You will appreciate this. It is not a screed about politics or some preaching. It is just a pleasant story of a guy doing his job.
Here is a shout out to an unknown salesman at Crosslyns Building in Smyrna. We bought our house in 1987 and noticed that the faucets seemed to drip incessantly. A stop at Crosslyns put me in touch with one of the counter men there. He told me it was probably caused by the water pressure being too high.
He loaned me a water pressure meter and we checked. (Imagine that, No charge.) It was too high. So he proceeded to show me a pressure-reducing valve. It was pretty expensive for then, but he said it would be worth it. They had some cheaper models. Then he continued and said that I should also buy an extra union joint and a water shutoff valve. He said that the pressure reducer would probably last 30 years or more, but, if and when it had to be replaced, I would be glad for the ability to cut off the water right there, and just loosen two union joints instead of having to break a solder joint.
This afternoon, I blessed that guy's memory. The pressure reducer did indeed last 30 years, but a new check found the water pressure in excess of 90 pounds. (Seventy five is the max and lower is better.)
So I crawled under the house with two big crescent wrenches, instead of a soldering torch. The pressure reducer came out with a few twists of the wrenches. I took the connector out and put it into the exact model replacement. (What are the chances of that, after 30 years?)
Back under the house and some grunting and twisting, had it back in place. It is always harder to get it back tight than to loosen it, you know. The cut off valve meant that I could just open the spigot and check for leaks, instead of crawling back out, turning on the water at the water meter, then back under to make sure that there were no leaks.
Twice he did me a favor. Now the pressure is around 50. Let's hope the knocking pipes are fixed by this. But regardless, the lower pressure will be less wear and tear on the appliances.
Thank you again, Crosslyn salesman. You saved an old man a lot of work and hassle. And, as my Dad used to say, "If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right–the first time." Thanks Dad.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Doubt
Sometimes people think that the opposite of believe or belief is doubt. That is not the case, in fact. The opposite of belief is unbelief or more completely, rebellion. When people refused to believe Jesus, they, in fact were rebelling against the truth and the facts that they had been given.
So what is doubt? Selwyn Hughes says, "Doubt can be used to detect error." He went on to quote an unknown author, but one who was prescient with regards to the 21st century. "The inescapable presence of doubt is a constant reminder of our responsibility to truth in a twilight world of truth and half truth."
Hughes sums doubt like this. "It acts like a spur to challenge us to find out the truth about a situation. It is precisely because all is not certain that we have to make certain."
Francis Bacon opined, "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will begin with doubts he will end with certainties."
Hughes concludes, "Doubt can act as a sparring partner both to truth and error. It keeps faith trim and assists us in shedding the paunchiness of false ideas."
I didn't have to write much for this lesson. Doubt is not an enemy, it is a friend, a tool. In a world of "fake news," a world that has seemingly abandoned absolute truth, doubt is a torch to guide through the morass of prevarication and fabrication.
(Aside: It is almost humorous how, once confronted with the reality of a relativistic world our unbelieving friends recoil in shock and horror. Yet for years we have been bombarded with the claims that everything is relative. "There are no absolutes." And several commentators add, "There are absolutely no absolutes, including this statement.")
We cannot live in a world without absolutes. We absolutely cannot live in a world without absolutes. And unbelievers have not done so. They simply chose which absolutes they will accept and which they will ignore or deny.
Our present situation would be funny if it weren't so sad. The Bible uses a phrase, "sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind." And when faced with a real life example of "fake news" or relational logic, they are very uncomfortable, as all of us are.
You may have heard that trouble follows when we doubt our beliefs and believe our doubts. Now we must also beware of enshrining "doubt" once the question is verified. If we continue to doubt after having the doubt answered, we are heading for trouble. "Is the Bible reliable?"is a common question. Once that has been answered, to continue to ask and doubt is not a legitimate use of "doubt."
Once a question has been addressed, we "doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." Man is built for certainty. Doubt does not undermine certainty. It illuminates uncertainty. Don't doubt it. It keeps us intellectually trim.
So what is doubt? Selwyn Hughes says, "Doubt can be used to detect error." He went on to quote an unknown author, but one who was prescient with regards to the 21st century. "The inescapable presence of doubt is a constant reminder of our responsibility to truth in a twilight world of truth and half truth."
Hughes sums doubt like this. "It acts like a spur to challenge us to find out the truth about a situation. It is precisely because all is not certain that we have to make certain."
Francis Bacon opined, "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will begin with doubts he will end with certainties."
Hughes concludes, "Doubt can act as a sparring partner both to truth and error. It keeps faith trim and assists us in shedding the paunchiness of false ideas."
I didn't have to write much for this lesson. Doubt is not an enemy, it is a friend, a tool. In a world of "fake news," a world that has seemingly abandoned absolute truth, doubt is a torch to guide through the morass of prevarication and fabrication.
(Aside: It is almost humorous how, once confronted with the reality of a relativistic world our unbelieving friends recoil in shock and horror. Yet for years we have been bombarded with the claims that everything is relative. "There are no absolutes." And several commentators add, "There are absolutely no absolutes, including this statement.")
We cannot live in a world without absolutes. We absolutely cannot live in a world without absolutes. And unbelievers have not done so. They simply chose which absolutes they will accept and which they will ignore or deny.
Our present situation would be funny if it weren't so sad. The Bible uses a phrase, "sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind." And when faced with a real life example of "fake news" or relational logic, they are very uncomfortable, as all of us are.
You may have heard that trouble follows when we doubt our beliefs and believe our doubts. Now we must also beware of enshrining "doubt" once the question is verified. If we continue to doubt after having the doubt answered, we are heading for trouble. "Is the Bible reliable?"is a common question. Once that has been answered, to continue to ask and doubt is not a legitimate use of "doubt."
Once a question has been addressed, we "doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." Man is built for certainty. Doubt does not undermine certainty. It illuminates uncertainty. Don't doubt it. It keeps us intellectually trim.
Friday, February 10, 2017
Jamie
I used to know a Hispanic guy named Jamie. I called him Jamee for a while, then learned that the correct pronunciation was HyMe. That has nothing to do with our thought for today, but I was reminded of it when I titled the essay. Ime or more accurately I-Me. (And I get paid by the word, so am pumping up the paycheck.)
Our communications channels are overwhelmed with, what I consider to be an egregious grammatical error. I will illustrate. Can you find at least three errors in this sentence? "Me and him is going fishing." (Trick question. There are four.) Now for the coup de gras (That's French for the final blow–or something. CDG). "Give the fishing tackle to he and I." Let me expand. "Give the fishing tackle to David and I."
TV, radio, print media, and regular conversations are replete with the I-Me error. Even people who should know better, and those who have already been instructed by me, persist in making this mistake. (Mrs. Cheney must be spinning in her grave.)
Grammar lesson. "I" and "he" are subjective pronouns. That means that they are used as the subject of a sentence or phrase. In our CDG the prepositional phrase is, "to he and I." Notice that the pronouns are the subjects of the preposition, so should be "him and me."
I am not sure why this error has become so widespread. I have a wild guess, but who wants that? Well, you might if you have read this far. I surmise that the "royal we" syndrome has struck the I-world. (Not to be confused with the i-world, like i-Pad, i-Phone, etc.). Some say that the Queen of England uses the "royal we," as in, "We will be present." She means "I will be present."
Just saying give it to "David and me," sounds a little pedestrian and plebeian. So they dress it up by using the classier "I" instead of me. Like I said, wild guess. Maybe it is just hearing an error enough makes it sound right. But somebody had to start it. Hint: Say the phrase without the other name or pronoun. "Give it to I." That sounds awkward and dumb, to me anyway.
The thing that I think is funny, is that in attempting to appear cultured and erudite, they are in actuality reverting to "hillbilly" jargon. "Me and him is goin' fishin'." Sorry Mrs. Cheney.
And here are a couple of Googles who agree with...I.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/when-to-use-i-and-when-to-use-me
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/i-vs-me/
Now bring on those split infinitives. "Give the fishing tackle to absurdly overloaded David."
Our communications channels are overwhelmed with, what I consider to be an egregious grammatical error. I will illustrate. Can you find at least three errors in this sentence? "Me and him is going fishing." (Trick question. There are four.) Now for the coup de gras (That's French for the final blow–or something. CDG). "Give the fishing tackle to he and I." Let me expand. "Give the fishing tackle to David and I."
TV, radio, print media, and regular conversations are replete with the I-Me error. Even people who should know better, and those who have already been instructed by me, persist in making this mistake. (Mrs. Cheney must be spinning in her grave.)
Grammar lesson. "I" and "he" are subjective pronouns. That means that they are used as the subject of a sentence or phrase. In our CDG the prepositional phrase is, "to he and I." Notice that the pronouns are the subjects of the preposition, so should be "him and me."
I am not sure why this error has become so widespread. I have a wild guess, but who wants that? Well, you might if you have read this far. I surmise that the "royal we" syndrome has struck the I-world. (Not to be confused with the i-world, like i-Pad, i-Phone, etc.). Some say that the Queen of England uses the "royal we," as in, "We will be present." She means "I will be present."
Just saying give it to "David and me," sounds a little pedestrian and plebeian. So they dress it up by using the classier "I" instead of me. Like I said, wild guess. Maybe it is just hearing an error enough makes it sound right. But somebody had to start it. Hint: Say the phrase without the other name or pronoun. "Give it to I." That sounds awkward and dumb, to me anyway.
The thing that I think is funny, is that in attempting to appear cultured and erudite, they are in actuality reverting to "hillbilly" jargon. "Me and him is goin' fishin'." Sorry Mrs. Cheney.
And here are a couple of Googles who agree with...I.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/when-to-use-i-and-when-to-use-me
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/i-vs-me/
Now bring on those split infinitives. "Give the fishing tackle to absurdly overloaded David."
Monday, February 6, 2017
What Part of Football....
(This is not political, so if you are looking for controversy, I will disappoint you.)
There is an old saying, (or there ought to be and I just invented it) "What part of stupid do you not understand?" One of the axioms in football (see above parenthesis) is that when protecting a lead you do not do dumb stuff. An old coach of the Titans (unnamed) used to "sit" on a three point lead. Once the Titans got a three point lead, he would go into "three rushes into the line, and punt" offensive mode. He said that his defense could and most of the time would protect the lead and we would win.
Atlanta may not have done quite that in SuberPowl (can we say that?) LI, but the fourth quarter had some glaring instances of football savvy being abandoned. Forget that New England was on a roll. Atlanta fumbled the football on a sack.
Most sack-fumbles come on a blind side hit. The QB does not see the rusher coming and loses control of the ball when a freight train hits him at 60 mph. (Or so it seems.) But this sack was right in his face. The good old "tuck rule" would have protected him had he tried to just take the sack. But he tried to throw it with an 8 foot gorilla slamming into him. Mistake number one of the overt kind.
Then the Falcons, who had played "belly button defense" all game long switched to, sadly again, the Titans' favorite pass defense. Early in the game even a completed pass resulted in a defender on the receiver for essentially no yards after catch. Then after the turn over, and the rest of the game they used the 5 yard cushion, backing up at snap, then chasing after the catch. It works like a charm–to lose the game.
Recover onside kick. Good move guy. Then in the waning minutes, they moved into field goal range for the "easy" clinching score. Fantastic catch. Probably the play of the game had they kicked the FG. "No dumb plays." Right? So the first thing is the QB stays in the pocket for a sack. No slipping out the side for a throwaway ala Tom Brady.
Thirteen yard loss. Still not completely messed up or hosed as we say in chemistry.* Throw for a short gain to regain some yardage and ease the distance for the FG try. But wait, the left tackle held a rusher, who seemed to be falling to the ground anyway, and 10 more yards of penalty cost about 20-25 yards of field position. Incomplete pass. Punt.
Still, not all is lost. Punt fielded on the 10 or so. But the "let'em catch it and run" defense comes through beautifully. Pats march down the field and score...and complete the second consecutive two point conversion. Tie ball game.
Overtime. No criticism of the coin toss. But after that, we watched the let'em catch defense back down the field for the winning touchdown.
Ballgame. What part of football do you not understand?
*Hosed describes an experiment that went so badly that we just bring out the garden hose and wash it all into the sink.
There is an old saying, (or there ought to be and I just invented it) "What part of stupid do you not understand?" One of the axioms in football (see above parenthesis) is that when protecting a lead you do not do dumb stuff. An old coach of the Titans (unnamed) used to "sit" on a three point lead. Once the Titans got a three point lead, he would go into "three rushes into the line, and punt" offensive mode. He said that his defense could and most of the time would protect the lead and we would win.
Atlanta may not have done quite that in SuberPowl (can we say that?) LI, but the fourth quarter had some glaring instances of football savvy being abandoned. Forget that New England was on a roll. Atlanta fumbled the football on a sack.
Most sack-fumbles come on a blind side hit. The QB does not see the rusher coming and loses control of the ball when a freight train hits him at 60 mph. (Or so it seems.) But this sack was right in his face. The good old "tuck rule" would have protected him had he tried to just take the sack. But he tried to throw it with an 8 foot gorilla slamming into him. Mistake number one of the overt kind.
Then the Falcons, who had played "belly button defense" all game long switched to, sadly again, the Titans' favorite pass defense. Early in the game even a completed pass resulted in a defender on the receiver for essentially no yards after catch. Then after the turn over, and the rest of the game they used the 5 yard cushion, backing up at snap, then chasing after the catch. It works like a charm–to lose the game.
Recover onside kick. Good move guy. Then in the waning minutes, they moved into field goal range for the "easy" clinching score. Fantastic catch. Probably the play of the game had they kicked the FG. "No dumb plays." Right? So the first thing is the QB stays in the pocket for a sack. No slipping out the side for a throwaway ala Tom Brady.
Thirteen yard loss. Still not completely messed up or hosed as we say in chemistry.* Throw for a short gain to regain some yardage and ease the distance for the FG try. But wait, the left tackle held a rusher, who seemed to be falling to the ground anyway, and 10 more yards of penalty cost about 20-25 yards of field position. Incomplete pass. Punt.
Still, not all is lost. Punt fielded on the 10 or so. But the "let'em catch it and run" defense comes through beautifully. Pats march down the field and score...and complete the second consecutive two point conversion. Tie ball game.
Overtime. No criticism of the coin toss. But after that, we watched the let'em catch defense back down the field for the winning touchdown.
Ballgame. What part of football do you not understand?
*Hosed describes an experiment that went so badly that we just bring out the garden hose and wash it all into the sink.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
The Sky is Falling
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling." Chicken Little became famous for his role and exclamation in the children's story. He (or is it, she?) is reprising that role in the current protests of the ban on travel from terrorist countries. "Our university systems will be irreparably damaged. Critical research will suffer across the globe. The US will become a second class educational nation. This is not the America that I know." These are just some of the plaintive cries of academics protesting the ban.
Did I say "temporary travel ban?" They make it sound like it is permanent and impenetrable. "No one, ever from anywhere will ever get in again." And did we say that it is from seven countries that are known for terrorism?
Is this an extreme reaction? Absolutely. The flow of immigrants is like a flood bursting through an earthen dam. To save the dam and protect downstream residents, the engineers employ every piece of earth moving equipment at their disposal. They plug the breach in the dam. Only then do they begin to reconstruct the spillway to control the release of water into the river.
The previous administration threw open the floodgates and the dam broke. The primary task is to cut off the uncontrolled release (or entrance in this situation) and then begin to filter out the bad actors and pass the acceptable ones.
Extreme circumstances call for extreme reactions. Once the situation is normalized, we can get back to life as usual. Ninety and 120 days seems like a long time to the people caught in the flood tide. But for the proper controls to be installed, that is a short window. In the long run immigrants will be free from suspicion, having been vetted properly, and the country will be safer.
A second children's story also comes to mind. There once was a little boy who cried, "Wolf!" He did it when there was no real danger. When a real crisis occurred, he cried again, but everybody just assumed that it was another false alarm.
In the past week and a half, everything President Trump has done has been "wrong." The hue and cry has gone out. "Wolf!" If a true emergency occurs the fake adrenaline rushes will numb the populace to the calls and we could end up in real trouble. (Not that we expect any untoward event to happen. But neither did the little boy.)
Speaking of boys, the Boy Scout motto is "Be prepared." That must surely include not overreacting at minor events. The sky is not falling.
Did I say "temporary travel ban?" They make it sound like it is permanent and impenetrable. "No one, ever from anywhere will ever get in again." And did we say that it is from seven countries that are known for terrorism?
Is this an extreme reaction? Absolutely. The flow of immigrants is like a flood bursting through an earthen dam. To save the dam and protect downstream residents, the engineers employ every piece of earth moving equipment at their disposal. They plug the breach in the dam. Only then do they begin to reconstruct the spillway to control the release of water into the river.
The previous administration threw open the floodgates and the dam broke. The primary task is to cut off the uncontrolled release (or entrance in this situation) and then begin to filter out the bad actors and pass the acceptable ones.
Extreme circumstances call for extreme reactions. Once the situation is normalized, we can get back to life as usual. Ninety and 120 days seems like a long time to the people caught in the flood tide. But for the proper controls to be installed, that is a short window. In the long run immigrants will be free from suspicion, having been vetted properly, and the country will be safer.
A second children's story also comes to mind. There once was a little boy who cried, "Wolf!" He did it when there was no real danger. When a real crisis occurred, he cried again, but everybody just assumed that it was another false alarm.
In the past week and a half, everything President Trump has done has been "wrong." The hue and cry has gone out. "Wolf!" If a true emergency occurs the fake adrenaline rushes will numb the populace to the calls and we could end up in real trouble. (Not that we expect any untoward event to happen. But neither did the little boy.)
Speaking of boys, the Boy Scout motto is "Be prepared." That must surely include not overreacting at minor events. The sky is not falling.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Boycott
With all of the interest in boycotting the new President's inauguration I have to confess that I have been remiss. I have boycotted several inaugurations in the past and did not have the decency to announce it to the world so that those who care could tabulate the true numbers of boycotters.
For the record, I have boycotted both inaugurations of Presidents Obama and Clinton. Sorry that I did not let everyone know so that they could keep an accurate count and announce it in the news every other day. I know their statistics will now be skewed by my tardy announcements, but better late than never, I always say.
The world is waiting with bated breath to know the exact count of those who will be missing on January 20 so that they can compare it to the past, or something. I am not sure why the fascination with the number of delinquents, but I want to do my part in keeping the record accurate.
Have a good day, mate.
For the record, I have boycotted both inaugurations of Presidents Obama and Clinton. Sorry that I did not let everyone know so that they could keep an accurate count and announce it in the news every other day. I know their statistics will now be skewed by my tardy announcements, but better late than never, I always say.
The world is waiting with bated breath to know the exact count of those who will be missing on January 20 so that they can compare it to the past, or something. I am not sure why the fascination with the number of delinquents, but I want to do my part in keeping the record accurate.
Have a good day, mate.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Let's Roll
Another Mass Shooting
Another mass shooting and we have innocent, unarmed people dead because only one guy was armed and committed. I have never been in the circumstance, thankfully, and hope to never experience that. But I have determined, before hand, that if anything like that happens I am rushing the shooter.
What if he shoots me? What if I lie down like a sheep and he shoots me anyway. I want to be moving. Ever hear of Rasputin, the Russian monk? His assassins beat, shot, stabbed, and poisoned him. He finally died, but he did a lot o damage in the mean time. If someone starts shooting, I will lead the rush. If nothing else it will distract him and either let someone else subdue him or others escape.
Are Americans so docile or self-centered that they will not “risk” anything to stop a tragedy? We hear of people rushing into burning buildings or other dangerous situations to save someone. What is the difference?
Three air liners flew into buildings with seemingly no resistance. One flew into the ground, completely missing its intended target. I want to be on the “Let’s roll,” plane.
Another mass shooting and we have innocent, unarmed people dead because only one guy was armed and committed. I have never been in the circumstance, thankfully, and hope to never experience that. But I have determined, before hand, that if anything like that happens I am rushing the shooter.
What if he shoots me? What if I lie down like a sheep and he shoots me anyway. I want to be moving. Ever hear of Rasputin, the Russian monk? His assassins beat, shot, stabbed, and poisoned him. He finally died, but he did a lot o damage in the mean time. If someone starts shooting, I will lead the rush. If nothing else it will distract him and either let someone else subdue him or others escape.
Are Americans so docile or self-centered that they will not “risk” anything to stop a tragedy? We hear of people rushing into burning buildings or other dangerous situations to save someone. What is the difference?
Three air liners flew into buildings with seemingly no resistance. One flew into the ground, completely missing its intended target. I want to be on the “Let’s roll,” plane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)