still he thought the ideal objects had a solid reality, so I don't know. I hate to have to go to wiki to find out what perzackly he believed, or even worse to have to read one of his books, I have one of them buried somewhere in my bookcases. I got it cheap at a book sale thinking well I really ought to read this sometime, but when the excitement over the bargain faded I thought, yeah right.
Up to now Dumbo has been something of a clown. What he said was repellent, but it was all hot air, This Muslim ban though is just so clearly unAmerican, and this Bannon guy on the National Security Council. Old Dog brought up the subject of impeachment at the last seminar, or more accurately high repubs examining charges of non compos mentis that could be applied,.
Two thirds of the house, that's a lot. I think we can assume all the dems would go along, but we'd still need forty percent of the repubs, that's an awful lot.
Looking back it's hard to remember how they got two thirds of the house against Bill, Just over that comparatively trivial affair, oh and the lying under oath, but hey, that's Bill.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Socrates Was a Pain in the Ass
I seem to remember that it was Woody Ellis who first pointed out to me that all those Greeks were a pain in the ass. It was about that time that my English teacher, Mrs. O'Hara, told me that all generalizations are invalid. With conflicting messages like that being presented to me in school, it's a wonder that I turned out as smart as I did. Truth is, I don't know that all those Greeks were a pain in the ass, but I'm pretty sure that Socrates was. He would go around accosting people in the marketplace and asking them tough questions. Then, before the poor guy had a chance to complete his answer, Socrates would hit him with another question. That, and the fact that he was as gay as a three dollar bill, leads me to believe that Socrates was indeed a pain in the ass.
Wiki has an article called "Socrates on Trial", which is the title of a play that I think I saw once on TV. I seemed to remember that one of the charges against Socrates was blasphemy, but it's been a long time since I saw the play, or at least part of the play, or maybe it wasn't even the same play, but the Wiki account sounded familiar to me. It said that Socrates was actually charged with "failing to recognize the gods of Athens and corrupting the city's youth", not exactly blasphemy, but close enough. Socrates pleaded "not guilty" to those charges but was convicted anyway. If they had charged him with being a pain in the ass, he might have pleaded "no contest", but maybe there was no law against being a pain in the ass in ancient Athens. Wiki did say that Athens had recently lost a war with Sparta, and that Socrates was rumored to have been a Spartan sympathizer, which may be where Uncle Ken got the idea that Socrates was charged with being an enemy of the state. Maybe they didn't have enough evidence to convict him on that, so they trumped up those other charges.
I also remember seeing something on TV about a famous painting called "The Death of Socrates". It depicts Socrates drinking the poison hemlock while his friends are weeping and wailing about it. In the background you can see that the door to his jail cell had been left open, I suppose by the guy who brought in the hemlock. The implication is that Socrates could have easily escaped if he had wanted to. The guy who was explaining the painting said that the Athenians didn't really want Socrates to die, they just wanted to throw a scare into him to get him to quit being such a pain in the ass, or words to that effect. Socrates, defiant to the end, said that he would rather die than cave in to his critics. Wiki says that Socrates drank the hemlock because he was a law and order kind of guy who would rather die than break any of the laws of his beloved city. Either way, it seems apparent that, in addition to being a pain in the ass, Socrates was more than a little funny in the head. Too bad they didn't have mental health counseling in those days. Rather than condemning Socrates to death, they could have rendered him harmless with medication or something.
I am not telling any Christians what to believe or how to behave, I'm just explaining why I don't go to church anymore. According to Thomas Paine, who literally wrote the book on it, Deists are true monotheists so, no, we are not Christians. I try to keep an open mind about things like that myself, so maybe I'm not a true Deist. I'm okay with that because I never joined any Deist church or swore allegiance to any Deist doctrines.
I don't particularly care for cornbread, but it's nice that Uncle Ken has found a productive hobby in his old age. He has his art, but that's more properly called "creative" than "productive". I meant to tell him yesterday, but I forgot, that the reason they say the baking time is 15-20 minutes is that all ovens do not heat exactly the same, and some people pre-heat and some people don't. The original bread recipe that I started with said to "bake at 350-375 degrees for "30-40 minutes, or until done". I ended up baking at 400 degrees for 45 minutes, and I don't preheat.
Wiki has an article called "Socrates on Trial", which is the title of a play that I think I saw once on TV. I seemed to remember that one of the charges against Socrates was blasphemy, but it's been a long time since I saw the play, or at least part of the play, or maybe it wasn't even the same play, but the Wiki account sounded familiar to me. It said that Socrates was actually charged with "failing to recognize the gods of Athens and corrupting the city's youth", not exactly blasphemy, but close enough. Socrates pleaded "not guilty" to those charges but was convicted anyway. If they had charged him with being a pain in the ass, he might have pleaded "no contest", but maybe there was no law against being a pain in the ass in ancient Athens. Wiki did say that Athens had recently lost a war with Sparta, and that Socrates was rumored to have been a Spartan sympathizer, which may be where Uncle Ken got the idea that Socrates was charged with being an enemy of the state. Maybe they didn't have enough evidence to convict him on that, so they trumped up those other charges.
I also remember seeing something on TV about a famous painting called "The Death of Socrates". It depicts Socrates drinking the poison hemlock while his friends are weeping and wailing about it. In the background you can see that the door to his jail cell had been left open, I suppose by the guy who brought in the hemlock. The implication is that Socrates could have easily escaped if he had wanted to. The guy who was explaining the painting said that the Athenians didn't really want Socrates to die, they just wanted to throw a scare into him to get him to quit being such a pain in the ass, or words to that effect. Socrates, defiant to the end, said that he would rather die than cave in to his critics. Wiki says that Socrates drank the hemlock because he was a law and order kind of guy who would rather die than break any of the laws of his beloved city. Either way, it seems apparent that, in addition to being a pain in the ass, Socrates was more than a little funny in the head. Too bad they didn't have mental health counseling in those days. Rather than condemning Socrates to death, they could have rendered him harmless with medication or something.
I am not telling any Christians what to believe or how to behave, I'm just explaining why I don't go to church anymore. According to Thomas Paine, who literally wrote the book on it, Deists are true monotheists so, no, we are not Christians. I try to keep an open mind about things like that myself, so maybe I'm not a true Deist. I'm okay with that because I never joined any Deist church or swore allegiance to any Deist doctrines.
I don't particularly care for cornbread, but it's nice that Uncle Ken has found a productive hobby in his old age. He has his art, but that's more properly called "creative" than "productive". I meant to tell him yesterday, but I forgot, that the reason they say the baking time is 15-20 minutes is that all ovens do not heat exactly the same, and some people pre-heat and some people don't. The original bread recipe that I started with said to "bake at 350-375 degrees for "30-40 minutes, or until done". I ended up baking at 400 degrees for 45 minutes, and I don't preheat.
Should Socrates have sipped?
No sir, Old Dog, the contents has been nothing but ice cream, ice cream, ice cream, and the manufacture thereof and various machines, and I believe cornstarch was mentioned at some point, which was a high point in the conversation, because it is a corn product and dovetails nicely into my very informative, briskly and entertainingly written, and lavishly illustrated, story of the baking of my corn muffins. About which, I might mention, not a word has been written, no kudos, no jolly good show, Uncle Ken, no, oh my mouth is watering just viewing that golden brown muffinscape. No nothin.
But anyhow I am outraged by Lyin' Old Dog contesting my view that there have been some ice cream free posts. I demand an investigation and so do the five million Beaglestonian readers who all voted for me and my ice cream free agenda, each one of whom shall soon be opening their mail boxes to find their very own muffin. And the dawgs will be paying for the muffins, and the postage, and Beaglestonia will be great again.
All those eight or nine years that I was a proud Methodist I had no idea what the doctrines of the church were. Dress nicely on Sundays (ugh), don't commit any major crimes (prolly I can manage that),, and most likely you will be passing through the pearly gates with a pat on the back (would like to know more about this place. Contrary to the polka will there be beer? Or will we be spending all eternity in scratchy suits singing A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, in which case I might just go ahead and commit a major crime because what the hell?).
Many years later I was talking to a methodist minister and lawdy how she went on about rules and regulations and doctrines, which I had never heard about before, and which really I don't see how I could have cared about, have a synod, don't have a synod, believe in the Eucharist don't believe in the Eucharist? It's all the same to me.
It is just you Beagles, nobody else cares about the doctrines. And you keep insisting that you are a deist which is not even a Christian, I think. I suppose you could claim that this do-nothing god of yours is actually Jesus Christ (Ghengis Khan was a Christian, a Nestorian Christian and probably believed things that would sound odd to us, but if you asked him if he believed in Jesus Christ, probably he would have said he did), which I don't think you do, and here you are telling Christians how they should behave.
I believe the religion is what most people believe, not what is written in some dusty book that only the preacher reads.
How did my beloved Objective Reality tree get dragged into religion? Have you no shame Beagles? Have you been eating ice cream until your brain froze and now you are blaspheming my tree?
The charge may have been blasphemy, but the cause of Socrate's death was being an enemy of the state. And by the way, I never understood why he didn't slip away before sipping that hemlock.
Maybe we could discuss that. It would be higher-toned than ice cream and even my (ahem) undiscussed corn muffins, though cheddar jalapeno corn muffins are on the agenda for this afternoon, and if Beagles attends tonight's seminar he may even get a bite of the body and see if is better than whatever they passed around as the body after singing A Mighty Fortress/
But anyhow I am outraged by Lyin' Old Dog contesting my view that there have been some ice cream free posts. I demand an investigation and so do the five million Beaglestonian readers who all voted for me and my ice cream free agenda, each one of whom shall soon be opening their mail boxes to find their very own muffin. And the dawgs will be paying for the muffins, and the postage, and Beaglestonia will be great again.
All those eight or nine years that I was a proud Methodist I had no idea what the doctrines of the church were. Dress nicely on Sundays (ugh), don't commit any major crimes (prolly I can manage that),, and most likely you will be passing through the pearly gates with a pat on the back (would like to know more about this place. Contrary to the polka will there be beer? Or will we be spending all eternity in scratchy suits singing A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, in which case I might just go ahead and commit a major crime because what the hell?).
Many years later I was talking to a methodist minister and lawdy how she went on about rules and regulations and doctrines, which I had never heard about before, and which really I don't see how I could have cared about, have a synod, don't have a synod, believe in the Eucharist don't believe in the Eucharist? It's all the same to me.
It is just you Beagles, nobody else cares about the doctrines. And you keep insisting that you are a deist which is not even a Christian, I think. I suppose you could claim that this do-nothing god of yours is actually Jesus Christ (Ghengis Khan was a Christian, a Nestorian Christian and probably believed things that would sound odd to us, but if you asked him if he believed in Jesus Christ, probably he would have said he did), which I don't think you do, and here you are telling Christians how they should behave.
I believe the religion is what most people believe, not what is written in some dusty book that only the preacher reads.
How did my beloved Objective Reality tree get dragged into religion? Have you no shame Beagles? Have you been eating ice cream until your brain froze and now you are blaspheming my tree?
The charge may have been blasphemy, but the cause of Socrate's death was being an enemy of the state. And by the way, I never understood why he didn't slip away before sipping that hemlock.
Maybe we could discuss that. It would be higher-toned than ice cream and even my (ahem) undiscussed corn muffins, though cheddar jalapeno corn muffins are on the agenda for this afternoon, and if Beagles attends tonight's seminar he may even get a bite of the body and see if is better than whatever they passed around as the body after singing A Mighty Fortress/
Thursday, January 26, 2017
One Nation, Invisible
When some kids hear the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time, that's what it sounds like to them. Truth is, that's not so far off. The idea of a unified American nation is largely a myth. I think the closest we ever came to it was during World War II. Of course that was a pretty short war by modern standards. If the Vietnam War had only lasted four years it probably wouldn't have generated so much divisiveness among our people. Be that as it may, there is little unity of culture or ethics in this country.
As I said before, people can believe anything they want to about religion but, when you join a church, it seems like you should be comfortable with most of their doctrines, but that's just me. As I also said before, some people join a church for purely social reasons. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't want to do it. "If that's what most Christians believe isn't that what Christianity is?" No, I don't think so. Every Christian church has a set of core beliefs that are preserved in writing, and that's what Christianity is. They don't all have identical doctrines, but the one thing they have in common is the belief in Jesus Christ. If you want to start a church of your own, there is nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn't call it "Christian" if you don't believe in Jesus Christ. Okay, let's say that Uncle Ken has a church that worships the mythological tree in his mythological back yard, and he calls it "The Church of the Immortal Tree". Meanwhile, his neighbor founds a church that worships rose bushes and denies the divinity of Uncle Ken's tree. Should that neighbor call his church "The Neighborly Church of the Immortal Tree"? I think not.
One man's superstition is another man's religion. I'm sure that those hunter-gatherers felt at least as strongly about their religious beliefs as the Greeks in the time of Socrates. Socrates was sentenced to death for blasphemy, you know. I'm also sure that those hunter-gatherers had some kind of code of conduct. People lived in relatively small groups in those days, and all the groups probably didn't have the same rules, but people were expected to abide by the rules of their own group. It seems likely that there was some connection between the rules and the religious beliefs, but I don't know that for an absolute fact.
As I said before, people can believe anything they want to about religion but, when you join a church, it seems like you should be comfortable with most of their doctrines, but that's just me. As I also said before, some people join a church for purely social reasons. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't want to do it. "If that's what most Christians believe isn't that what Christianity is?" No, I don't think so. Every Christian church has a set of core beliefs that are preserved in writing, and that's what Christianity is. They don't all have identical doctrines, but the one thing they have in common is the belief in Jesus Christ. If you want to start a church of your own, there is nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn't call it "Christian" if you don't believe in Jesus Christ. Okay, let's say that Uncle Ken has a church that worships the mythological tree in his mythological back yard, and he calls it "The Church of the Immortal Tree". Meanwhile, his neighbor founds a church that worships rose bushes and denies the divinity of Uncle Ken's tree. Should that neighbor call his church "The Neighborly Church of the Immortal Tree"? I think not.
One man's superstition is another man's religion. I'm sure that those hunter-gatherers felt at least as strongly about their religious beliefs as the Greeks in the time of Socrates. Socrates was sentenced to death for blasphemy, you know. I'm also sure that those hunter-gatherers had some kind of code of conduct. People lived in relatively small groups in those days, and all the groups probably didn't have the same rules, but people were expected to abide by the rules of their own group. It seems likely that there was some connection between the rules and the religious beliefs, but I don't know that for an absolute fact.
Pants on fire
"...but until this current round of posts, it was all ice cream, ice cream, we all churn our own ice cream."
That, Sir, is a LIE! A falsehood, a misrepresentation of the facts! To be sure, the contents of some of my posts were about ice cream, but certainly not all; other topics were mentioned. This is how you tumble down the slippery slope towards fake news.
But to preserve Uncle Ken's integrity, I provide the following to retroactively render his statement true, in at least one instance. Enjoy.
-----
There were only ten recipes with my machine, Mr. Beagles, and except for the berry and sorbet mixtures they all specify heating the mixture and then cooling it before churning in the machine. I looked at the recipe booklet for the Cuisinart machine and most recipes use a cold mixture, so you might as well continue to use what works for you.
If you use egg yolk (for the added fat, protein, and lecithin for a better emulsion) you will have to cook the mixture. All chocolate recipes I've seen require heating of the dairy mix. You either melt the unsweetened squares or need a heated mix for good mixing of cocoa powder. The powder mixes very poorly in a cold liquid mix; I've read that heating allows the proteins to unfold allowing better incorporation, which makes sense to me. Funny, though, I've never had problems adding cocoa powder to an unheated cake batter. The chemistry and physics of the process continue to fascinate me.
I was wondering why my mix didn't expand as much as Mr. Beagles' and a fine site on molecular gastronomy revealed the reason: the mixing chamber was too cold. Although storage of ice cream requires very low temperatures (-35F or lower is best) the churning process itself should be done around 22F, give or take. The overly cold temperature of my container prevented the proper amount of air to be incorporated into the mix; another lesson learned. Also, the mix should have been pre-chilled, around 40F, for at least 4 hours (preferably overnight) to allow all the little bits of the mix to settle into a state of happy emulsified suspension. The process is called aging, a term I never associated with ice cream.
The site also includes production methods using dry ice, liquid nitrogen, and a wacky machine that shaves a solid mass of frozen mix into a smooth, creamy blend. If you want to learn about the history, science, and production of ice cream in easily understood layman's terms (mostly) you can go here: http://www.molecularrecipes.com/ice-cream-class/making-ice-cream-steps/
Oh, the machine I have is the highest rated cheap machine I found on Amazon, made by Aicok. Well built, clean design, not too noisy, and easy to clean. The cover and motor snap in place with a reassuring *click* and there are handy tabs to remove the mixing container. When I went to move it, there were recesses in the bottom exactly where they should be to make it easy to pick up, no fumbling around. A well thought out product, if it lasts and doesn't break. Time will tell. My only beef is that there is about 3/32" on the bottom of the container that the paddle doesn't quite reach so the mix is frozen rock solid and difficult to remove; got to let it melt before I can scrape it out and consume.
That, Sir, is a LIE! A falsehood, a misrepresentation of the facts! To be sure, the contents of some of my posts were about ice cream, but certainly not all; other topics were mentioned. This is how you tumble down the slippery slope towards fake news.
But to preserve Uncle Ken's integrity, I provide the following to retroactively render his statement true, in at least one instance. Enjoy.
-----
There were only ten recipes with my machine, Mr. Beagles, and except for the berry and sorbet mixtures they all specify heating the mixture and then cooling it before churning in the machine. I looked at the recipe booklet for the Cuisinart machine and most recipes use a cold mixture, so you might as well continue to use what works for you.
If you use egg yolk (for the added fat, protein, and lecithin for a better emulsion) you will have to cook the mixture. All chocolate recipes I've seen require heating of the dairy mix. You either melt the unsweetened squares or need a heated mix for good mixing of cocoa powder. The powder mixes very poorly in a cold liquid mix; I've read that heating allows the proteins to unfold allowing better incorporation, which makes sense to me. Funny, though, I've never had problems adding cocoa powder to an unheated cake batter. The chemistry and physics of the process continue to fascinate me.
I was wondering why my mix didn't expand as much as Mr. Beagles' and a fine site on molecular gastronomy revealed the reason: the mixing chamber was too cold. Although storage of ice cream requires very low temperatures (-35F or lower is best) the churning process itself should be done around 22F, give or take. The overly cold temperature of my container prevented the proper amount of air to be incorporated into the mix; another lesson learned. Also, the mix should have been pre-chilled, around 40F, for at least 4 hours (preferably overnight) to allow all the little bits of the mix to settle into a state of happy emulsified suspension. The process is called aging, a term I never associated with ice cream.
The site also includes production methods using dry ice, liquid nitrogen, and a wacky machine that shaves a solid mass of frozen mix into a smooth, creamy blend. If you want to learn about the history, science, and production of ice cream in easily understood layman's terms (mostly) you can go here: http://www.molecularrecipes.com/ice-cream-class/making-ice-cream-steps/
Oh, the machine I have is the highest rated cheap machine I found on Amazon, made by Aicok. Well built, clean design, not too noisy, and easy to clean. The cover and motor snap in place with a reassuring *click* and there are handy tabs to remove the mixing container. When I went to move it, there were recesses in the bottom exactly where they should be to make it easy to pick up, no fumbling around. A well thought out product, if it lasts and doesn't break. Time will tell. My only beef is that there is about 3/32" on the bottom of the container that the paddle doesn't quite reach so the mix is frozen rock solid and difficult to remove; got to let it melt before I can scrape it out and consume.
Cornbread muffins.
Old Dog, I wasn't expecting to resolve anything with complete certainty. I guess I have my own point of view but I am not married to it. I just wanted to hear what people would say. I just wanted to see a thousand flowers bloom, but until this current round of posts, it was all ice cream, ice cream, we all churn our own ice cream. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In fact last night I had my own culinary adventure, which I will relate later on.
It's news to me that we have a firmly established framework of ethics and morality in our society (USA?), or that it is sound. I think we are in constant disagreement as to what is right and wrong. I am curious about where it originated. Not that I expect that there was like one single thing, or that we would agree about it, but it seems like interesting ground for discussion to me.
Henry Tandey sounds like one of those stories that if it didn't happen, somebody would have made it up. It may be that if he had killed Hitler a worse (hard to imagine) tyrant would have arisen, or maybe one who was not so bad but was more practical and could have won WW II.
The point system sounds to me exactly how most Christians view their religion. It's certainly the way I viewed it when I was a methodist. If that's what most Christians believe isn't that what Christianity is? But then Christians have a long history of claiming other Christians aren't really Christians.
I was not including the animism of the hunter gatherers as a religion, I think it is more of a superstition thing with no overall philosophy, and it's morality is just the law of the jungle, which is no morality at all. The reason I brought up the Greeks is that I wanted to discuss ethics without religion, you know in kind of a logical if/them manner, not in a what does the bible say about it manner.
I had a similar theory to Beagles's about Trump, calling him a big fucking asshole rather than a drunken uncle, but I think the theory is the same in that everybody knows a big fucking asshole, but hardly anybody knows somebody like our politicians. Well not quite like that. If we knew them close up they might seem odd but normal, but they have these crews of image people who construct an image that seems inherently dishonest, like everything they say has been crafted exclusively to advance their agenda. From listening to them on the radio and tv, since I don't know any personally, I'd say their main motivation was to blow everything up.
The fuse is being lit, but there is a lot of sputtering at the moment and I think it will be like cheap fireworks, all smoke and no bang, and then Pence and the Publicans! will come storming in like the Huns on their short horses to drag us back to the eighteenth century.
I am surprised that the lame stream media is being so forthright in calling Dumbo on his obvious (there is no tree in Uncle Ken's backyard) lies. Well the news is information. If there is only opinion then we don't need the news at all. I have even sampled Fox a bit, and some of them are actually skeptical.
The opening for my show, Corn, is this Saturday and my original idea was to have a corn boil, but that is messy and corn on the cob is hard to come by this time of year. I thought about tamales, but there didn't seem to be anybody that delivered them en masse, so I finally decided on cornbread. I inquired among well, women, they cook you know, and the consensus seemed to be that there was nothing to it. Could that be true? Yesterday afternoon I headed out to the Jewel.
I wanted cornbread but all they had was corn muffins, close enough. There was a list of ingredients on the back of the box and I was ready to go.
A little bit of this, a little bit of that, mix it all up and stir, stir, stir.
A little messy globbing the stuff into those little muffin cups, but not so bad, and afterwards a tasty bowl to lick. But the oven would be the proof of the pudding. 15 to 20 minutes the box said. Well which was it? Seemed like there would be a small window between glop and ember, but if I checked too often wouldn't that cool the oven. Well nothing to do but press on.
And there they were. The box had said golden brown, but I hadn't dared hope and yet there they were. And I ate of them, and they were spectacular!
It's news to me that we have a firmly established framework of ethics and morality in our society (USA?), or that it is sound. I think we are in constant disagreement as to what is right and wrong. I am curious about where it originated. Not that I expect that there was like one single thing, or that we would agree about it, but it seems like interesting ground for discussion to me.
Henry Tandey sounds like one of those stories that if it didn't happen, somebody would have made it up. It may be that if he had killed Hitler a worse (hard to imagine) tyrant would have arisen, or maybe one who was not so bad but was more practical and could have won WW II.
The point system sounds to me exactly how most Christians view their religion. It's certainly the way I viewed it when I was a methodist. If that's what most Christians believe isn't that what Christianity is? But then Christians have a long history of claiming other Christians aren't really Christians.
I was not including the animism of the hunter gatherers as a religion, I think it is more of a superstition thing with no overall philosophy, and it's morality is just the law of the jungle, which is no morality at all. The reason I brought up the Greeks is that I wanted to discuss ethics without religion, you know in kind of a logical if/them manner, not in a what does the bible say about it manner.
I had a similar theory to Beagles's about Trump, calling him a big fucking asshole rather than a drunken uncle, but I think the theory is the same in that everybody knows a big fucking asshole, but hardly anybody knows somebody like our politicians. Well not quite like that. If we knew them close up they might seem odd but normal, but they have these crews of image people who construct an image that seems inherently dishonest, like everything they say has been crafted exclusively to advance their agenda. From listening to them on the radio and tv, since I don't know any personally, I'd say their main motivation was to blow everything up.
The fuse is being lit, but there is a lot of sputtering at the moment and I think it will be like cheap fireworks, all smoke and no bang, and then Pence and the Publicans! will come storming in like the Huns on their short horses to drag us back to the eighteenth century.
I am surprised that the lame stream media is being so forthright in calling Dumbo on his obvious (there is no tree in Uncle Ken's backyard) lies. Well the news is information. If there is only opinion then we don't need the news at all. I have even sampled Fox a bit, and some of them are actually skeptical.
The opening for my show, Corn, is this Saturday and my original idea was to have a corn boil, but that is messy and corn on the cob is hard to come by this time of year. I thought about tamales, but there didn't seem to be anybody that delivered them en masse, so I finally decided on cornbread. I inquired among well, women, they cook you know, and the consensus seemed to be that there was nothing to it. Could that be true? Yesterday afternoon I headed out to the Jewel.
I wanted cornbread but all they had was corn muffins, close enough. There was a list of ingredients on the back of the box and I was ready to go.
A little bit of this, a little bit of that, mix it all up and stir, stir, stir.
A little messy globbing the stuff into those little muffin cups, but not so bad, and afterwards a tasty bowl to lick. But the oven would be the proof of the pudding. 15 to 20 minutes the box said. Well which was it? Seemed like there would be a small window between glop and ember, but if I checked too often wouldn't that cool the oven. Well nothing to do but press on.
And there they were. The box had said golden brown, but I hadn't dared hope and yet there they were. And I ate of them, and they were spectacular!
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
The Point System and the Drunken Uncle
The point system on "The Good Place" is pretty straightforward. Every time you do something good you get points, and every time you do something bad you lose points. They probably got the idea form Zarathustra, although his system was a little different. In the show, there was a high threshold of points required to get into the Good Place and, if you don't meet that threshold, you go to the Bad Place. In Zarathustra's system, you get good points for good deeds and bad points for bad deeds. If, when you die, your lifetime accumulation of good points outnumbers your lifetime accumulation of bad points, you go to Heaven and, if your bad points outnumber your good points, you go to Hell. There is nothing like that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, although a lot of people think there is. Most of these people are not familiar with the teachings of Zarathustra, and they are surprised if of you tell them that there is no point system in the Bible.
If you want to trace the origin of ethics and religion, you have to go back way further than the ancient Greeks. I'm pretty sure that primitive hunter-gatherers had both ethics and religion, and I have always assumed that they grew up together, but maybe not. I don't know how to prove it either way.
I've got a new theory about why some people voted for Trump, well new to me anyway. Everybody knew that he was a bald faced liar and a little funny in the head, but they were willing to overlook his character flaws because they wanted his agenda implemented. Either that or his character flaws were no big deal to them because many of their friends and relatives displayed the same traits. There was a saying going around on the internet that went something like this: "Some people admire Trump because he's not afraid to speak his mind. Well, I've got a drunken uncle who's not afraid to speak his mind, but that doesn't mean he should become president." It has occurred to me that some people wouldn't mind seeing a drunken uncle become president, maybe because they are drunken uncles themselves. I have met people in my life who don't seem to make a distinction between truth and falsehood, it's all the same to them. I always considered them to be a little funny in the head, and they probably think the same about me. I never claimed to be normal and, if that's what they call normal nowadays, I'm glad I'm not.
Old Dog, you make ice cream differently than I do, so I don't think the cornstarch thing would work for me. I don't heat the mixture at all, I mix the ingredients up in a single bowl, then I cover it with Saran and put it in the refrigerator for at least an hour before pouring it into my machine. That's what my instruction book said to do, and it seems to work just fine. The only time I had problems with ice crystals was when I made a couple of batches with milk or half & half, which the book said I could do. My original recipe called for one cup of milk and two cups of heavy cream, and I have had no problems with icy texture using it. The way I come out with six cups is that the mixture expands in the machine to its six cup capacity. I see no reason to make half batches. Indeed, I wish my machine had a larger capacity. It takes the machine 20 minutes to whip up a batch, and I don't think it would take a larger machine any longer than that. I also don't think it would take any more time to clean a larger machine afterwards, so I would be making more ice cream in the same amount of time.
If you want to trace the origin of ethics and religion, you have to go back way further than the ancient Greeks. I'm pretty sure that primitive hunter-gatherers had both ethics and religion, and I have always assumed that they grew up together, but maybe not. I don't know how to prove it either way.
I've got a new theory about why some people voted for Trump, well new to me anyway. Everybody knew that he was a bald faced liar and a little funny in the head, but they were willing to overlook his character flaws because they wanted his agenda implemented. Either that or his character flaws were no big deal to them because many of their friends and relatives displayed the same traits. There was a saying going around on the internet that went something like this: "Some people admire Trump because he's not afraid to speak his mind. Well, I've got a drunken uncle who's not afraid to speak his mind, but that doesn't mean he should become president." It has occurred to me that some people wouldn't mind seeing a drunken uncle become president, maybe because they are drunken uncles themselves. I have met people in my life who don't seem to make a distinction between truth and falsehood, it's all the same to them. I always considered them to be a little funny in the head, and they probably think the same about me. I never claimed to be normal and, if that's what they call normal nowadays, I'm glad I'm not.
Old Dog, you make ice cream differently than I do, so I don't think the cornstarch thing would work for me. I don't heat the mixture at all, I mix the ingredients up in a single bowl, then I cover it with Saran and put it in the refrigerator for at least an hour before pouring it into my machine. That's what my instruction book said to do, and it seems to work just fine. The only time I had problems with ice crystals was when I made a couple of batches with milk or half & half, which the book said I could do. My original recipe called for one cup of milk and two cups of heavy cream, and I have had no problems with icy texture using it. The way I come out with six cups is that the mixture expands in the machine to its six cup capacity. I see no reason to make half batches. Indeed, I wish my machine had a larger capacity. It takes the machine 20 minutes to whip up a batch, and I don't think it would take a larger machine any longer than that. I also don't think it would take any more time to clean a larger machine afterwards, so I would be making more ice cream in the same amount of time.
When to discard a can of worms?
There was no problem with the ice cream storage; I'm using a smaller version of the containers you described, Mr. Beagles. The icy texture was caused by the addition of too much milk and maybe I should have cooked the mixture again; emulsions are tricky.
Your six cup batch is twice the batch size I've been using so I'm not sure how much cornstarch will be necessary. Heating the dairy mixture is required, and the mixture bulks up and thickens with the addition of the cornstarch. These recipes will help:
http://www.foodandwine.com/recipes/vanilla-bean-ice-cream
http://www.cookingchanneltv.com/recipes/mark-bittman/cornstarch-ice-cream.html
My production process is a little clumsy in that I'm lacking proper mixing bowls. I can make do, but additional bowls will make things much easier.
-----
"At last a discussion on the issue."
And what is the issue, exactly? There has been a lot of yammering about many things, none of which can be resolved with complete certainty. The metaphorical bum may or may not benefit from a freely given donation, but it is pointless to say one kind of motive is better than another unless you are trying to establish a position of moral or ethical superiority. And if you are trying to gain points are you actually being superior? That's a rhetorical question; I'm not judging.
Altruism, a characteristic found in many creatures besides human beings, may be a precursor to our notions of ethics, morality, religion, blah, blah, blah. Just thought I'd bring that idea up. It may mean nothing.
We have a firmly established framework of ethics and morality in our society, and, except for the times when it is ignored or poorly implemented, it is sound. Does it really matter from whence or how it originated?
Acts of goodness are usually self-evident, but Mr. Beagles is correct when he points out the possibilities of unintended consequences. We may never know the ultimate results of any of our actions, whether good or bad. What is good/bad today for the few may be bad/good for the many in the future. Consider the case of Henry Tandey, the British soldier in WW1 who, in an act of compassion, refused to kill a wounded enemy soldier and allowed him to escape. Maybe it is a myth, but many millions would have been spared had Pvt. Tandey killed the guy, a watercolor artist of questionable talent. You can look him up.
Your six cup batch is twice the batch size I've been using so I'm not sure how much cornstarch will be necessary. Heating the dairy mixture is required, and the mixture bulks up and thickens with the addition of the cornstarch. These recipes will help:
http://www.foodandwine.com/recipes/vanilla-bean-ice-cream
http://www.cookingchanneltv.com/recipes/mark-bittman/cornstarch-ice-cream.html
My production process is a little clumsy in that I'm lacking proper mixing bowls. I can make do, but additional bowls will make things much easier.
-----
"At last a discussion on the issue."
And what is the issue, exactly? There has been a lot of yammering about many things, none of which can be resolved with complete certainty. The metaphorical bum may or may not benefit from a freely given donation, but it is pointless to say one kind of motive is better than another unless you are trying to establish a position of moral or ethical superiority. And if you are trying to gain points are you actually being superior? That's a rhetorical question; I'm not judging.
Altruism, a characteristic found in many creatures besides human beings, may be a precursor to our notions of ethics, morality, religion, blah, blah, blah. Just thought I'd bring that idea up. It may mean nothing.
We have a firmly established framework of ethics and morality in our society, and, except for the times when it is ignored or poorly implemented, it is sound. Does it really matter from whence or how it originated?
Acts of goodness are usually self-evident, but Mr. Beagles is correct when he points out the possibilities of unintended consequences. We may never know the ultimate results of any of our actions, whether good or bad. What is good/bad today for the few may be bad/good for the many in the future. Consider the case of Henry Tandey, the British soldier in WW1 who, in an act of compassion, refused to kill a wounded enemy soldier and allowed him to escape. Maybe it is a myth, but many millions would have been spared had Pvt. Tandey killed the guy, a watercolor artist of questionable talent. You can look him up.
The proper investment in upright citizens
At last a discussion on the issue. A can of worms indeed, judging what are the consequences of an action in the long term, when of course we are all dead. Nobody can see clear to the end of the world so I guess the utilitarian would answer as far as I can see. That's how we do things in our everyday life, whether to fish or cut bait, sink or swim, have a yellow beer or a pale ale. Maybe the water is kind of choppy, but on the other hand the cupboard is empty. Possibly the better course is go go hungry for a day and come back tomorrow when the water is calmer and you are less likely to go to a watery grave. But as far as you can see the water doesn't look all that choppy, so you go out and fish because as far as you can see, you'll come home safely with a stringer full of fish,
Likewise the upstanding citizen, of course it is possible he will spend the money on booze and come to a bad end, but as far as you can see, it doesn't seem,likely, so you give him the buck.
As far as the karma (I would like to use the term points from the tv show because it seems like what I am talking about, but I am not familiar with the show, and maybe it means something else.), I would think it rings up when you complete the act, otherwise it would be like a portfolio of stocks, the results of your generosity going up and down as events unfolded. It would be like where a guy beats up another guy who ends up in the hospital and he is charged with battery, but then the other guy dies and now he is charged with murder, and sometimes the guy lingers for months, even years before he dies and then the guy is still charged with murder which seems a bit extreme to me, but I have gotten off target.
Ah, but is this upright citizen the best recipient of our buck? Doesn't that guy on the next corner look even more upright, more likely to put our buck to better use? Well what then? Are we supposed to weigh this all out, like choosing the proper stock? I think so. I think it's not enough to be generous, I think you have to be generous and smart.
If you had the stoic attitude you would not have to be smart at all, since the consequences don't matter, the act is good or bad in and of itself. If you had to set up your own stoic system I think it would behoove you to think through what things are good and what are bad. Of course you could adopt a religion or some philosophy which had it all mapped out, but, I don't know, that doesn't sit well with me, kind of like giving up your free will, which is a strange thing for me to say since I don't believe in free will. /
By the time we have a written language we have religion, so how can we say which came first, morality or religion? I would say that it's hard to believe that any society could have hung together long enough to invent a religion without having morality. What about the Greeks? They had kind of a nutty storybook religion, but I think it's generally believed that their philosophers didn't believe any of that, and when they wrote on ethics they didn't borrow on any god to back them up on it.
And now we see the ultimate in Objective Reality in Dumbo. He refuses to back down on his inauguration turnout and that thing about the three to five million illegal voters. In the case of the turnout it really doesn't matter if what he said is true or not/ In the case of the second it certainly means a lot if it is true, and there certainly should be an investigation into it.
But nobody believes either one and it's a bit of a wonder why Dumbo keeps pushing it, except I think he is used to being around yes men and to call the boss on a lie is to be subordinate,. It's one thing to back a guy who says he's going to build a wall and have the Mexicans pay for it, and another to back a guy who is wearing a red tie and insists that it is blue.
Likewise the upstanding citizen, of course it is possible he will spend the money on booze and come to a bad end, but as far as you can see, it doesn't seem,likely, so you give him the buck.
As far as the karma (I would like to use the term points from the tv show because it seems like what I am talking about, but I am not familiar with the show, and maybe it means something else.), I would think it rings up when you complete the act, otherwise it would be like a portfolio of stocks, the results of your generosity going up and down as events unfolded. It would be like where a guy beats up another guy who ends up in the hospital and he is charged with battery, but then the other guy dies and now he is charged with murder, and sometimes the guy lingers for months, even years before he dies and then the guy is still charged with murder which seems a bit extreme to me, but I have gotten off target.
Ah, but is this upright citizen the best recipient of our buck? Doesn't that guy on the next corner look even more upright, more likely to put our buck to better use? Well what then? Are we supposed to weigh this all out, like choosing the proper stock? I think so. I think it's not enough to be generous, I think you have to be generous and smart.
If you had the stoic attitude you would not have to be smart at all, since the consequences don't matter, the act is good or bad in and of itself. If you had to set up your own stoic system I think it would behoove you to think through what things are good and what are bad. Of course you could adopt a religion or some philosophy which had it all mapped out, but, I don't know, that doesn't sit well with me, kind of like giving up your free will, which is a strange thing for me to say since I don't believe in free will. /
By the time we have a written language we have religion, so how can we say which came first, morality or religion? I would say that it's hard to believe that any society could have hung together long enough to invent a religion without having morality. What about the Greeks? They had kind of a nutty storybook religion, but I think it's generally believed that their philosophers didn't believe any of that, and when they wrote on ethics they didn't borrow on any god to back them up on it.
And now we see the ultimate in Objective Reality in Dumbo. He refuses to back down on his inauguration turnout and that thing about the three to five million illegal voters. In the case of the turnout it really doesn't matter if what he said is true or not/ In the case of the second it certainly means a lot if it is true, and there certainly should be an investigation into it.
But nobody believes either one and it's a bit of a wonder why Dumbo keeps pushing it, except I think he is used to being around yes men and to call the boss on a lie is to be subordinate,. It's one thing to back a guy who says he's going to build a wall and have the Mexicans pay for it, and another to back a guy who is wearing a red tie and insists that it is blue.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
You've Got the "Can of Worms" Part Right
Maybe an action can be judged by it's consequences, then again maybe not. What about secondary or unforeseen consequences? If your upstanding citizen who has fallen on hard times uses the three bucks to buy a bottle of cheap wine, passes out drunk in the alley, and freezes to death, is it our fault? Alternately, if he buys three lottery tickets, wins big, and uses the money to found a homeless shelter, do we get the credit? Then again, what if we don't give the guy the three bucks and he subsequently passes out in the alley and freezes to death because he has become weak from hunger? It would seem that, once the three bucks leaves our hands, we are no longer responsible for it, assuming that we don't know this guy well enough to make a reasonable guess about what he is likely to do with our three bucks. But does that make us responsible for the consequences of not giving him the three bucks? What if there's another virtuous homeless person on the next corner who needs the three bucks more than this guy? Who's got time to go around surveying all the homeless people in Chicago to find out who needs our three bucks the most?
So far we have only considered the morality of the action, but Uncle Ken wants us to pass judgment on the morality of our motivation for doing the action. I'm not so sure that we have a lot of control over our motivations. It seems like a notion to do something comes over us, more or less spontaneously, and then it's up to us to decide whether or not to act on that impulse. Jesus said that, if a man looks at woman lustfully, it's just as bad as if he actually jumps her bones, or words to that effect. I thought that was unreasonable the first time I read it, and I still do. If I want to give our hypothetical bum a buck, but then I don't do it, do I get just as much credit as if I had actually given him the buck? I think not!
Furthermore, I question the assertion that ethics predates religion. Since both of them started long before people started keeping written records, I don't know how we could test that one.
So far we have only considered the morality of the action, but Uncle Ken wants us to pass judgment on the morality of our motivation for doing the action. I'm not so sure that we have a lot of control over our motivations. It seems like a notion to do something comes over us, more or less spontaneously, and then it's up to us to decide whether or not to act on that impulse. Jesus said that, if a man looks at woman lustfully, it's just as bad as if he actually jumps her bones, or words to that effect. I thought that was unreasonable the first time I read it, and I still do. If I want to give our hypothetical bum a buck, but then I don't do it, do I get just as much credit as if I had actually given him the buck? I think not!
Furthermore, I question the assertion that ethics predates religion. Since both of them started long before people started keeping written records, I don't know how we could test that one.
He's not a bum. He's an upright citizen
The bum was a metaphor. I was thinking of being kind to one's fellow man, of doing unto others as you would have others do unto you, I just picked the bum as a handy metaphor because I see them every day on the street. Let's replace them by a totally deserving, totally upright citizen who through no fault of his own, some disease, some accident, falls on hard times and all he wants is one lousy buck so that his son, Timmy, can get a bus pass to go to school and learn a trade and not be a burden on society. Do you give this guy a buck?
And of course it was always about motivation. One guy gives the buck out of the kindness of his heart, and the other guy does so because he thinks he will be rewarded for it. Is one guy a better man than the other?
Likewise in the second example, Old Dog gives that unfortunate but true-at-heart guy a buck because he is an amiable guy, Beagles gives him a buck because he thinks it will please his deist god. Uncle Ken gives him a buck because he believes this will make a better world. Are any of these three better than the others or are they all the same?
And in the third, Beagles doesn't give this same unfortunate man a buck because he believes it would sap his self-reliance. Old Dog doesn't give him a buck because he doesn't think the guy really needs it,. Uncle Ken doesn't give him a buck because he is in a bad mood because he thinks his colleagues don't understand metaphors. Are any of these three better than the others? How do they stand in relation to their actions in the second example?
What do you guys think? Myself, I tend to go along with your tv proverb. "The morality of an action is solely judged on its consequences." I might quibble with solely, but for now I will let it stand. So I would say the guys are equally good in all three examples, and the guys in the second are better than the guys in the third. How do you guys feel about that?
That proverb does open up a bit of a can of worms though. There is one form of ethics, let;s call it stoicism, though it isn't really, but it's close, anyway it believes a sin is a sin. Okay I can't say sin, because I can hear the bible opening from here. Let's say it believes that certain acts are bad in and of themselves. It doesn't matter what the motivation is. The other form of ethics is utilitarianism, and it believes that the outcome is what counts. They both have their weaknesses, the first in that choosing which acts are bad regardless of consequences is arbitrary and the second in how do you know what the consequences of your acts are going to be?
Myself I prefer utilitarianism because it gives you something to talk about. Do you guys have a preference?
And let's leave religion out of it. Ethics is bigger than religion.
And the whole point of the tree in Ken's backyard is whether it is there or not. We can have all kinds of discussions on the merit of the tree, but that is all beside the point of Objective Reality. The reason we can have discussions about the tree is because we all agree that it exists, If one of the guys claims the tree doesn't exist, even though we can all see it, than we can't discuss the tree with him,. That is why Objective Reality is important.
And of course it was always about motivation. One guy gives the buck out of the kindness of his heart, and the other guy does so because he thinks he will be rewarded for it. Is one guy a better man than the other?
Likewise in the second example, Old Dog gives that unfortunate but true-at-heart guy a buck because he is an amiable guy, Beagles gives him a buck because he thinks it will please his deist god. Uncle Ken gives him a buck because he believes this will make a better world. Are any of these three better than the others or are they all the same?
And in the third, Beagles doesn't give this same unfortunate man a buck because he believes it would sap his self-reliance. Old Dog doesn't give him a buck because he doesn't think the guy really needs it,. Uncle Ken doesn't give him a buck because he is in a bad mood because he thinks his colleagues don't understand metaphors. Are any of these three better than the others? How do they stand in relation to their actions in the second example?
What do you guys think? Myself, I tend to go along with your tv proverb. "The morality of an action is solely judged on its consequences." I might quibble with solely, but for now I will let it stand. So I would say the guys are equally good in all three examples, and the guys in the second are better than the guys in the third. How do you guys feel about that?
That proverb does open up a bit of a can of worms though. There is one form of ethics, let;s call it stoicism, though it isn't really, but it's close, anyway it believes a sin is a sin. Okay I can't say sin, because I can hear the bible opening from here. Let's say it believes that certain acts are bad in and of themselves. It doesn't matter what the motivation is. The other form of ethics is utilitarianism, and it believes that the outcome is what counts. They both have their weaknesses, the first in that choosing which acts are bad regardless of consequences is arbitrary and the second in how do you know what the consequences of your acts are going to be?
Myself I prefer utilitarianism because it gives you something to talk about. Do you guys have a preference?
And let's leave religion out of it. Ethics is bigger than religion.
And the whole point of the tree in Ken's backyard is whether it is there or not. We can have all kinds of discussions on the merit of the tree, but that is all beside the point of Objective Reality. The reason we can have discussions about the tree is because we all agree that it exists, If one of the guys claims the tree doesn't exist, even though we can all see it, than we can't discuss the tree with him,. That is why Objective Reality is important.
Monday, January 23, 2017
The Better Man
I think that I now understand what Uncle Ken is getting at with his bum question. Let's forget about the bum and make a generic question out of it: If a Christian, a Buddhist, and a secular humanist all commit the same good deed, which one is the better man? answer: Another Christian will likely say that the Christian is the better man, another Buddhist will likely say that the Buddhist is the better man, and another secular humanist will likely say that the secular humanist is the better man. It's just like in school. If one of the cool kids wears a goofy hat, it's cool. If one of the nerds wears the same goofy hat, it's nerdy.
The hypothetical tree in Uncle Ken's hypothetical yard is different. Either the tree is there or it isn't, not much wiggle room there. But what if we question the relative value of the tree instead of it's existence? Uncle Ken's neighbor has a different tree in his yard, and he thinks his tree is better than Uncle Ken's tree. How do we resolve that one? Uncle Ken believes that his tree is better because it's bigger than his neighbor's tree, which is precisely why the neighbor believes his tree to be better because, in his opinion, a smaller tree is more suitable for the size of both of their yards. "But my tree is prettier than your tree", says Uncle Ken. "No it's not because it's out of proportion to your yard and your house", says the neighbor. "Proportion-shmortion!" says Uncle Ken , "Everyone knows that bigger is always better." They go on like this for years until, one day, both trees go down in windstorm. Uncle Ken's tree takes out the house and the garage, while the neighbor's tree just crushes some rose bushes. Now we can objectively say that Uncle Ken was wrong and his neighbor was right but, before this, it was just a matter of opinion.
Old Dog: I'm pretty happy with my ice cream as it is, but I just wanted to try that cornstarch thing to see if it makes it any better. So how much cornstarch do I put in it?
I'm surprised that you have trouble storing ice cream in the freezer. I put mine in those plastic freezer containers, the semi-disposable kind. I use half gallon containers because I already had some of those on hand. A six cup batch doesn't fill the container, but so what? I usually eat it in three or four days, but I have left it longer, maybe a week or two, with no ill effects. My hypothetical wife says that store bought ice cream will stay good for at least two weeks, maybe more, we've never had to keep it any longer than that.
The hypothetical tree in Uncle Ken's hypothetical yard is different. Either the tree is there or it isn't, not much wiggle room there. But what if we question the relative value of the tree instead of it's existence? Uncle Ken's neighbor has a different tree in his yard, and he thinks his tree is better than Uncle Ken's tree. How do we resolve that one? Uncle Ken believes that his tree is better because it's bigger than his neighbor's tree, which is precisely why the neighbor believes his tree to be better because, in his opinion, a smaller tree is more suitable for the size of both of their yards. "But my tree is prettier than your tree", says Uncle Ken. "No it's not because it's out of proportion to your yard and your house", says the neighbor. "Proportion-shmortion!" says Uncle Ken , "Everyone knows that bigger is always better." They go on like this for years until, one day, both trees go down in windstorm. Uncle Ken's tree takes out the house and the garage, while the neighbor's tree just crushes some rose bushes. Now we can objectively say that Uncle Ken was wrong and his neighbor was right but, before this, it was just a matter of opinion.
Old Dog: I'm pretty happy with my ice cream as it is, but I just wanted to try that cornstarch thing to see if it makes it any better. So how much cornstarch do I put in it?
I'm surprised that you have trouble storing ice cream in the freezer. I put mine in those plastic freezer containers, the semi-disposable kind. I use half gallon containers because I already had some of those on hand. A six cup batch doesn't fill the container, but so what? I usually eat it in three or four days, but I have left it longer, maybe a week or two, with no ill effects. My hypothetical wife says that store bought ice cream will stay good for at least two weeks, maybe more, we've never had to keep it any longer than that.
More fun in the kitchen
Corn starch acts as a stabilizer for the ice cream and helps prevent the formation of large ice crystals. I could go on at length based upon what I've recently read but I don't know what Mr. Beagles has found to be useful, or to what extent he wants to dig in and research the subtle aspects of ice cream making. There's a lot to learn.
Here are some useful terms for Google searching: "heat shock ice cream," "corn starch ice cream," "stabilizers ice cream," "butterfat ice cream," "egg yolk ice cream," "alcohol ice cream," and "temperature ice cream." Also, if you search for "ice cream recipes" you will be overwhelmed by their variety and abundance but will gain a good general understanding of the complexities of the good stuff. It has been said that there are many paths to the Buddha, and this is a good example.
Ice cream is basically dairy stuff, sweetening stuff, and very cold temperatures; the variations are countless. With egg, it's called a custard; without egg it's a "Philadelphia Style" ice cream. There are rabbit holes within rabbit holes; explore as you will.
The chocolate batch was a semi-fail. Besides using too much cocoa, it was the wrong kind. I used the "dark chocolate" type instead of the normal unsweetened kind. Also, there was too much butterfat as it had a slightly greasy aftertaste. Lesson learned, but I still managed to eat about half of the small batch.
In an effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, I let the remaining chocolate batch thaw and added a couple of cups of whole milk and churned it again. The result was a much more pleasing flavor, but now there was too little butterfat and it was more like a fudgesicle than ice cream. Still good, though. Trial and error will be my constant companions.
An unforeseen problem is that it is easier to make the stuff than to eat it all. Anything more than a cup of ice cream a day is way too much for me, regardless of how good it is. Due to the limitations of home ice cream makers and freezers, long term storage is a fool's errand; best to eat it within a day or two of when it's made.
-----
Uncle Ken's questions regarding donations to bums (what is a bum, anyhow?) is vexing, and I fear, pointless. Seems a little glib to me, as if the greater questions of ethics and morality can be boiled down to whether or not you part with a buck at a given point in time. Instead of asking what others think, how about telling us what you think, Uncle Ken? Do you give the bum a buck or not, and why? There is no wrong answer.
-----
Us geezers aren't the only ones with memory problems, Mr. Beagles, as a search of "false memories" reveals. There may be more to fake news than previously thought. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if I remember that tree in Uncle Ken's yard but I do remember some ivy.
Here are some useful terms for Google searching: "heat shock ice cream," "corn starch ice cream," "stabilizers ice cream," "butterfat ice cream," "egg yolk ice cream," "alcohol ice cream," and "temperature ice cream." Also, if you search for "ice cream recipes" you will be overwhelmed by their variety and abundance but will gain a good general understanding of the complexities of the good stuff. It has been said that there are many paths to the Buddha, and this is a good example.
Ice cream is basically dairy stuff, sweetening stuff, and very cold temperatures; the variations are countless. With egg, it's called a custard; without egg it's a "Philadelphia Style" ice cream. There are rabbit holes within rabbit holes; explore as you will.
The chocolate batch was a semi-fail. Besides using too much cocoa, it was the wrong kind. I used the "dark chocolate" type instead of the normal unsweetened kind. Also, there was too much butterfat as it had a slightly greasy aftertaste. Lesson learned, but I still managed to eat about half of the small batch.
In an effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, I let the remaining chocolate batch thaw and added a couple of cups of whole milk and churned it again. The result was a much more pleasing flavor, but now there was too little butterfat and it was more like a fudgesicle than ice cream. Still good, though. Trial and error will be my constant companions.
An unforeseen problem is that it is easier to make the stuff than to eat it all. Anything more than a cup of ice cream a day is way too much for me, regardless of how good it is. Due to the limitations of home ice cream makers and freezers, long term storage is a fool's errand; best to eat it within a day or two of when it's made.
-----
Uncle Ken's questions regarding donations to bums (what is a bum, anyhow?) is vexing, and I fear, pointless. Seems a little glib to me, as if the greater questions of ethics and morality can be boiled down to whether or not you part with a buck at a given point in time. Instead of asking what others think, how about telling us what you think, Uncle Ken? Do you give the bum a buck or not, and why? There is no wrong answer.
-----
Us geezers aren't the only ones with memory problems, Mr. Beagles, as a search of "false memories" reveals. There may be more to fake news than previously thought. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if I remember that tree in Uncle Ken's yard but I do remember some ivy.
Nobody gives the bum a buck.
My last three posts have all ended up with a question, all of which have lain untouched, like a dinner check everybody is hoping somebody else will pick up. Remind me never to dine with any of you guys. Maybe I should have been watching "The Good Place," it appears to be addressing the same issues that I have been trying to bring up to no avail. "The morality of an action is solely judged on its consequences." See there is the whole question of which of which, if any, is a better man, and according to this proverb, they are all the same. What if one of them didn't, and I am thinking in this case of the dawgs who have both come out foursquare against beggars, I don't know why my colleagues are so anti bum, They don't bother anybody much. It's not like they are hitting you over the head with a two by four and taking your wallet.
So let's say likely neither Beagles nor Old Dog dropped a buck in the hat. Let's say it's because they don't believe in begging, that it just encourages people to hang around street corners and not do anything useful, but if nobody gave them any money, then by gum they would go out and get a job, and that would increase their self-respect and they would be solid citizens, and much better off than hanging around that street corner, So you would both be doing the guy a favor. You would be doing the right thing. Uncle Ken, who gave them a buck, and let's say that he did it (which he never would) because the bible urges us to be good to the poor) would be doing the wrong thing.
How about if some stranger went by and didn't give a buck, just because he is a cheap son of a bitch and he wanted to keep all his bucks. Would he now be on the same elevated moral plane as the dawgs?
Running over a pedestrian is a different matter. It is a matter of legality which is not the same as morality. Legality is more a matter of society running smoothly than of keeping up your karma. The law acts on actual actions and doesn't take much account of intentions. Intentions may come up in sentencing and I think it sometimes comes up in cases of murder or manslaughter, but in general if you run a stop sign, no intention to get to church on time will help you in the eyes of Johnny Law.
And the issue of fake news is heavy on the headlines of late, noticeably in the case of Dumbo's inauguration crowd and those two photos. See guys, this is just like the hypothetical tree in my hypothetical yard. This is... Objective Reality. The newscaster and even some of the Trumpists have mentioned that it really doesn't matter whether Dumbo or Obama had the bigger crowd. What matters is Dumbo is denying facts on the ground. He is standing outside my backyard and saying my tree isn't there.
Facts on the ground are things we can all agree on, and from them we build up our picture of the world and it is how he are able to communicate with each other. Otherwise we don't know any better than the beasts in the field. There can't be an alternate theory that there is no tree in my yard and that a lot of Trumpists had turned on their invisibility shields rather than be photographed by the lying media.
The bible is fake news. There no historical Moses. The Ten Commandments incident never happened. To discuss it in terms of religion or folklore is fine, but to think it has any significance beyond that, and to use it as an example to prove a point is nutty.
Morality was around long before we had any religions. The reason most religions have similar morality is not because Jesus had tea with Buddha, it's because they both dipped into the same well of morality, the way mathematics is the same in all parts of the world. Morality (ethics) is in our genes and bigger than any religion that has been around a few paltry thousand years.
So the dawgs and Uncle Ken walk by a beggar. Beagles doesn't give him a buck because he doesn't believe in encouraging that kind of behavior. Old Dog doesn't give him a buck because he thinks he is too fat and healthy to be a beggar, and Uncle Ken doesn't give him a buck because he is an a disagreeable mood and fuck a bunch of bums. I believe the bum liked the previous three examples better.
So let's say likely neither Beagles nor Old Dog dropped a buck in the hat. Let's say it's because they don't believe in begging, that it just encourages people to hang around street corners and not do anything useful, but if nobody gave them any money, then by gum they would go out and get a job, and that would increase their self-respect and they would be solid citizens, and much better off than hanging around that street corner, So you would both be doing the guy a favor. You would be doing the right thing. Uncle Ken, who gave them a buck, and let's say that he did it (which he never would) because the bible urges us to be good to the poor) would be doing the wrong thing.
How about if some stranger went by and didn't give a buck, just because he is a cheap son of a bitch and he wanted to keep all his bucks. Would he now be on the same elevated moral plane as the dawgs?
Running over a pedestrian is a different matter. It is a matter of legality which is not the same as morality. Legality is more a matter of society running smoothly than of keeping up your karma. The law acts on actual actions and doesn't take much account of intentions. Intentions may come up in sentencing and I think it sometimes comes up in cases of murder or manslaughter, but in general if you run a stop sign, no intention to get to church on time will help you in the eyes of Johnny Law.
And the issue of fake news is heavy on the headlines of late, noticeably in the case of Dumbo's inauguration crowd and those two photos. See guys, this is just like the hypothetical tree in my hypothetical yard. This is... Objective Reality. The newscaster and even some of the Trumpists have mentioned that it really doesn't matter whether Dumbo or Obama had the bigger crowd. What matters is Dumbo is denying facts on the ground. He is standing outside my backyard and saying my tree isn't there.
Facts on the ground are things we can all agree on, and from them we build up our picture of the world and it is how he are able to communicate with each other. Otherwise we don't know any better than the beasts in the field. There can't be an alternate theory that there is no tree in my yard and that a lot of Trumpists had turned on their invisibility shields rather than be photographed by the lying media.
The bible is fake news. There no historical Moses. The Ten Commandments incident never happened. To discuss it in terms of religion or folklore is fine, but to think it has any significance beyond that, and to use it as an example to prove a point is nutty.
Morality was around long before we had any religions. The reason most religions have similar morality is not because Jesus had tea with Buddha, it's because they both dipped into the same well of morality, the way mathematics is the same in all parts of the world. Morality (ethics) is in our genes and bigger than any religion that has been around a few paltry thousand years.
So the dawgs and Uncle Ken walk by a beggar. Beagles doesn't give him a buck because he doesn't believe in encouraging that kind of behavior. Old Dog doesn't give him a buck because he thinks he is too fat and healthy to be a beggar, and Uncle Ken doesn't give him a buck because he is an a disagreeable mood and fuck a bunch of bums. I believe the bum liked the previous three examples better.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
I Seem to Remember.......
I don't know as I would call myself a teacher, but I have accumulated bits of knowledge over the years and will share it with anybody who is interested. I am also interested in what other people have to say, as long as they aren't talking about sports or rock music. I don't always remember things correctly, but I have been told that's normal at my age. I think the reason old people have a hard time with memory is that we have a lot more to remember than we did when we were younger. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
There has been some speculation about Jesus traveling to far off places during those "lost years", but I don't know as there's any real evidence to support it. He could have just as easily picked up those ideas hanging around Israel, which was a crossroads of trade in those days. There has also been some speculation that Buddha and Jesus were the same person, and the Hindus believe that both of them were incarnations of their god Krishna.
Old Dog: I have not heard of putting cornstarch in ice cream. How much do you put in? I tried putting a tray of ice cubes in the oven with my bread, but I didn't care for the results and I shan't do it again. Thanks for the tip though, it was worth a try.
There has been some speculation about Jesus traveling to far off places during those "lost years", but I don't know as there's any real evidence to support it. He could have just as easily picked up those ideas hanging around Israel, which was a crossroads of trade in those days. There has also been some speculation that Buddha and Jesus were the same person, and the Hindus believe that both of them were incarnations of their god Krishna.
Old Dog: I have not heard of putting cornstarch in ice cream. How much do you put in? I tried putting a tray of ice cubes in the oven with my bread, but I didn't care for the results and I shan't do it again. Thanks for the tip though, it was worth a try.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Fun in the kitchen
Beggars and panhandlers are a blight on the urban landscape and I'm with Mr. Beagles in not encouraging them. I don't consider the guy I slip a buck to every now and then a beggar; he's on the job (a very crappy one) selling his papers. The paper is two bucks, but I don't want it and his cut of every sale is probably not much more than a buck anyhow.
Last winter there was this woman out panhandling, closer to the Subway Sandwich place than the Starbucks, who said she was homeless. But I thought she was too young, too well dressed, and frankly, too fat, to be truly homeless. Besides, she was rude as all get out, giving the guys working at Subway a real hard time. They were much nicer to her than I would have been. A sincere smile might have caused me to part with a buck, but not an angry scowl, sorry. She hasn't been around this winter; maybe word has gotten out that the pickings have gotten slim in my neighborhood.
-----
These prolonged discussions of theological matters have gotten me to think of our good friend in northern Michigan as Rabbi Beagles, in the sense that he is a teacher (not affiliated with Judaism in any way) and quite knowledgeable. To me it sounds better (and a little in jest) than the Rev. Mr. Beagles, which may imply preaching rather than teaching. For secular matters I will continue to refer to him as Mr. Beagles.
Nothing is known about the life of Jesus from the ages of twelve to thirty, and I've always wondered about that. Since his earthly father Joseph was a carpenter he probably picked up the trade and made a good living as he traveled about, making stuff, fixing other stuff, and making toys for children.
Decades ago I read some of the Analects of Confucius, who lived about 500 BCE. I was struck by how much seemed familiar, very like the same stuff Jesus was talking about, but written centuries earlier. It seems likely to me that Jesus picked up a lot of spiritual notions as he traveled. I don't know of any Hindu influences on his later teachings but it seems likely he made it to China and paid some attention to the local beliefs. He could have walked back and forth to China a few times during those missing eighteen years.
-----
The concluding chapters of "The Good Place" took me by surprise; didn't see that coming. Another ethical concept came up, Consequentialism, which I had to look up. The pre-successful DJ surprised me when he came up with the line "The morality of an action is solely judged on its consequences." This is pretty heady stuff for a network sitcom and the full season stands as a good primer on ethics, in my opinion.
-----
Made a couple of small batches of ice cream this afternoon, with only a couple of stumbles. After perusing dozens of recipes I decided to use my own, right off the bat. All recipes share the same general proportions of liquids and sugars so I pretty much eyeballed a lot.
First I made a basic vanilla with heavy whipping cream, buttermilk, sugar, vanilla, salt, and the secret ingredient of cornstarch for enhanced smoothness. I put half of the mix aside to cool, and added some unsweetened cocoa powder for the second batch. Turns out there was a little too much sugar for my taste, and I forgot to add the salt. Too much cocoa, too, like twice as much (slipped my mind that I only needed enough for a half batch). Oh, well...should still be palatable even if it is quite intense.
Because the batch size was so small it churned up really quickly, less than fifteen minutes. It went past the soft serve stage to hard ice cream, which was a big pain to remove. I broke my plastic handled spatula getting the stuff out. Somehow I managed to add some mini chocolate chips.
After removing the vanilla I added the chocolate mix, figuring there would be enough residual coldness in the container for another successful batch. It worked, and I was able to add some chopped walnuts before it hit the hard ice cream stage.
Both batches are in the freezer now. Getting the flavor right is the easy part; keeping it smooth and creamy is the big hurdle and I'm curious to see how they will hold up after a few days and whether or not they will get grainy with ice crystals.
According to one source, "Water is the enemy." There is a lot of hard science involved with the binding of the water to get the smallest ice crystals possible to yield a good smooth product. You need stuff like fats, sugars, proteins, and starches; other stuff too, but I'm still learning.
-----
Remember all the "small hands" talk during the campaign? I saw this image from the inauguration and I had to smile. Sure, Melania is wearing gloves but she's behind him and those hands do look small.
Last winter there was this woman out panhandling, closer to the Subway Sandwich place than the Starbucks, who said she was homeless. But I thought she was too young, too well dressed, and frankly, too fat, to be truly homeless. Besides, she was rude as all get out, giving the guys working at Subway a real hard time. They were much nicer to her than I would have been. A sincere smile might have caused me to part with a buck, but not an angry scowl, sorry. She hasn't been around this winter; maybe word has gotten out that the pickings have gotten slim in my neighborhood.
-----
These prolonged discussions of theological matters have gotten me to think of our good friend in northern Michigan as Rabbi Beagles, in the sense that he is a teacher (not affiliated with Judaism in any way) and quite knowledgeable. To me it sounds better (and a little in jest) than the Rev. Mr. Beagles, which may imply preaching rather than teaching. For secular matters I will continue to refer to him as Mr. Beagles.
Nothing is known about the life of Jesus from the ages of twelve to thirty, and I've always wondered about that. Since his earthly father Joseph was a carpenter he probably picked up the trade and made a good living as he traveled about, making stuff, fixing other stuff, and making toys for children.
Decades ago I read some of the Analects of Confucius, who lived about 500 BCE. I was struck by how much seemed familiar, very like the same stuff Jesus was talking about, but written centuries earlier. It seems likely to me that Jesus picked up a lot of spiritual notions as he traveled. I don't know of any Hindu influences on his later teachings but it seems likely he made it to China and paid some attention to the local beliefs. He could have walked back and forth to China a few times during those missing eighteen years.
-----
The concluding chapters of "The Good Place" took me by surprise; didn't see that coming. Another ethical concept came up, Consequentialism, which I had to look up. The pre-successful DJ surprised me when he came up with the line "The morality of an action is solely judged on its consequences." This is pretty heady stuff for a network sitcom and the full season stands as a good primer on ethics, in my opinion.
-----
Made a couple of small batches of ice cream this afternoon, with only a couple of stumbles. After perusing dozens of recipes I decided to use my own, right off the bat. All recipes share the same general proportions of liquids and sugars so I pretty much eyeballed a lot.
First I made a basic vanilla with heavy whipping cream, buttermilk, sugar, vanilla, salt, and the secret ingredient of cornstarch for enhanced smoothness. I put half of the mix aside to cool, and added some unsweetened cocoa powder for the second batch. Turns out there was a little too much sugar for my taste, and I forgot to add the salt. Too much cocoa, too, like twice as much (slipped my mind that I only needed enough for a half batch). Oh, well...should still be palatable even if it is quite intense.
Because the batch size was so small it churned up really quickly, less than fifteen minutes. It went past the soft serve stage to hard ice cream, which was a big pain to remove. I broke my plastic handled spatula getting the stuff out. Somehow I managed to add some mini chocolate chips.
After removing the vanilla I added the chocolate mix, figuring there would be enough residual coldness in the container for another successful batch. It worked, and I was able to add some chopped walnuts before it hit the hard ice cream stage.
Both batches are in the freezer now. Getting the flavor right is the easy part; keeping it smooth and creamy is the big hurdle and I'm curious to see how they will hold up after a few days and whether or not they will get grainy with ice crystals.
According to one source, "Water is the enemy." There is a lot of hard science involved with the binding of the water to get the smallest ice crystals possible to yield a good smooth product. You need stuff like fats, sugars, proteins, and starches; other stuff too, but I'm still learning.
-----
Remember all the "small hands" talk during the campaign? I saw this image from the inauguration and I had to smile. Sure, Melania is wearing gloves but she's behind him and those hands do look small.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Let's Try a Different Allegory
Living in a big city, you must know that it's not a good idea to give money to panhandlers because it just encourages them. I have given money to street musicians on occasion because I liked their music but, if I don't like their music, I don't give them money. We have neither panhandlers nor street musicians where I live, but we have wildlife. If you feed the wildlife around your house, you will see more of it. Then again, if you put out food, you might attract some kinds of wildlife that you don't want to see around your house like skunks and various rodents. The problem with skunks and rodents is that they might try to move in with you, which can be unpleasant.
If you kill a pedestrian with your car, you may be charged with a number of offenses ranging from murder to careless driving, or you might not be charged with anything. It all depends on your intent, or your perceived intent. To the dead person, however, it doesn't matter. He is just as dead whether or not you killed him on purpose. Who it matters to is the other members of the society in which you live. If they allowed people to run over pedestrians without consequence, pretty soon nobody would be safe on the street. I don't know whether or not you could apply the same logic to a good deed. If you save a man from drowning, you're a hero. If you try to save a man from drowning but are unsuccessful, you still might be considered a hero. If you see a man drowning and don't respond at all, there's something wrong with you. Maybe you can't swim and have pathological fear of water, but at least you could have called for help.
Religion and morality do seem to go together. Before Moses gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments he first had to get them worshiping the God of Israel, otherwise, when presented with the Ten Commandments, the Israelites might have responded with "Says who?" So did Moses invent the God of Israel to get the Israelites to take the Ten Commandments seriously, or did Moses invent the Ten Commandments to get the Israelites to take the God of Israel seriously? Then again, maybe the God of Israel invented both Moses and the Ten Commandments to get the Israelites to take the Nation of Israel seriously.
Speaking of the God of Israel, it was Abraham who almost sacrificed his son Isaac to the God of Israel, although He wasn't called the God of Israel at the time. Isaac went on to have a son Jacob, who later had his name changed to Israel. Israel's descendants became known as the Israelites, and their god became known as the God of Israel.
If you kill a pedestrian with your car, you may be charged with a number of offenses ranging from murder to careless driving, or you might not be charged with anything. It all depends on your intent, or your perceived intent. To the dead person, however, it doesn't matter. He is just as dead whether or not you killed him on purpose. Who it matters to is the other members of the society in which you live. If they allowed people to run over pedestrians without consequence, pretty soon nobody would be safe on the street. I don't know whether or not you could apply the same logic to a good deed. If you save a man from drowning, you're a hero. If you try to save a man from drowning but are unsuccessful, you still might be considered a hero. If you see a man drowning and don't respond at all, there's something wrong with you. Maybe you can't swim and have pathological fear of water, but at least you could have called for help.
Religion and morality do seem to go together. Before Moses gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments he first had to get them worshiping the God of Israel, otherwise, when presented with the Ten Commandments, the Israelites might have responded with "Says who?" So did Moses invent the God of Israel to get the Israelites to take the Ten Commandments seriously, or did Moses invent the Ten Commandments to get the Israelites to take the God of Israel seriously? Then again, maybe the God of Israel invented both Moses and the Ten Commandments to get the Israelites to take the Nation of Israel seriously.
Speaking of the God of Israel, it was Abraham who almost sacrificed his son Isaac to the God of Israel, although He wasn't called the God of Israel at the time. Isaac went on to have a son Jacob, who later had his name changed to Israel. Israel's descendants became known as the Israelites, and their god became known as the God of Israel.
Three philosopher kings give a bum a buck.
Hey, when did I become Ken and not Uncle Ken? Beagles and Old Dog have their secret identities so that the reader won't realize that they are esteemed professors of philosophy, and maybe feel unworthy to read their writings. People may have wondered who are Beagles, and Old Dog, and Uncle Ken, but now that I have been identified as Ken everybody knows who I am. I suppose there is a rare chance that nobody read the last couple posts so nobody knows who I am, so in the future it is Uncle Ken to you dawgs.
My main thing about the bible is that it doesn't matter, It is all very well and good and entertaining, and esteemed philosophers such as Beagles, Old Dog, and Uncle Ken, may like to flap their gums about it, but to the guy who attends Al's Church around the corner, he knows what the preacher says, and he has worked things out around that, and why should he care what the bible actually says about the details of resurrection? Point out to him that this interpretation of the bible means this he can reply that this other interpretation means that, and who cares. He knows what he believes and he is happy with that. It seems to me that Beagles thinks that there is something wrong with the guy believing something that is not in the bible, but I don't see where that's any problem at all.
The King James has a pleasing cadence, but as far as books having sex, violence, monsters etc, so do many books of our days, and that doesn't make any of them good books.
Outside of in a simple logical sense, I am not concerned with the morality of Christians. I am concerned with morality in general. Maybe morality is not the right word with its lurid, almost sexual, overtones. Maybe ethics would be a better word. It is slightly pompous, stuffy, but I like that, when discussing it our blood runs less hot, there is less chance that the subject of whether or not Nicki Minaj is being moral in wearing that fake butt (Ethically I think she is doing fine, but let's let that thread drop).
I think there is a widespread belief that morality, I mean ethics, comes out of religion, but actually ethics precedes religion, and it is easy to discuss it without ever mentioning religion and certainly not the good book. There is a certain logical structure you can build out of the golden rule, whereas if your ethics consist solely of pleasing the Christian god then your ethics consist of just figuring out what you think He wants, and not giving that a whole lot of thought. Is it possible to disobey God and still be a good person? I think so. Wouldn't we all judge Jacob a better man if he had released his son and said, "This shit shall not stand."? I think so.
Maybe it's the heels of this election, but i am kind of looking for an argument, not really an argument but more of a discussion, rather than exposition.
And nobody has bitten on which of the two who gave the bum a buck is a better man. There is this thing which I think we have all gone through in the bull sessions of our youth, where, if it makes you feel good to give a bum a buck, are you doing something good, or are you just making yourself feel good?
You don't want to spare the rod when raising a child. Well actually you do nowadays, but you find something gentler but just as unpleasant (who wouldn't rather have a slap across the butt than having to stand in a corner for a half hour or so?). You have to do that to emphasize what is bad behavior so that your child will be good. But you want your child do to more than be good because they fear punishment, but to be good in the heart, to be good because they think it is right to be good, to leave that cookie sitting on the shelf even if there is no way nobody could ever know that they took it.
A beggar is sitting on the corner. Old Dog, Beagles, and Uncle Ken walk by. Old Dog gives him a buck because he is an amiable chap, Beagles gives him a buck because he thinks it would please his deist god, and Uncle Ken gives him a buck because he has made some calculations and came to the conclusion that the world will be a better place for everybody by .0000000001 percent if he does so. Can the three be rated on their comparative goodness? Are either of you even going to try?
My main thing about the bible is that it doesn't matter, It is all very well and good and entertaining, and esteemed philosophers such as Beagles, Old Dog, and Uncle Ken, may like to flap their gums about it, but to the guy who attends Al's Church around the corner, he knows what the preacher says, and he has worked things out around that, and why should he care what the bible actually says about the details of resurrection? Point out to him that this interpretation of the bible means this he can reply that this other interpretation means that, and who cares. He knows what he believes and he is happy with that. It seems to me that Beagles thinks that there is something wrong with the guy believing something that is not in the bible, but I don't see where that's any problem at all.
The King James has a pleasing cadence, but as far as books having sex, violence, monsters etc, so do many books of our days, and that doesn't make any of them good books.
Outside of in a simple logical sense, I am not concerned with the morality of Christians. I am concerned with morality in general. Maybe morality is not the right word with its lurid, almost sexual, overtones. Maybe ethics would be a better word. It is slightly pompous, stuffy, but I like that, when discussing it our blood runs less hot, there is less chance that the subject of whether or not Nicki Minaj is being moral in wearing that fake butt (Ethically I think she is doing fine, but let's let that thread drop).
I think there is a widespread belief that morality, I mean ethics, comes out of religion, but actually ethics precedes religion, and it is easy to discuss it without ever mentioning religion and certainly not the good book. There is a certain logical structure you can build out of the golden rule, whereas if your ethics consist solely of pleasing the Christian god then your ethics consist of just figuring out what you think He wants, and not giving that a whole lot of thought. Is it possible to disobey God and still be a good person? I think so. Wouldn't we all judge Jacob a better man if he had released his son and said, "This shit shall not stand."? I think so.
Maybe it's the heels of this election, but i am kind of looking for an argument, not really an argument but more of a discussion, rather than exposition.
And nobody has bitten on which of the two who gave the bum a buck is a better man. There is this thing which I think we have all gone through in the bull sessions of our youth, where, if it makes you feel good to give a bum a buck, are you doing something good, or are you just making yourself feel good?
You don't want to spare the rod when raising a child. Well actually you do nowadays, but you find something gentler but just as unpleasant (who wouldn't rather have a slap across the butt than having to stand in a corner for a half hour or so?). You have to do that to emphasize what is bad behavior so that your child will be good. But you want your child do to more than be good because they fear punishment, but to be good in the heart, to be good because they think it is right to be good, to leave that cookie sitting on the shelf even if there is no way nobody could ever know that they took it.
A beggar is sitting on the corner. Old Dog, Beagles, and Uncle Ken walk by. Old Dog gives him a buck because he is an amiable chap, Beagles gives him a buck because he thinks it would please his deist god, and Uncle Ken gives him a buck because he has made some calculations and came to the conclusion that the world will be a better place for everybody by .0000000001 percent if he does so. Can the three be rated on their comparative goodness? Are either of you even going to try?
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Read the Book, Uncle Ken
The reason I have been giving you selected quotes is that I don't have time to write out the whole New Testament word for word. Of course many people quote the Bible out of context, which is why, if you really want to know what it says, you have to read it for yourself. The Old testament is really long, and much of it is repetitive and obscure, but all you need to know about Jesus can be found in the New Testament, which is much shorter and more accessible. Unless you are a fan of 16th Century English, go get one of the several modern translations. Old Dog and I are partial to the RSV, but there are others. Reader's Digest even put out a condensed version some time ago. It's probably the easiest one to read, but it's not marked with chapters and verses, which makes it difficult to look up something to quote out of context. We switched over to the RSV at Elsdon, but it must have been after you stopped attending.
The fact that the average Christian in the street believes some things that are not supported by Biblical scripture or church doctrine is exactly the point I have been trying to make. Of course, people can believe anything they want to believe, and there is no law that says you can't attend a particular church if you don't sincerely believe every doctrine they hold. I suspect that many people attend church primarily for social reasons, nothing wrong with that if you've got nothing better to do. I stopped going to church when I became uncomfortable reciting the Apostle's Creed every Sunday when I didn't really believe most of it, but that's just me.
As I have previously stated, many religions have assimilated parts of other religions over the years, and many individuals would be surprised to find out that a lot of their personal beliefs are not found in the Bible or the doctrines of their own church. Example: "We all worship the same God, we just call Him by different names." It has a nice ring to it, but it's a Hindu belief, not a Christian one. The concept of karma comes from the Hindus as well although, if you take out the reincarnation part of it, it's not so different from the teachings of the Persian prophet Zarathustra. The idea of St. Peter at the gate is largely a popular myth, likely derived from when Jesus left Peter in charge of His congregation when He went off to be crucified. Jesus was probably speaking metaphorically when he gave Peter "the keys to the kingdom", but I suppose that it could be interpreted as a gate guard assignment. The point system that Peter allegedly uses to decide who does and does not get past the gate comes right out of Zarathustra.
Speaking of the point system, I watched the season finale of "The Good Place" this evening. I won't spoil it for anybody who hasn't seen it but, suffice it to say, I would never have guessed it in a million years. I don't know whether or not there will be a second season, but the ending works either way.
A careful reading of the first few chapters of Genesis reveals that there are actually two different creation stories, likely written by two different authors. I never noticed it myself until it was pointed out in a video course on mythology that I watched. I went back and looked at it again, and sure enough, that's what it seems to be. All those stories in Genesis were likely passed around by word of mouth for centuries before Moses or whoever wrote them down, and some of them have counterparts in Mesopotamian mythology.
The fact that the average Christian in the street believes some things that are not supported by Biblical scripture or church doctrine is exactly the point I have been trying to make. Of course, people can believe anything they want to believe, and there is no law that says you can't attend a particular church if you don't sincerely believe every doctrine they hold. I suspect that many people attend church primarily for social reasons, nothing wrong with that if you've got nothing better to do. I stopped going to church when I became uncomfortable reciting the Apostle's Creed every Sunday when I didn't really believe most of it, but that's just me.
As I have previously stated, many religions have assimilated parts of other religions over the years, and many individuals would be surprised to find out that a lot of their personal beliefs are not found in the Bible or the doctrines of their own church. Example: "We all worship the same God, we just call Him by different names." It has a nice ring to it, but it's a Hindu belief, not a Christian one. The concept of karma comes from the Hindus as well although, if you take out the reincarnation part of it, it's not so different from the teachings of the Persian prophet Zarathustra. The idea of St. Peter at the gate is largely a popular myth, likely derived from when Jesus left Peter in charge of His congregation when He went off to be crucified. Jesus was probably speaking metaphorically when he gave Peter "the keys to the kingdom", but I suppose that it could be interpreted as a gate guard assignment. The point system that Peter allegedly uses to decide who does and does not get past the gate comes right out of Zarathustra.
Speaking of the point system, I watched the season finale of "The Good Place" this evening. I won't spoil it for anybody who hasn't seen it but, suffice it to say, I would never have guessed it in a million years. I don't know whether or not there will be a second season, but the ending works either way.
A careful reading of the first few chapters of Genesis reveals that there are actually two different creation stories, likely written by two different authors. I never noticed it myself until it was pointed out in a video course on mythology that I watched. I went back and looked at it again, and sure enough, that's what it seems to be. All those stories in Genesis were likely passed around by word of mouth for centuries before Moses or whoever wrote them down, and some of them have counterparts in Mesopotamian mythology.
A gangster in heaven
Reading The Economist has made me aware of the some of the peculiar differences between American English and British English. An obvious difference is some spelling; colour, favour, aluminium, stuff like that. Another difference is verb usage. When a company is mentioned, the tense is always plural, i.e., "Ford are going to lay off some workers." It's a little confusing sometimes, but it's their language to begin with so they can do what they want, even if it sounds stupid. The wages of sin is/are whatever the market will bear.
The Methodist Church has loosened up a bit since you've last attended services, Uncle Ken. They're not locked into the King James Version of the Bible anymore; other translations are acceptable, or so I've read.
The preface to the Oxford Bible discusses the King James Version at length, and why a revised version was necessary. Many words in the KJV are archaic and no longer used; other words have a different meaning than they did in the 17th Century. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) tries to preserve the language of the KJV as much as possible, since it's considered "the noblest monument of English prose." Good enough for me.
-----
Genesis 1:27 adds a little confusion to the business of the first woman. It states that "...in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Maybe that's the origin of the Lilith legend; the woman is not mentioned by name but it appears that she precedes Eve.
Lilith is quite a character, and the entry in Wikipedia makes for some fascinating reading. My religious education glossed over the fact that God wasn't alone at the time of creation and there were many members of the Heavenly Host. Makes me wonder why God created man in the first place, unless he just wanted something to screw around with, which pretty much describes the God of the Old Testament. Not a nice guy, just ask Job or Noah, and Abraham had a close call with sacrificing his son.
I thought it odd that God was willing to negotiate. There was one story, I forgot which, where God was going to destroy a city but was haggling with a guy about not destroying it if there were seven righteous men, or something like that.
That's a great thing about the Bible as a literary work, it's got everything: sex, violence, drunkenness, miracles, zombies (Lazarus), space ships (chariots of fire), hallucinations (visions), love, betrayal, loyalty, tragedy, good guys, bad guys, and guys in between. Too bad none of the translations tossed in Aesop's Fables and made it a little more suitable for children.
-----
For an atheist Uncle Ken is really concerned about the relative goodness of Christian behavior. Let me throw a little scripture at him: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
So, would a guy like Al Capone go to heaven? He was generous to the poor, victims of his criminal enterprise were usually other criminals, and he provided a product for many satisfied customers. Plus, he kept many law enforcement personnel employed. Faith in Jesus would guarantee heavenly admittance, but if good acts were required would he make it? I'm not judging.
-----
Bookmaking is legal in England and odds are dropping, with many betting that the Great Pumpkin will leave office before his term is up. See? We have something we can look forward to.
The Methodist Church has loosened up a bit since you've last attended services, Uncle Ken. They're not locked into the King James Version of the Bible anymore; other translations are acceptable, or so I've read.
The preface to the Oxford Bible discusses the King James Version at length, and why a revised version was necessary. Many words in the KJV are archaic and no longer used; other words have a different meaning than they did in the 17th Century. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) tries to preserve the language of the KJV as much as possible, since it's considered "the noblest monument of English prose." Good enough for me.
-----
Genesis 1:27 adds a little confusion to the business of the first woman. It states that "...in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Maybe that's the origin of the Lilith legend; the woman is not mentioned by name but it appears that she precedes Eve.
Lilith is quite a character, and the entry in Wikipedia makes for some fascinating reading. My religious education glossed over the fact that God wasn't alone at the time of creation and there were many members of the Heavenly Host. Makes me wonder why God created man in the first place, unless he just wanted something to screw around with, which pretty much describes the God of the Old Testament. Not a nice guy, just ask Job or Noah, and Abraham had a close call with sacrificing his son.
I thought it odd that God was willing to negotiate. There was one story, I forgot which, where God was going to destroy a city but was haggling with a guy about not destroying it if there were seven righteous men, or something like that.
That's a great thing about the Bible as a literary work, it's got everything: sex, violence, drunkenness, miracles, zombies (Lazarus), space ships (chariots of fire), hallucinations (visions), love, betrayal, loyalty, tragedy, good guys, bad guys, and guys in between. Too bad none of the translations tossed in Aesop's Fables and made it a little more suitable for children.
-----
For an atheist Uncle Ken is really concerned about the relative goodness of Christian behavior. Let me throw a little scripture at him: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
So, would a guy like Al Capone go to heaven? He was generous to the poor, victims of his criminal enterprise were usually other criminals, and he provided a product for many satisfied customers. Plus, he kept many law enforcement personnel employed. Faith in Jesus would guarantee heavenly admittance, but if good acts were required would he make it? I'm not judging.
-----
Bookmaking is legal in England and odds are dropping, with many betting that the Great Pumpkin will leave office before his term is up. See? We have something we can look forward to.
two Christians give a bum a buck
It turns out that I am even less a bible scholar than I thought I was. I thought at first what do those pointy heads at Oxford know and I pulled out my trusty Elsdon Methodist Church King James (the official bible of the Methodist Church, much as Budweiser is the official beer of the Chicago Cubs,) and leafed to chapter three, and there was the serpent talking to Eve. Well shit.
I do remember being surprised by the contents some years ago, and reconstructing it. I think what it was. was in popular lore Eve persuades Adam, likely using her womanly wiles, to take a bite out of the apple, whereas in the bible he doesn't seem to need any persuading, Somehow over the years (Beagles speaks of a certain amount of memory loss not being uncommon amongst us golden agers) I must have conflated that into not necessarily Eve taking the first bite.
I do like Old Dog's explanation of the two of them trying to weasel their way out of the blame. I'm sure they learned weaseling from that apple.
Even though I have been identified as the least of the bible scholars in Beaglestonia, I will take issue with Beagles' proclamation that you can't get to heaven by doing good deeds. Well sure he's got some quotes to support his position, but has it not been written you can dig a quote out of the good book to support anything you choose? What's going on at the last judgement, is Jesus sitting there and trying to decide if people really really like Him before He decides which escalator they should board? What about the wages of sin are death.
Unsure of my mastery of the bible I googled the wages of sin are death, and googled kept offering the wages of sin is death. WTF? Being google it also offered links as to why that verb usage is used. It turns out back in the day when they were first printing bibles wages meant something like reward, and was thus a singular noun, taking the singular verb form. That was less exciting than I thought that it would be.
And it turns out the reference (Romans 6:23, though I am sure you guys already knew that) to the wages of sin is followed by the gift of god being eternal life, so that clouds things a bit. Still it begs the question of why is it speaking about the wages of sin at all then if all god's chilluns is going to heaven?
So this point system sounds pretty much like karma, like that book St Peter has on the podium before him with all the names and after the names a list of sins I assume, maybe good deeds also in another column, like those things they urge you to write up when making a difficult decision, and depending on the outcome you are led to the chute or the ladder. I'm pretty sure, bible scholarship aside, that this is what the Christian in the street believes, If he dips into the company till or the boss's wife, his chances of being poked by a pitchfork are increased. And I can't help but think that he doesn't think that giving the bum that buck, isn't going to end up on St Peter's ledger.
A beggar is sitting outside Starbucks and two Christians walk by. One of them is moved by the guy's plight and gives him a buck. The other Christian doesn't care about the guy's plight, but he did speak sharply and unfairly to wifey that morning and now he wants something to balance that item on St Peter's ledger and gives him a buck. As far as the bum is concerned they are equally good because they both gave him a buck. But do you, glancing up from your venti, think one of them is gooder than the other?
I do remember being surprised by the contents some years ago, and reconstructing it. I think what it was. was in popular lore Eve persuades Adam, likely using her womanly wiles, to take a bite out of the apple, whereas in the bible he doesn't seem to need any persuading, Somehow over the years (Beagles speaks of a certain amount of memory loss not being uncommon amongst us golden agers) I must have conflated that into not necessarily Eve taking the first bite.
I do like Old Dog's explanation of the two of them trying to weasel their way out of the blame. I'm sure they learned weaseling from that apple.
Even though I have been identified as the least of the bible scholars in Beaglestonia, I will take issue with Beagles' proclamation that you can't get to heaven by doing good deeds. Well sure he's got some quotes to support his position, but has it not been written you can dig a quote out of the good book to support anything you choose? What's going on at the last judgement, is Jesus sitting there and trying to decide if people really really like Him before He decides which escalator they should board? What about the wages of sin are death.
Unsure of my mastery of the bible I googled the wages of sin are death, and googled kept offering the wages of sin is death. WTF? Being google it also offered links as to why that verb usage is used. It turns out back in the day when they were first printing bibles wages meant something like reward, and was thus a singular noun, taking the singular verb form. That was less exciting than I thought that it would be.
And it turns out the reference (Romans 6:23, though I am sure you guys already knew that) to the wages of sin is followed by the gift of god being eternal life, so that clouds things a bit. Still it begs the question of why is it speaking about the wages of sin at all then if all god's chilluns is going to heaven?
So this point system sounds pretty much like karma, like that book St Peter has on the podium before him with all the names and after the names a list of sins I assume, maybe good deeds also in another column, like those things they urge you to write up when making a difficult decision, and depending on the outcome you are led to the chute or the ladder. I'm pretty sure, bible scholarship aside, that this is what the Christian in the street believes, If he dips into the company till or the boss's wife, his chances of being poked by a pitchfork are increased. And I can't help but think that he doesn't think that giving the bum that buck, isn't going to end up on St Peter's ledger.
A beggar is sitting outside Starbucks and two Christians walk by. One of them is moved by the guy's plight and gives him a buck. The other Christian doesn't care about the guy's plight, but he did speak sharply and unfairly to wifey that morning and now he wants something to balance that item on St Peter's ledger and gives him a buck. As far as the bum is concerned they are equally good because they both gave him a buck. But do you, glancing up from your venti, think one of them is gooder than the other?
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Adam's First Wife
A lot of people don't know this, but Eve was actually Adam's second wife, his first wife was named Lilith. She was created at the same time as Adam, out of the same clay, which led her to have highfalutin notions about being his equal. Some versions of the story say that she insisted on being on top when she and Adam had sex, which caused Adam to ask God if he could trade her in for a more submissive woman. Apparently Adam was one of those guys who don't like to fuck up. (I make small joke.) So it came to pass that God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs so that she would be content with her position as second banana. Lilith left the garden in a huff and ultimately went on to become the Queen of Demons. (You won't find this story in the Bible, it's one of those folk legends that didn't make the cut.)
I keep telling you guys that Christians don't get to Heaven by doing good deeds, for it is written, "If I give away all that I have and deliver my body to be burned, I gain nothing." (1st Corinthians chapter 13). If a Christian gives a bum a buck, he has the same motivation as the atheist, to make himself feel good. Ken's question about the relative goodness of the Christian and the Atheist's motivation raises another question: Who gets to judge? The Christian might quote his man Jesus who said, "Judge not that ye be not judged." The Atheist would not likely submit to any divine judge because he doesn't believe any of them exist. So there you have it.
My ice cream machine also has a 1.5 quart capacity. Old Dog, if yours is a Cuisinart ICE21 like mine, you biggest headache will be getting the finished product out of the machine and into a freezer container. The first time I thought that I should pull out the agitator before scooping out the product, but that didn't work so well. What I do now is scoop out as much stuff as I can, and then pull out the agitator to get at the rest. I use a plastic serving spoon to avoid scratching any of the equipment. But before you do any of that, have a small rubber spatula close at hand. Use this to scrape as much product as you can off the agitator before using you fingers and your tongue to salvage the rest. Go back to the plastic spoon to clean out the freezing vessel before, again, resorting to fingers and tongue.
The instructions tell you to add stuff like fruit, nuts, or chocolate chips while the unit is still running, but then you will have to adjust your ingredients accordingly to prevent overfilling the vessel. I prefer to add that stuff after the mix is in the freezer container, but before I put it in the freezer to firm up. The product will be soft and pliable then, making it easy to stir in the additives. I have tried three kinds of fresh fruit bits: banana, strawberry, and apple. I was only pleased with the banana bits, the strawberry and apple bits froze up hard as a rock and it was like eating ice cubes. I had much better luck stirring in some cherry preserves, and plan to try other preserves in the future. I also tried stirring in regular ice cream toppings but, for some reason, they tend to sink to the bottom of the batch while it's in the freezer.
I keep telling you guys that Christians don't get to Heaven by doing good deeds, for it is written, "If I give away all that I have and deliver my body to be burned, I gain nothing." (1st Corinthians chapter 13). If a Christian gives a bum a buck, he has the same motivation as the atheist, to make himself feel good. Ken's question about the relative goodness of the Christian and the Atheist's motivation raises another question: Who gets to judge? The Christian might quote his man Jesus who said, "Judge not that ye be not judged." The Atheist would not likely submit to any divine judge because he doesn't believe any of them exist. So there you have it.
My ice cream machine also has a 1.5 quart capacity. Old Dog, if yours is a Cuisinart ICE21 like mine, you biggest headache will be getting the finished product out of the machine and into a freezer container. The first time I thought that I should pull out the agitator before scooping out the product, but that didn't work so well. What I do now is scoop out as much stuff as I can, and then pull out the agitator to get at the rest. I use a plastic serving spoon to avoid scratching any of the equipment. But before you do any of that, have a small rubber spatula close at hand. Use this to scrape as much product as you can off the agitator before using you fingers and your tongue to salvage the rest. Go back to the plastic spoon to clean out the freezing vessel before, again, resorting to fingers and tongue.
The instructions tell you to add stuff like fruit, nuts, or chocolate chips while the unit is still running, but then you will have to adjust your ingredients accordingly to prevent overfilling the vessel. I prefer to add that stuff after the mix is in the freezer container, but before I put it in the freezer to firm up. The product will be soft and pliable then, making it easy to stir in the additives. I have tried three kinds of fresh fruit bits: banana, strawberry, and apple. I was only pleased with the banana bits, the strawberry and apple bits froze up hard as a rock and it was like eating ice cubes. I had much better luck stirring in some cherry preserves, and plan to try other preserves in the future. I also tried stirring in regular ice cream toppings but, for some reason, they tend to sink to the bottom of the batch while it's in the freezer.
Anticipating goodness
"...I was surprised that it didn't mention Eve in any especial way."
Say what? Genesis, chapter 3, clearly states otherwise. The serpent talks the woman (later named Eve) into eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, and she gives the fruit to Adam, which he eats. God finds out because the fig leaves are a big giveaway, and Adam tries to weasel out of the situation stating, "the woman you gave me" gave me the fruit to eat. Eve says she was beguiled by the serpent, as if that excuse would fly. You know the rest of the story.
I couldn't find my sixty year old copy of the King James Bible so I had to look all this up in my copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible (Revised Standard Version), which is probably a better resource for this type of discussion.
-----
"What's the point system? Is that like karma?"
I'm guessing that this question refers the "The Good Place." The answer is kinda/sorta yes. The premise of the show is that one character (there is at least one more) is sent to the Good Place after death based on her exemplary life, but it is a case of mistaken identity. Points are given (or taken away) while alive; enough points and you stay out of the Bad Place. Amusing flashbacks provide a context of her terrible behavior, and she truly deserves to go to the Bad Place. Therein lies the tale: her efforts to stay in the Good Place provide the bulk of the plot.
There are a lot of clever ideas (depending on your sense of humor) such as losing points if you've had a personalized license plate or paid money to see The Red Hot Chili Peppers.
"I wasn't a failed DJ; I was pre-successful"
-----.
I wouldn't assume a Christian is thinking of his path to heaven as a motive for giving the beggar a buck. He might just think it's a good thing to do for it's own sake, and he feels good himself in doing so. Same thing with the atheist.
There's an old guy who sells StreetWise (a newspaper usually sold by the homeless for a little income) near the local Starbucks and I usually slip him a buck, forgoing the newspaper. It's a very minor act, and not something I do every time I see him. But I always greet him by name and maybe that helps his dignity a little in that he isn't just another nameless soul down on his luck. If I was a true believer I don't think such trivial gestures would help keep me out of hell.
-----
The ice cream maker should arrive tomorrow, with the first batch being made sometime Friday. So, Mr. Beagles, are there any rookie mistakes I should keep an eye out for? I have plenty of containers so I'll be able to do a taste test and freeze the remainder. The full 1.5 quart capacity will seldom be used unless there's some special occasion that needs a lot of ice cream. I expect a lot of trial and error but even the failures should be more than palatable. This should be fun.
Say what? Genesis, chapter 3, clearly states otherwise. The serpent talks the woman (later named Eve) into eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, and she gives the fruit to Adam, which he eats. God finds out because the fig leaves are a big giveaway, and Adam tries to weasel out of the situation stating, "the woman you gave me" gave me the fruit to eat. Eve says she was beguiled by the serpent, as if that excuse would fly. You know the rest of the story.
I couldn't find my sixty year old copy of the King James Bible so I had to look all this up in my copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible (Revised Standard Version), which is probably a better resource for this type of discussion.
-----
"What's the point system? Is that like karma?"
I'm guessing that this question refers the "The Good Place." The answer is kinda/sorta yes. The premise of the show is that one character (there is at least one more) is sent to the Good Place after death based on her exemplary life, but it is a case of mistaken identity. Points are given (or taken away) while alive; enough points and you stay out of the Bad Place. Amusing flashbacks provide a context of her terrible behavior, and she truly deserves to go to the Bad Place. Therein lies the tale: her efforts to stay in the Good Place provide the bulk of the plot.
There are a lot of clever ideas (depending on your sense of humor) such as losing points if you've had a personalized license plate or paid money to see The Red Hot Chili Peppers.
"I wasn't a failed DJ; I was pre-successful"
-----.
I wouldn't assume a Christian is thinking of his path to heaven as a motive for giving the beggar a buck. He might just think it's a good thing to do for it's own sake, and he feels good himself in doing so. Same thing with the atheist.
There's an old guy who sells StreetWise (a newspaper usually sold by the homeless for a little income) near the local Starbucks and I usually slip him a buck, forgoing the newspaper. It's a very minor act, and not something I do every time I see him. But I always greet him by name and maybe that helps his dignity a little in that he isn't just another nameless soul down on his luck. If I was a true believer I don't think such trivial gestures would help keep me out of hell.
-----
The ice cream maker should arrive tomorrow, with the first batch being made sometime Friday. So, Mr. Beagles, are there any rookie mistakes I should keep an eye out for? I have plenty of containers so I'll be able to do a taste test and freeze the remainder. The full 1.5 quart capacity will seldom be used unless there's some special occasion that needs a lot of ice cream. I expect a lot of trial and error but even the failures should be more than palatable. This should be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)