Another Blender Post

| categories: xanga | View Comments

Monday, I spent 3 hours and $1200 at the dentist to fix yet another broken tooth.  So in my case, chewing is not only overrated, but can be quite expensive as well.  That is why blenders are so important to me.   The dead blender from the last post was replaced under warranty, and its replacement died last Friday.  Both died after making only 300 smoothies.  I guess their 3 year warranty is based on making only 2 per week. 

So now I am trying the Cuisinart brand for $99 with a 5 year warranty.  Today was only the 3rd day of use, and I already had an accident.  Near the end of making a scrumptious Pina Colada, I removed the lid to add a little more ice, and the cap fell off into the blender.  Before I could shut it off, it had been chopped into itty bitty bits of plastic. So I had to pour the entire 40 ounces of blended fruit into the compost pile and wash the blender.  I was able to substitute a cap from a dead blender.  I was so hot and hungry after my bike ride home too!

I will still get the Hamilton Beach replaced to have a spare.

Posted 5/14/2008 at 10:37 PM

2 Comments

Mr. Gathman, thank you for your comment a while ago about inerrancy. I enjoy discussing and learning about these topics.

Posted 12/13/2008 at 8:46 PM by pikljooce

Mr. Gathman,
      Your comment really blessed me. Thank you.

Posted 12/8/2009 at 5:55 PM by pikljooce

Read and Post Comments

A Blender Post

| categories: xanga | View Comments

Our Hamilton Beach blender died after less than 6 months.  I am unable to find a blender (other than the $400 Blendtec or Vitamix with lifetime guarantee) that can last out a year.  I wouldn't mind if you could just buy new parts (not in our throwaway society).

Our late blender will be sorely missed, but the occasion of its passing was a creative moment.  I had just made a strawberry peanut-butter smoothie, and started on an Orange Julius.  I put in the banana, oatmeal, chia seeds, milk, and orange zest.  I pressed the button to mix the chia seeds so they could soak.  Nothing.  The blender equivalent of a sudden heart attack.

What to do with those ingredients.  I can't throw good food away.  So I removed the bananas, sliced them, peeled the zested orange, added a kiwi, lime juice, and heaping teaspoon of brown sugar: fruit salad!  Then I put the milk/oatmeal/zest mixture on the stove, added raisins, vanilla, and brown sugar, and heated until thickened: christmas pudding!
Posted 1/15/2008 at 6:20 PM

2 Comments
It seems strange to comment so seriously as I am now on a blender post, but I really liked hearing your conversion story ;) wow you had one of those hit by lightning things...God works as He wishes..
Posted 1/21/2008 at 11:58 PM by pikljooce

Did you decide that you didn't want to attend the Jazz concert? 

Posted 2/8/2008 at 2:48 AM by pikljooce

Read and Post Comments

Voting for the right lizard

| categories: xanga | View Comments

In Themes of Insanity, AP English student Lorraine McKee writes:

By using a “democracy” of a people ruled by lizards, Adams shows the stupidity of people voting for something they hate. Adams has Ford Prefect, an objective third party, explain this situation to Arthur in the following passage:
‘On [the robot’s] world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.'
          ‘Odd,’ said Arthur, ‘I thought you said it was a democracy.’
‘I did,’ said Ford, ‘It is.'
‘So,’ said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, ‘why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?'
‘It honestly doesn’t occur to them,’ said Ford. ‘They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.'
‘You mean they actually vote for the lizards?’
‘Oh yes,’ said Ford with a shrug, ‘of course.’
‘But,’ said Arthur, going for the big one again, ‘why?’
‘Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,’ said Ford, ‘the wrong lizard might get in’” (Adams 576).
This conversation displays through the madness of a world voting for lizards the problems and stupidity in the democratic societies in real life. Lizards are clearly politicians – they rule the people, no one likes them, and yet the people continue to vote for them. This is madness and idiocy in and of itself. Only the fear of the wrong lizard (politician) being in control keeps the people voting. Seeing as one lizard is very much like another, voting makes no difference. This society, lead by lizards, is really ruled by the morons that keep putting the lizards in power. Adams comments by using slightly deranged satire that any world that continually votes for something it hates is the paramount of lunacy and idiocy and by doing so says “the morons are in charge.”

The necessity to vote for a lizard "lest the wrong lizard get in" is not insanity, but a mathematical consequence of "Plurality Voting".   One of the simplest (but not easy) ways to break the two party stranglehold on America is to allow voting for more than one candidate.  This is called "Approval Voting".  There are mathematically better, but more complicated voting methods (involving ranking candidates), but approval voting is already supported by voting machines, and is already in use for many local elections.

There is another economic principle keeping the lizards in power:  "Bad money drives the good out of circulation".  When clad coinage replaced real silver in the US mint, people used the cheap coins for "legal tender", and treasured the silver in lock boxes.  In a similar vein, the best leaders are reluctant leaders - they have better things to do.  But it is too easy for those with nothing better to do than seek power to best a reluctant leader at the polls.
Posted 11/30/2007 at 12:24 PM

2 Comments
Mr. Gathman, Could you comment on my most recent post (January 12th)? I remember you were talking to me about it a long time ago, and I wanted to hear again what you were saying.
Posted 1/12/2008 at 10:58 PM by pikljooce
gThankyou SO much Mr. Gathman. I figure if anybody knows about, it's you.
Posted 1/13/2008 at 1:35 AM by pikljooce

Read and Post Comments

Voting for the right lizard

| categories: xanga | View Comments

CustomDesigned's Xanga Archives
Saturday October 6, 2007
I have been riding a bike to work for 2 years now.   I started with a junker having just 3 working gears.   Julie got me a nice $300 bike for my birthday, and a bike speedometer.  I use google maps to find routes.  The satellite views show bike trails if you look closely. 

For the first 6 months, I went 8 miles in an hour, but the office had a shower.  I carried shampoo, soap, towel, clean underwear, etc, in my backpack.  I climbed out of bed, climbed on the bike, and pedalled 8 miles on 3 gears.  Then I showered, dressed, made a fresh mug of green tea, and was ready for work.

Then we moved in February.  The new office is 6.8 miles, but has no shower.  So now I leave early in the morning before it gets hot.  In the summer, it is often *very* hot on the way home, and I pop right into a cold shower upon arrival.

Many things have changed since I began this regimen.  The changes were slow and subtle.  At first, I was more tired than before, but a little more clear headed.  After 4 months or so, I start feeling more energy.  My blood pressure was borderline high when I started.  Now it is well within normal.  It has become necessary to use a belt.  I used to laugh at the liberal media with their talk of "SUVs" hogging the road and running into things (as if the car, not the driver were responsible).  But this viewpoint starts to make sense when you are on a bicycle, and SUV driving yuppies (wearing sunglasses and riding high above you) ignore crosswalks,  walk signals, and "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED WITH PEDESTRIAN PRESENT" signs.

I noticed so much more about the city on a bike.  Under the bridges on Rt 50 were pairs of used condoms, twisted together like chromosomes.  The sidewalks near stores selling alcohol were littered with broken glass.  I added spare inner tubes, patch kit, and a pump to the equipment I needed to carry.  There was money to be gleaned on the sidewalks and streets.  I picked up pennies through bills - an average of 1 cent every 3 miles.  At 15 miles a day, that is 5 cents a day, enough for bus fare once a month.   This year, I've been riding through Rocky Run Stream Valley Park instead of along Rt 50.  As I tear along the dirt and gravel trail at 15 mph, deer are startled from their browsing and bound gracefully and silently away from the path.

Automobiles are anti-social.  On foot, you can carry on a deep conversation while you walk.  Bikes are in between.  On a bike, you can see and smile at other riders and pedestrians as you pass.  When something up ahead strikes me funny, I can often get a smile and a laugh with a one-liner as I roll by. 

The problems were not what I expected.  The first major problem was that the junker bike was too small, and my knees suffered from riding like a spider.  The new bike fixed that.  Then the big problem was warning symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome from the vibration.  I added handlebar extensions, gloves, and handlebar padding.  In the summer, sunburn is a threat.  I hate lotion, so I make sure I leave at least 4 hours before solar noon (1:10pm here), and leave at least 4 hours after. 

Winter is less of a problem than summer.  The sun is lower at noon, so I can leave home later and leave work earlier - which is good since the days are shorter.  Furthermore, less skin is exposed in cold weather.  When you get hot in winter, just peel off a layer.  Snow on the ground is a show stopper.  You can't ride through snow without chains - and then only slowly.

Rain is undesirable, but not a disaster if you immediately dry off your bike thoroughly.  Lightning is a show stopper.  If I hear thunder, I go to the nearest shelter (there are plenty of stores along the way) and wait it out, or catch a bus, or call Julie.
Posted 10/6/2007 at 10:57 PM

1 Comments

Mr. G,

Thankyou so much for your comment. That was really insightful and encouraging. :)

I like biking.

Posted 11/7/2007 at 11:45 PM by pikljooce

Read and Post Comments

Poems

| categories: xanga | View Comments

Sitting there with folded hands
And peaceful heart and restful mind I see
The warm sunlit color
Of brown and red and gold leaves rustling
With a spicy, rich, dark, earth smell stirring
In the cool caress of crisp autumn air
Glinting here and there with shadow shapes
Of carved wood chairs and rough, red hearth
And wondering recollect the days of joy and pain
And stumbling steps and breathless pace,
A table set by God and spread with blessings amply served,
And now for which as afterward I sit in time of rest
My heart with quiet thankfulness is overflowed
And eagerly awaits
The dawn.
Posted 11/19/2006 at 8:35 PM

3 Comments
:)-referring to the post
ps. thanks for your comment:)
Posted 11/20/2006 at 10:4 AM by pikljooce
thanks for the ideas! :)...it certainly is coming down to the decision...i need to research more.
Posted 12/6/2006 at 3:28 PM by pikljooce
Who wrote this?
Posted 12/12/2006 at 3:43 PM by bptzdbyfyre

Sunday November 19, 2006
        Conversation on Saturday, August 31, 2002 with a young man
        at a Subway somewhere in the cornfields of Indiana.

Are you a Christian?

  No, I used to be, but I'm not anymore.

What is your group called?

  We don't have a name.  We have chapters all over the world.

How do your beliefs differ from that of Christians?

  We never ask for donations, and follow *only* what the Bible says.  We reject all worldy influence, and have no TV, radio, or newspapers.

In what ways do Christians add to or fail to obey the teaching of Scripture?

  Jesus sent His disciples out 2 by 2, with no purse or provisions.

George Muller, St Benedict, St Francsis embodied this principle in different ways.  How does your group handle differing interpretations of a Scripture?

  I'm not aware of any difference in interpretation.  It has never come up.

How does your group handle someone teaching a different doctrine?  For instance, suppose someone started teaching that Jesus only apperared to be Human?  How would this be corrected?

  But Jesus does *not* have a Human nature!  He overcame our Human Nature so that we can overcome it also.

Ok, suppose I come to your group and claim that Jesus is fully Human as well as Divine.  How would you handle it?

  I don't know.  We go by what the Bible says.  The Bible says Jesus overcame the flesh, and we are to become like Christ.

The Bible also says "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us," and promises resurrection of the body for both the just and unjust.  What do you call Adam's nature before the fall?

  I don't know.  I have to go...


Posted 11/19/2006 at 5:20 PM

1 Comments

"...for they shall cry unto Jehovah
because of oppressors,
and he will send them a saviour,
and a defender, and he will deliver them."
(Isaiah 19:20)(ASV)-BibleGateway

"...At the time that God
has already decided,
he will send Jesus Christ
back again."
(1Timothy 6:15)(CEV)-BibleGateway

JESUS  DECLARED :
"I have come in My Father's name
and with His power..."
(John 5:43)(AMP)-BibleGateway

"I will come with the mighty acts
of the Lord Jehovah..."
(Psalm 71:16)(ASV)-BibleGateway

Posted 11/19/2006 at 7:25 PM by Anonymous

Sunday November 12, 2006
I am often asked if there is a secular reason to be against "gay" "marriage".  There are many reasons based on historical sources and authorities which are not accepted by most secularists.  But there are secular reasons as well.  I think the best way to answer is to first explain what the "gay" "marriage" issue is not.   We will leave aside the question of whether sexual behaviours commonly called "gay" are healthy or moral for another discussion.

It is not about redefining words.  Words like "gay" and the like are too far gone to be worth trying to save.  It is true that the more radical gay advocacy groups are intent on redefining the word "marriage".  However, this only serves to confuse those trying to think about the issue.  It doesn't change the issue.  Marriage is what it is even if the activists force us to make up a new word for it.  Furthermore, there are honest efforts to create "civil unions" that don't attempt to redefine marriage - just create a legal framework that resembles it in some ways.

It is not about freedom.  In the United States, everyone is free to engage in any desired sexual behaviour in private.  (There are increasingly minor restrictions on what may be done in public that apply equally to all types of sexual behaviour, and practices involving a minor, or fatal to a partner in the short term are illegal.)  Furthermore, everyone is free to exchange public vows of fidelity (or infidelity) with persons or animals  (yes, a woman exchanged vows with her dog in public) of any description while calling on any deity, demon, or non-existence of same that they choose.  Everyone is free to sign  legal documents with any person or persons creating mutual privileges and obligations just like a civil marriage (sorry, bestie buffs are out of luck until they succeed in getting animals declared as "persons").  They do not need to hire a lawyer to create such documents from scratch - if their type of sexual behaviour is at all popular (and is a kind that wants such obligations), an advocacy group has most likely already created standard forms.

It is not about tax benefits.  Until recently, civil marriage carried a tax penalty, prompting many couples to say their vows and skip the civil marriage - or get a civil divorce each December and remarry in January.  Even recent reforms do not entirely eliminate the marriage penalty.

So what on earth are gay activists trying to get with civil unions or gay "marriage" that they don't already have?  They want explicit official approval.  They already have implicit approval with the repeal of sodomy laws in most states.  But they want explicit approval - a pat on the back.  The more radical elements want to brand those who fail to sing their praises with proper feeling as "bigots" guilty of "hate crime" (which makes those who demand this gay fascists), but most of those calling for civil unions just want official approval.

Before we consider civil unions, we need to ask why we have civil marriage.  Why not have weddings in churches or covens of choice, sign a legal agreement and be done with it?  Civil marriages are supposed to encourage marriage because the survival of the state depends on the next generation.  In other words, it is a "compelling state interest".  Lest you think this is an exaggeration, look at the fate of Germany and France today.  The survival of the German nation depends on whether the current secretary of family affairs, a woman setting the example with 7 children, can convince enough other Germans to take on the challenge of raising a family.  In the United States, the birth rate is still stable.  But this depends on enough people not just having babies, but raising families.  Civil unions do not meet such a state interest.  

There are those who resent the role of marriage and families in nurturing the next generation.  They propose "advanced" methods of procreation that involve breeders (or test tubes) and day care in place of marriage and family.  (Sound familiar?)  This vision is the next step in the process of separating sex and procreation.  This process began with birth control.  Now, people were told, you can have sex whenever you please, and have children when you please (if you please - which Europeans today by and large don't).  Same sex, and inter-species sexual behaviours are more ways to get sex with out procreation.  Test tube babies, surrogate mothers, sperm banks, egg banks, are all ways to get procreation without sex.  Abortion is a way to "fix" unwanted procreation after the fact.

We have not yet reached the limits of this separation.  In "That Hideous Strength", C. S. Lewis describes the fictional selenites (moon people) as lying with images of their mates, warmed and animated by cunning arts, while their children are conceived in vats by machinery.  Our culture is already exploring the fringes of selenite culture with virtual pornography.

But if we do reach this nirvahna of endless sex without responsibility, scientifically controlled procreation, and children raised by villages of professionals, so that marriage is no longer a compelling state interest, then civil unions are still less a state interest.

Edited on January 20, 2007 to correct reference to German Chancellor.
Posted 11/12/2006 at 5:14 PM

6 Comments
your posts are longer than Mrs. Murphy's ack!
Posted 11/13/2006 at 9:51 PM by greenbubbles6
In case anyone thinks I am alone in my views, here is a secularist presenting the secular argument against state sponsored civil unions.
Posted 12/6/2006 at 8:33 PM by CustomDesigned
Some comments from a German who considers himself a libertarian. Note that even in Europe many (though probably not most) would disagree to my PoV, but that doesn't make it any less my PoV, so here it goes:
First, I don't know the exact situation of gay activism in the USA, but I strongly suspect it is much more radical and emotional than here in Europe.
"Marriage is what it is even if the activists force us to make up a new word for it." — Well, that's a very traditionalist argument. It doesn't make much sense to an unreligious, all-out humanist such as me. To me, marriage is a completely artificial concept. In a German context, it mostly means tax benefits and the right to refuse to give evidence. Following your argument, the metric unit system or, for that matter, SPF shameless plug) are bad because they break with tradition.
If you ask me, official marriage (including any tax benefits or penalties) should be abolished altogether. "Straight" couples don't need official approval, either. Why not have weddings in churches or covens of choice, sign a legal agreement and be done with it? (I'm sure you get the point.) I seriously doubt that "official approval of marriage" poses a significant encouragement for people to have children.
With a fertility rate of 2.01 in 2006, France doesn't have a significant fertility problem, unlike Germany (2006: 1.39). Here in Europe, I haven't heard anyone claiming for a long time that marriage has any significant impact on the probability of giving birth to a child. Rather, one of the most determining factors -- if not the most determining one -- is the level of compatibility of family and career (AKA work/life balance). In Germany, the friendliness of companies towards mothers and their children leaves a lot to be desired, so women often feel they have to choose between pursuing some career or having a child — mostly regardless whether they're married or not. In France, work/life balance is much better for mothers: many companies offer child care facilities, and parental protection laws are better. The same
(BTW, your reference to German chancellor Merkel having seven children is incorrect — she doesn't have any (and is sometimes, though very rarely, criticized for that). It is the secretary of family affairs who does have seven.)
Posted 1/20/2007 at 11:36 AM by jmehnle
(Oh, and BTW, I'm not gay, if that matters to anyone.)
Posted 1/20/2007 at 11:41 AM by jmehnle
Well, that's a very traditionalist argument.

The lines are blurry sometimes, and its difficult to make distinctions. The definition of marriage is a matter of precedent, since the definition is a legal definition. Precedent and tradition are both rooted in historic meaning, but they are not the same.

To me, marriage is a completely artificial concept.

Is it? Not really. It is an anthropological or sociological concept, but that doesn't make it artificial. It is based in our common humanity which is one race and two genders, but it isn't 'man made'. No more than any other concept of civilization.

If you ask me, official marriage (including any tax benefits or penalties) should be abolished altogether.

I offer that your lack of value in marriage is simply a lack of appreciation of it.
Posted 1/22/2007 at 1:24 AM by OnLawn
The "civil union" is a political sleight-of-hand having been created purely for political purposes in order to satisfy a loud and whiny special interest group.

This is because the government has no important state interest in promoting civil unions — "gay marriage” really — which really applies to those types or models of relationships incapable by nature of producing offspring.

Government has no legitimate interest or business either in regulating or institutionalizing the private and personal relationships of consenting adults of these types of relationships, which would include those between friends or partners of the same sex regardless of sexual intimacy. If two people of this type of relationship wish to make a contractual living arrangement between them they can have a legal contract of sorts drawn up by lawyers. There is no reason why society should subsidize or bear the costs of private, intimate relationships that have no compelling state interest.

When people have actively sought to make government stay out of the private lives of consenting adults when government interference was disadvantageous to them, they can't very well expect government to then intrude into their lives just because it would now be advantageous to them. The principle of non-intrusion works both ways.

The government, however, does have an important state interest in promoting the relationships of men and women, since only their relationships are able to produce future citizens. To promote and protect this relationship by institutionalizing it with the advantages and legal status of marriage increases the likelihood of producing and raising offspring in optimal circumstances in order that they become responsible and productive citizens.

The difference between marriage and civil unions, then, is the difference between relationships that have an important state interest and ones that don't.
Posted 1/22/2007 at 5:53 AM by Charlie_Feather

Read and Post Comments

« Previous Page -- Next Page »