Pleasure

A man relishes certain pleasures.

There are certain things we enjoy.  Truly enjoy.  Experiencing those things gives us a moment of happiness and genuine joy.  Pleasure.  Gratification.  Delight.  Satisfaction.  Fulfillment.

Some things fulfill a need that is biologically necessary.  We need food.  We take pleasure form certain specific foods.  My favorite steak is the porterhouse.  Logically I can explain why I am delighted with the combination of the two most tender cuts of beef, the rib eye and the tenderloin.  What more could a man want than a large meaty piece of tender juicy steak cooked to a tad under medium rare?

Other foods I simply enjoy, not because they provide nutrition, like protein but because they provide a eating experience I covet.  Eggplant and deep fired mushrooms (with horseradish sauce) have little to offer biologically, but man are they good.

Activities like fishing or hunting can provide a rational benefit but mostly we do them for other reasons.  I enjoy hunting and do it.  I eat what I kill.  The same is true with fishing.  Except, I've caught way more fish than I have bothered to clean and eat.  I used to make a pilgrimage up to Northern Ontario to fish.  You could only eat so much fish there before you tired of it.  They only let you take a certain amount home with you.  Yet I was never more pleased than when I had a 100 fish day.  All but a handful of those fish were thrown back.

SEX.  As soon as every man reading that last sentence saw it, he pictured it.  Men instantly know and categorize sexual experiences.  Every man knows the distinct differences between inadequate, better than nothing, OK, good, great and AMAZING sex.  We also know which of the categories we are likely to experience this weekend.

Intellectually we have things that intrigue us.  For me its theology and science.  I'm not an expert in either of those subjects but I derive pleasure from both.

Entertainment has its place as well.  Be it hobbies, sports, TV, or surfing the net; we do it because we like it.  We have our toys too.  Sometimes they are expensive, sometimes not.  Substances, like coffee, tobacco and alcohol are a source of pleasure.

Pleasure brings fulfillment.  It doesn't have to be permanent.  Most things are not.  We get hungry again.  We need more sex.  There is always next hunting season, or another ball game, or more to learn.

Pleasure.  If time, money, freedom health, etc are not barriers what would you do with yourself?  What would bring you pleasure?

Ruminations

It's hard to believe that September is almost over.  I've not been able to spend much time on the blog. 

The month started out with the in-laws moving in for two weeks.  I say moving in because a weekend is a visit or even a week but two weeks is too much.  This proved to be a mixed blessing.  On one hand the MIL helped put up a bunch of peaches and tomatoes.  They also tore out and installed new floor in my back room.  On the other hand two weeks.

I've come to the conclusion that my wife lies to me.  She knows I hate having her folks come and do projects.  She also knows I hate having them here for a long period of time.  It seems to me that she originally told me they'd be here for "about a week" and the only project was installing a new dishwasher.  A fortnight and a new floor, new front storm door, new garage door jam, dishwasher install and my FIL working up my garden latter and they left.

I wasn't around for almost the entire time.  I don't know if Mrs Ipsa conspired with my boss or not, but we have been shorthanded at work and I logged somewhere in the vicinity of 50 hours of overtime during the two weeks the in laws took over.

I'll take the OT, I need the money, and the new floor, it looks good.

Last week I took a three day weekend and the family (my side this time) went on a "camping" trip in Colorado.  Note to Waterboy: Mrs Ipsa reminded me as we were passing your house that I still have freezer bags that belong to Water Girl, from a shipment of tamales I picked up last visit.  I'd be happy to mail them back to you.

The camping trip went well.  A good time was had by all, especially all the kids who got to play with their cousins.

God was especially kind to my family this trip.  There were 5 traffic incidents that we narrowly avoided which would have been vary serious.  Divine Providence is a great blessing.

I don't think I mentioned this but I managed to spend a morning in traffic court too.  I'm fighting a ticket.  After spending nearly the entire morning listening to a worn out judge go case by case through a docket of dismay, repeating verbatim the same reading of charges and taking pleas, I was called.  I affirmed that I was the respondent and then I said, "Your honor, I wave reading, I'm pleading not guilty and will be representing myself".  The look on the judges face that he wasn't going to have to re-read the traffic code for the 27th time that morning was priceless.  I wish I had the presences of mind to say, "Your honor, I'm prepared to argue on the merits but, I've not had a speeding ticket in 18 years and I was hoping to preserve my record".  Had I said that, right then, I'm 99% certain that I would have had the ticket dismissed.  As it is they bound me over for trial in December.

We finally got a new guy hired at work.  This week the boss is going out of town.  I'm back to working six 10.5 to 12 hour days.  Which worked out well since my folks followed us back form Colorado for a visit.  They stayed 5 days and left this morning.

Hunting season is just days away.  The dog isn't ready.  I have no ammo loaded.  I've not checked the zero on any of my guns.  I need to clean the truck, the garage, my shop, etc.

I can't tell how much of this post is an update and how much is me venting.  I've been very blessed.  More than I deserve. 

My arm is still messed up from last months misadventure at the gym.  Which means I've not lost any more weight.  Then again I have plenty of food.  I rediscovered how much I hate driving in traffic.  We were able to take not one but two family mini-vacations this year.  I've been working more than I'd like.  I got to avoid a house full of relatives.  More importantly I have a job, lots of good men don't. My family annoys me (both sides FWIW).  They are all still alive and able to get around to visit.  I'm wasting time in court on a ticket.  I have access to a semi-fair legal system.

Every area of my life that I might potentially complain about has an area of blessing.  God preserved me and my family from harm on the roads last weekend.  He preserves, protects and provides every day in ways that I don't notice until I start to complain.  Then I am humbled.  In my discomfort I am more blessed than most of the people that have ever lived on this earth.

"The Lord is my portion, says my soul".  Thank you Lord for blessing ungrateful fools, which I have been.  You have blessed me for more than 40 years.  Truly you are worthy of honor, glory and praise.  Please accept mine.

Pizza Delivery

"What's the usual tip?" a man growled when a University of South Carolina student delivered his pizza.

"Well," the student replied, "this is my first delivery, but the other guys said that if I got a quarter out of you, I'd be doing great."

"That so?" grunted the man. "In that case, here's five dollars."

"Thanks," the student said, "I'll put it in my college fund."

"By the way, what are you studying?"

"Applied psychology."

Nothing to See, No Reason to Sue

I've officially had it with this story, and the way it is being reported in the Mainstream and Christian Media.

N.C. Dunkin' Donuts bakery sued for religious discrimination

ASHEVILLE, N.C – A Dunkin' Donuts franchise here will go to federal court to answer charges that it refused to hire an Asheville man who could not work on Saturday because of his religious beliefs.

Darrell Littrell, a Seventh-Day Adventist, applied for a job as a donut maker at the Citi Brands' Arden manufacturing plant in December 2012, the suit alleges. He was later interviewed by the company's plant manager.

In January, 2013 the manager offered Littrell the donut maker position, and told Littrell to report to work the next day, a Friday, at 3 p.m., the suit said.

Littrell said that he could not start work on Friday afternoon, since Adventists observe a Sabbath from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday. The manager then withdrew the job offer to Littrell, the commission alleges.

My first bone to pick with this is the way some media sources are reporting this as if it is a giant battle for equal rights for Christians.  It's not.  It never will be.  Jehovah Whiteness and 7th Day Adventists are not now, and have never been Christian denominations.  They are offshoots of a religious movement known as Millerites.  Yes back in 1833 some Millerites held traditional Christian beliefs.  That isn't the way it is now.  Today both groups deny basic tenants of  Christology.  This means they cannot be by definition Christians.

There is of course no reason to expect the Mainstream Media to make that distinction or care.  Christian media sources, should be able to get the story right and not pretend that this EEOC filling is some sort of cosmic battle between good and evil.  It's not.  It's not even a minor battle between religious freedom in general and corporate insensitivity.  David isn't going up against Goliath here.  Quit trying to make the story into something it isn't.

My second bone to pick has to do with the story and lawsuit.  If  a man applies for a job, and he knows he has certain religious beliefs that he cannot violate, he might want to bring those up before he is told to report to work.

Here is what I think happened.  Times are tough and jobs are hard to come by.  Darrell Littrell saw a job advertised.  He wanted the job and applied for it.  He interviewed.  It went well.  The boss seemed to like him.  Darrell forgot to mention that there is a 24 hour period of the week he can't work.  No sense being disagreeable about work hours before getting the job.  For some reason it slipped Darrell's mind to ask what shift he would be working.

Then something good happened, Darrell was offered the job and told to report to work.  The problem was that Darrell suddenly remembered that he needs sundown Friday to sundown Saturday off from work.  So despite the fact that he needed the job, he told the boss he couldn't go to work.  The boss figured Darrell didn't need the job that badly and withdrew his offer.

This is not discrimination.  Dunkin Donuts is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week business.  Obviously they need people to work on the Sabbath.  I think the boss knew that he needed people to work the weekend.  That's why he hired a guy to work on the weekend.  Darrell springs the news he can't work the weekend as soon as he is offered the job, and the boss says "OK, I'll get someone else".  Darrell still wants the money from the job, he just doesn't want to show up and work the weekends, so he got himself a lawyer.

Too bad for Darrell.  The job is working on the weekends.  Maybe if that was a problem you should have mentioned it before you got the job offer.  Nobody is discriminating against you because you don't want to work.  Nobody is questioning your deeply held religious beliefs.  They have a job that involves working the weekend.  You don't want to work the weekend.  They don't have a job you want to do.  There is no reason to sue them.

So what would the  "reasonable accommodation" required by the law, look like in Darrell's case?  Well according to Darrell's POV someone else would have to work his shift.  That means the company would either have to hire someone to do it, or force another employee to work it. 

If Darrell believes that working on a Sabbath is a sin, why would he insist on having someone sin on his behalf?  If Darrell believes in fairness, and I'm assuming he does since he is arguing that it's fair for the company to let him have the day off, why would he think it's fair to disrupt another employee's work schedule?  Don't other people have a right to enjoy the weekend too?

Home Run

Fred Reed takes a swing at his 50th high school reunion and knocks it out of the park.

When We Were America

There was nothing special about the class of 1964, or about King George High, except for those of us who were in it. Our yearbook looked like ten thousand others across America, portraits with acne removed in the photo lab, the basket ball team exactly like everybody else’s, the cheerleaders conventionally glorious, conventional adolescent good-byes in ball-point pen—but without misspelling or bad grammar.

The names in the yearbook are just names: Sonny, Rosie, Butch, Kenny, Joyce, Cecil, Ricky, Kit. Just names. But. But, but, but. With any of these people you could leave your keys in the car—we did—or the front door unlocked—we did. We had one cop in the country, Jay Powell, a state trooper, and he had little to do. The high school did not have metal detectors or police patrolling the halls. We had none of the behavior that now makes these things necessary. It wasn’t in the culture. We could have raped, killed, robbed, fathered countless illegitimate children like barnyard animals. We didn’t.

It wasn’t in the culture.

That tag line,  "It wasn’t in the culture." sums up the entire article.  Take a walk down memory lane in what was once America.  I know Freed is remembering it right.  I wasn't there in 1964.  I know he is right because of this line: "Sex had occurred to us, but didn’t occupy our thoughts except when we were awake."  I never spent much time in Virginia, but I do still remember what it was to be young and with a girl who made me glad to be a boy.

Take a gander at Fred's piece.  It's worth your time.
 

Bible Versions

The little girl was sitting with her grandmother, who had presented her with her first little children's Bible, in an easy-to-read translation, when she was very young.

Now, a decade or so later, the elderly lady was ready to spend a few sweet moments handing down the big old family Bible, in the time-honored King James Version, to her only grandchild.

Understandably excited, the youngster was asking a number of questions, both about the family members whose births and deaths were recorded therein, and about various aspects of the Scriptures themselves.

Her grandmother was endeavoring to answer all the child's questions in terms she could understand, but the one that stopped her cold was this sincere inquiry:

"Which Virgin was the mother of Jesus? Was it the Virgin Mary, or the King James virgin?"

Debate

I have a hypothetical situation for you.

For my purposes this incident happens in the United States.

You are sick and need a doctor, not just any doctor you need a surgeon for a difficult procedure.  If you don't get the procedure you will die. The hospital has 5 doctors that they say are qualified to preform your surgery.  To make matters worse this is an emergency and you don't have time to research the skill set of each of the candidates.   You do however get 5 min with each of them for a pre-surgery consultation. 

All five men seem very nice and are personable.  They all claim to have done the procedure before but all of them are new graduates and have only been out of school a short time.  The price of the surgery will be the same no matter who preforms it.  All five men have answered your pre-surgery questions word for word the same way.

One doctor is Asian.
One is Jewish.
One is a nondescript White guy.
One is Black.
One is Hispanic.

Which one do you pick and why?

Note, if you don't answer in the comments its because you are a racist and your non-answer is proof that you are a hater.

Incidentally each possible choice involves prejudice, does that mean your choice is also racist?

Quasi-Con

I have been reading Op-ed articles for over 30 years now.  I'm not sure who or what started my interest in reading opinion pieces.  I remember liking Mike Royko, probably because he was witty and irreverent.  It's been over a dozen years since I subscribed to a newspaper.  With the advent of the internet, printed papers have become unnecessary. 

There are people that I read or listen to because I agree with them.  There are people that I read because I disagree with them, but I enjoy being challenged by their thinking.  I suspect that other people share the same fascination.  Rush Limbaugh has made an outstanding career and a small fortune out of this phenomenon; as have other personalities, like Ann Landers and Dear Abby.

One of the reasons I am drawn to this type of entertainment is because I want to see how someone with a particular viewpoint addresses an issue.  Let's be honest about this point, it is mostly entertainment, not education, not information.  Why do people tune into Dr. Laura or Dr. Phil?  We like seeing train wrecks.  We also like hearing our thoughts in other people's voices.  Has there ever been a Dr. Laura show where the answer to at least one segment wasn't, "get off your back and quit being a slut"?  We like that answer.  We wish we were able to say something just like it, but for some reason we don't.

The Op-ed Page is a lot like that.  We know that the world is a giant train wreck.  We like hearing other people articulate our rather sensible solutions to todays problems.  Some authors like a Pat Buchannan or Walter Williams are going to come at a problem from a fixed philosophical perspective.   If you understand their perspective you can probably know their conclusion without reading the piece.  The enjoyment comes from watching them work out and articulate the solution.

Other authors have a fixed solution but no overall philosophical perspective.  While we see this idiocy in many left leaning people, they don't bother me as much.  The leftist wants a utopia without effort.  The quasi-conservative wants a different utopia, one without fixed philosophical principle.  The reason the leftist doesn't cause me as much concern is that he will never achieve his goals.  Indeed he cannot.  Contradicting ideas produce contradicting results.  The leftist will forever spend his time rushing about pandering to the loudest whimpering's of whatever aggrieved group is in vogue de jure.

The quasi-conservative is a much worse creature.  He is articulating a vision of something that does work.  His world is a good place.  Good people recognize it when he speaks of it.  The quasi-conservative (Quasi-Con) assumes the utopia without a solid philosophical perspective. 

The Quasi-Con wants a world where everyone lives according to fixed principles.  He wants to count on others behaving themselves in a predictable fashion.  He wants the benefit of an ordered society based on immutable philosophical principles.  He is willing and wants to live with them.  He is willing to go along with them.  He doesn't understand those principles, because he doesn't share them. That is why he is powerless to communicate anything beyond a desire to live in a Quasi-Con Utopia.

I suspect this is part of why I find Lord Monckton such a frustrating read.  He starts off well.  He means well.  He ends up with solutions that are void of fixed philosophical principle.  Which is why he ends up supporting guns, except of course these guns, under these circumstances, or free speech except for this kind of speech.  A principle isn't a principle if you have to surround it with a fence of exceptions.

Thought Experiment

I'd like everyone to try a thought experiment.

For purposes of this experiment we have to go back in time to the Garden of Eden.  We are assuming that there are only three kinds of beings (lower animals are not 'beings').  The first being is God.  The second are angelic creatures (faithful or fallen).  The third is mankind.  In the subset of mankind there are two and only two creatures Adam and Eve.

For our purposes Adam and Eve have not fallen or sinned yet. 

Given:

• Adam and Eve are able to be in the presence of God and speak/interact with Him
• Adam and Eve are able to be in the presence of angelic creatures and speak/interact with them
• Adam and Eve are cloaked in shekinah
• Adam and Eve do not have to contend with death or a known limit to their life span
• Adam was given dominion/authority over creation
• There are only three commandments to which Adam is subject, two positive and one negative:
• Tend the garden
• Produce offspring
• Don't eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Prove:

• Adam was restricted to a 3 dimensional reality

Since we have no way of knowing when Adam and Eve sinned we cannot know exactly how long they lived in the Garden.  Presumably Adam sinned sometime between his creation and his 130th year since that is the age we are given for the birth of his son.  We don't know how long he lived in a sinless state or exactly what that state was like.  What we do know is that there is a provision for marking time days/seasons/years but time itself has no real meaning if life is limitless.

Mankind currently exists and is limited inside three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.  Does it follow that we always have been limited in this way?

Please weigh in with your position even if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve.  It's an experiment in thought, not empirical data.  FWIW, I'm assuming that our universe exists in a 10 dimensional reality.

Who Needs Al Gore?

 I just got out of bed today.  When I came home this morning there was a slight rain falling.  It wasn't much, more of a mist really.  The temperature was a bit cool and I was wearing a jacket for the first time since spring.

 

Wyoming produces something in the area of 40% of the nations coal.  We have the newest coal fired power plants in the United States.  As a state we are involved in a lawsuit with the EPA right now over our right to regulated our own power plants (the cleanest in the nation).  The EPA claims we are destroying the environment.

 

Here is the view from my front door as of 10 min ago:

 

Enjoy your global warming.  It's not doing much for my garden.  You'd think with all of our coal we'd catch a break and keep warmer temps and sunshine well into the second week of September.

Pasta

Becky prepared a pasta dish for a dinner party she was giving. In her haste, however, she forgot to refrigerate the spaghetti sauce, and it sat on the counter all day.

She was worried that it might have spoiled, but it was too late to cook up another batch. She called the local Poison Control Center and voiced her concern. They advised Becky to boil the sauce again.

That night, the phone rang during dinner, and one of the guests volunteered to answer it.  Becky cringed as the guest called out, “It’s the Poison Control Center. They want to know how the spaghetti sauce turned out.”

Taking the OT

We're shorthanded at work. 

We do offer health insurance to everyone working over 35 hours per week.  We don't pay much.  We also have a unemployment rate of under 3%.  Much of the unemployment we have is seasonal, meaning its the fall and jobs that are weather conditional like construction are starting to wind down.  None of this helps us get workers.  We can't even seem to attract some college kids to help out between class or on the weekends.

I've been getting crazy amounts of overtime.  I put in almost 80 hours since last Saturday. Next week looks like more of the same.  I'll try to come up with a blog post or two.  After working nearly non stop now that I have a day off my wife slave driver has plans for my 24 hour period of free time.

Ringer vs ringer

The pope met with the College of Cardinals to discuss a proposal from Shimon Peres, the former leader of Israel.

“Your Holiness,” said one of the cardinals, “Mr. Peres wants to determine whether Jews or Catholics are superior by challenging you to a golf match.”

The pope was greatly disturbed, as he had never held a golf club in his life.

“Not to worry,” said the cardinal, “we’ll call America and talk to Jack Nicklaus. We’ll make him a cardinal, he can play Shimon Peres. We can’t lose!”

Everyone agreed it was a good idea. The call was made and, of course, Jack was honored and agreed to play.

The day after the match, Nicklaus reported to the Vatican to inform the pope of his success in the contest.

“I came in second, Your Holiness,” said Nicklaus.

“Second?!” exclaimed the surprised pope. “You came in second to Shimon Peres?!”

“No,” said Nicklaus, “second to Rabbi Woods.”