Businesses supplied by green energy

While enjoying an organic mocha over the weekend, the cup told me that Mercury Coffee is a PSE Green Power Partner, receiving 100% of its power from green energy sources.

That's a load of crap - the power grid does not support energy segmentation or dedicated delivery from specific sources to specific customers.  So I looked it up.

When you give PSE money to call yourself a Green Power Partner, PSE uses the money to buy renewable energy certificates (RECs) from green energy providers on your behalf (with some lost to advertising and administerion of the program).  These providers receive the certificates from the state as a proof that they produced energy from green sources.  Certificates are only given to facilities produced after 01/01/1997 so that providers are not rewarded for energy created from processes that existed before the REC system existed.  The energy produced by these facilities is sold separately, just as it is from any power plant.

What does this mean? 

From the provider's point of view, these certificates basically increase the price of electricity produced by green power plants, incentivizing them to create the plants.  The price of these certificates is based on supply and demand - the more people who want to buy them, the more they cost, and the more the providers are rewarded for their energy.  When you buy an REC, you are giving money directly to the green energy providers as a thank you for producing clean energy.

According to Dominion energy, you are "buying the right to claim the environmental benefits that were created by adding that renewable energy to the grid."  So, you're not directly helping the environment, you are purchasing the right to claim you are helping the environment, and participating in a system that gives people the incentive to produce cleaner energy.

What happens to the RECs after you give money to PSE to buy them?  PSE will have a stockpile of RECs that they own.  If they can sell the RECs at a later date, your purchase is useless.  In some states, RECs expire, which alleviates the problems.  Although not explicitly stated, it sounds like if the REC is registered with Green-e (82% of the market), only the first sales is authorized.

I started looking into this assuming that it was a crock.  But it seems legitimate.  I might just have to celebrate with a cup of coffee.

Water and Ice

I took this photo a few months back after an afternoon of wake boarding.

I took it for a few reasons:

• To fill the family foot album
• To remind myself how great water and alcohol mix
• So this post would have a photo

Ontario has very strict boating laws when it comes to alcohol.  You cannot carry alcohol or even have bottle caps in your boat unless the boat has sleeping quarters and a galley, and no alcohol can be consumed unless your boat, which has sleeping quarters and a galley, is anchored or tied to a dock.  You cannot even display alcohol near your boat, such as on the dock, if your boat does not fit this criteria.

So I grew up without even considering the possibility of drinking on the water.  My mind was opened when my American coworkers considered it a necessity.  I gave in.  I brought Smirnoff Ice (from Canada; the malt version here is inferior).  And I relaxed.

Ontarians, you are missing out.  There is something so relaxing about leaving work early, being warmed by the sun, sitting back, riding above the waves, and drinking a Smirnoff Ice.  I can see why people get hooked on boats.  And in that moment of tranquility with the wind blowing past my face, the sun setting, and the music pumping, its easy to realize how great life is.  I took a break from this feeling to take the photo and got straight back to it.

Related to my last post, life is great when you live in the moment.

Also related to my last post, my wife is funny.

I gave her one week to finish what was left of my mom's famous raspberry jam.  Two days pass and the jar remains in the fridge.  Four days pass and it's still there.  Eight days pass and it's still there.  Excited that I had another opportunity to enjoy the jam but still responsible enough to warn my wife, I informed her that I was about to finish the jam if she would not.  She replied that it's already gone.

She continued.  She finished it a week earlier, but didn't want to crush my dreams.  If she put it on the counter or in the sink, I'd see it and be disappointed that it's gone.  But if she left it in the fridge, I'd increasingly get my hopes up all week and then be surprised when I try to eat it.  Then she laughed for a few minutes at her trickery.  Well played, dear.  Well played.

Strawberry on the Shortcake

My wife got a little anxious today when she saw that my mom's raspberry jam was almost gone.  I've been eating it slowly for the past month while she was apparently "saving it."  Now there's about one medium-sized spoonful left, and she wants me to promise that I'll leave it for her.

But I can't do that.  It's the french pastry episode all over again, only this time I'm wiser.  I know that I'll eventually eat the jam; it's just too delicious.  We compromised by giving her a week - if it's not gone in seven days, I will most likely finish it.

The french pastry episode was the first such occasion.  On a trip to Paris, my wife took me to many pastry restaurants, as she's a bit food crazy.  But there was one in particular.  I ordered the best chocolate desert that exists on the planet.  It wasn't just better than the previous best by a little, it was exceptional.  My wife asked for some and I offered her a bite, but she declined; she wanted to wait until she finished her pastry so that her final bite would be perfect.  I replied that this was dangerous, then immediately forgot about the exchange, lost in a haze of chocolaty bliss, and proceeded to eat the entire cake.

And my wife got upset.  After a few years the topic comes up every now and again, though the sting has waned.

So the question is, are you happier when you save the best bite for last and have hope for the future, or are you happier when you enjoy what's in front of you, when you chose to enjoy the present moment?  This is precisely the question posed, quite eloquently and over many episodes, in the Japanese drama Strawberry on the Shortcake, which is, incidentally, my favorite TV drama of all time, though I can't say how well it's aged in 10 years.  The happy characters in the drama eat the strawberry first, and the main character chooses to save it for the end.

My wife saves it for last.  I typically eat half first and the rest at the end, or eat it all at the beginning if that's too much work.  My friends notice that I exhibit the same pattern at buffets - I'll grab desert with my first run of food, then go back for more food and desert, followed by a third round of desert if I can fit it in.

In SOS, the metaphor was clear - people who eat the strawberry first are the extroverts who enjoy life; people who eat it last are the introverts who wish they had more fun.  I guess I'm both.  I don't have to guess - I am both.  A university friend of mine confirmed this.  Liv was a psych major and surreptitiously gave me a psychological test.  The end result showed that I was both introverted and extroverted - not somewhere in between, mind you - I lived at both ends of the spectrum.

While SOS leans one way, the marshmallow study shows that kids who delay gratification go on to have more "successful" lives.  Maybe there is no definite answer to the strawberry question, but I suspect that it's better to be somewhere in between, or live happily at both ends, with some very good raspberry jam.

Tying your shoes

Sound interesting?  Probably not.  But you too may be a victim of incorrect shoe tying.

It started with the shoes I bought for my dad's second wedding.  The thick laces always looked crooked when tied.  One day a few years ago I sat down to solve the problem and discovered another way to tie my shoes - pushing to loop up instead of down made all the difference.  Plus, the knot was tighter.

My wife laughed at me when I told her the story but it turns out that a lot of people get it wrong.  (the last link is from Sesame Street))

And yesterday I saw a TED talk on the same topic.

Two things:
1. Some dumb things really aren't; and
2. I could have given a TED talk.

Before writing this post I tested it out on a friend and it turned out he was doing it wrong his whole life, which required him to double knot.

Who's laughing now?

Probably you.  At me.  I'm okay with that.

Raspberry Jam Smackdown: Resurrection

We have a new contender in The Great Raspberry Jam Eat-Off of 2012.

My mom, after reading the previous post, was both intrigued by the possibility of making jam without pectin and the prospect of winning a cooking challenge.  Greaves Jam, as I'm sure you recall, did not list pectin in the ingredients list but I assumed it was included.  As it turns out, jam can be made pectin-free, which translates to less sugar and much more finickiness in the cooking process.

Mom entered the contest.  And things just got interesting.

So let's have a look at our new contender and Greaves, the undisputed winner of our last round:

Greaves	Sugar Raspberries (I assume it has pectin)
Mommy-san's	Sugar Raspberries (order assumed as there was no label)

From last time, we judged the jams on the following factors:

• Aroma
• Taste
• Consistency
• Sweetness
• Raspberriness
• Existence of little bits

And here's how it turned out.

Greaves	Light aroma A little sweet Good consistency Rich raspberry taste Has bits	Wife: Good Me: Good
Mommy-san's	Almost no aroma Good color A little thick Extra rich raspberry taste Lots of bits Perfect sweetness No label	Wife: Good Me: Great

Mommy-san's is the only jam that wasn't too sweet for me.  The first taste that hits your tongue upon eating Greaves is sweetness, and the raspberries come later.  With Mommy-san, the raspberries come first, and they linger wonderfully.  My wife likes the punchiness of Greaves' taste, though I find it a little fake on account of the sweetness.  My hat tips towards Greaves for aroma, little bits (M-san has a bit too many), and consistency.

Wife's ranking: Greaves, and almost tied, M-san's, with a big gap before the other 5.
My ranking: M-san's, Greaves 'cause it just tasted so much better.

On average, I'd have to give a slight victory to Mommy-san's, or at least that would have been the verdict had my mom not warned me about hers becoming thinker when cold.

So in the fridge they went.

And two days later, a retest.  Same great taste but much thicker - unfortunately unspreadable.

With the unexpected new post-refridgerated spreadiness factor, Greaves wins slightly.  Sorry, mom.  I will accept further entries in the future, if you are so inclined.

Queen is a bad word now

I just wasted my time reading this article.  It's about a girl who was "picked to be the female representative of the sophomore class royalty."  I had to read that sentence a few times to figure out what the author was [not] saying.

Does the author have HUAD or has society crumbled to the point where we can no longer say "queen"?

The case of the unclaimed toothbrush

My wife and I keep our toothbrushes in a shared container.  A bucket, if you will.  Most of the time there's no incident but on Friday night I went to grab my toothbrush but it wasn't there.   Neither of the two were mine.  While one clearly belonged to my wife, the other was mostly unknown.  The right shape, but dirty and the wrong color.  My wife laughed and said that I've been using it for months.

Now, she's not devious.  There is no deviousness in her.

So who's wrong?  Have I been using the toothbrush for months and totally forgot it or did Betsy switch mine for a fake and then forget?

In any case, I got a grey one.  I have always wondered why all toothbrushes are pastel colors.  There's got to be a big enough market for black and grey ones.

The Digital Life, Temporarily Lived

People the world over harp on the greatness of smart phones in their lives - they live a life augmented by the digital and love it.  Those who love it too much claim they are addicted.  These people read more web pages, see more maps, read more reviews, and are more connected to their digital friends.

I'm very much on the other end of the spectrum.  I like my world to be tangible.  I find the real world much more interesting than 140 character brain excretions, and I think subways are far more fun than the facebook updates that seem to engage other riders.  My phone makes phone calls and my present companion typically gets my attention.

I also like my world to be explorable and surprising.  I don't need to find the best restaurant, see the best movie, take the most direct route, or know that it is exactly 23°C somewhere close to where I am right now.

So, in a recent trip to Korea, I tried out how the other half live.  I brought an iPhone on my vacation, loaded with friend restaurant recommendations, friend attraction recommendations, maps, weather, email, facebook, games, and Korean language references.  I did not have 3G coverage so I only had internet connectivity at coffee shops and such, but I was ready to see life augmented by others.

Here was my routine.

1. Each day my wife and I planned on going somewhere from the list of restaurants and attractions.  My friend Ferdinand is quite picky about food so we could trust his recommendations.  Throughout the day I would look at this list to remember where we should go.  At the hotel, I would search for the restaurants (if named) so I could see them on a map.  When walking to the restaurant, I would consult the map to see if we were on track.
2. At restaurants and interesting places I would mark the GPS location in Life Map to create a map of our trip.  I would often also check for free wireless access and try to connect to refresh web pages or check email; this rarely worked.
3. When my wife was doing something that didn't involve me, I would try to check work email.  I didn't trust my personal email account since I don't know if the gmail app uses HTTPS.  I was unable to determine this via search.
4. On the subway I would look at Life Map to see where we've been.  I would also follow cached online lessons to learn to read Korean.
5. Since most of our destinations were marked on tourist maps, I used 3D Compass Max to find out how follow the map upon exiting the subway.  I did notice two subway map installations in downtown Seoul had mislabeled compass directions.
6. I added items to my books-to-read and bring-when-travelling lists whenever I came across something interesting.
7. When taking photos, I used either the phone or my real camera.
8. When time was important, I used the phone as a clock.  In the hotel I used it as an alarm clock, though there was probably one in the room.

I felt compelled to check for wifi signals often, like the phone was beckoning me to try, just one more time, just one more wireless access point.  I didn't feel compelled to read work email, but I did it anyway when I had a few minutes alone.  I did not play any games and did not access Facebook.  I checked the weather a few times, but it was far less accurate than just looking at the sky.

The restaurants from Ferdinand's list were generally good, often very much so.  When walking to the restaurants I was more concerned with following the map than noticing the city.  I was more concerned with finding the right restaurants than finding ones that looked interesting, though they usually were.  At the rice museum I had plum tea, just as Ferdinand did, even though the pumpkin latte sounded more appealing.  As it turns out, my wife ordered the pumping latte, which was not great, while the plum tea was wonderful.

The ultimate question then is whether the phone made my vacation more enjoyable.

Honestly, I didn't particularly like the end result.  I don't enjoy the feeling of an inanimate object controlling my actions - it had too much influence and I can see how people become addicted.  At no point did I have any love for the phone - people who do are crazy.  I, instead, felt a certain slave to my own devices.

I did appreciate having a compass at the ready.  The clock and alarm clock were helpful.  Carrying a small camera was a huge bonus.  Being able to add to my lists was good.  And learning to read Korean was both valuable and rewarding.   It looks like I appreciated many of the things I used the phone for but not the overall experience.  How can this be?

The distinction is dependency.  I prefer to decide when to use my tools rather than them deciding when they need my attention.  Accessing restaurant information required me to check for wifi at coffee shops.  Keeping a Life Map log required me to check-in at interesting places.  Since the phone is made of glass, both front and back(!), I had to give constant care to make sure it didn't get scratched, with no keys or coins in the same pocket and certainly no dropping it.  This also adequately explains my dislike of Twitter, Facebook, politics, and the news, where maintaining relevance requires constant attention - my artificial technological being (geographical log, digital friend connection, knowledge of future weather, current events or "issues") will shrivel if I don't stroke it every once in a while - there is an urgency that the technology tries to impart on my life.

Then the distinction between myself and others is in the belief in the value of these intangible things.  The iPhone is targeted at people who think that visiting the best restaurants, following politics, knowing the most recent opinion of friends, knowing the current temperature, and understanding the current media issues are valuable in and of themselves.  I say the time spent cultivating these things could be better spent daydreaming or calculating pi, perhaps while enjoying a plum tea.

Better Coffee

Adversity certainly breeds creativity.  I may have brewed the best mocha pot mocha in existence.

Coming back form Korea, I came home to a woefully milkless house (or more correctly, a house with some likely spoiled goat's milk).  I didn't remember this in the morning (at 5:00am) as I made a necessary cup of coffee.  We did, however, have evaporated milk.  I can't claim this is better than the best espresso based mocha, but I haven't had better coffee from the mocha pot.

Here's the recipe:
1. Grid some fresh organic chocolate-themed Cafe Vita Theo blend coffee beans using a burr grinder at medium grain.
2. Boil water using an electronic kettle.  This is better than boiling it in the mocha pot, as the extended time on the stove can burn the coffee or leave a slightly metallic taste.
3. Add Ghiradelli semi sweet chocolate chips to a coffee mug. This is a little sweeter than the 60% cocoa chips I usually use.
4. Fill the mocha pot with boiling water.  Cover the chocolate chips with a little boiling water to melt them.
5. Add coffee grounds and place on the stove, medium heat.  Leave the mocha pot lid open so you can observe the coffee progress.
6. As the coffee is brewing - it'll take about a minute - stir melted chocolate and add evaporated milk to the wet chocolate chips.  This is now like smooth milk.  Heat this in a microwave (you should have one!) for 45 seconds.  Stir again.
7. When the coffee is honey colored, it is almost done.  Close the lid and remove from heat.  Let it sit for about 15 more seconds then pour into the chocolate milk.
8. Stir and Enjoy.

Of course, the next day we were out of the semi sweet chocolate chips so I used 60% cocoa.  It wasn't sweet enough so I added marshmallows.  I also let the coffee sit for 45 seconds instead of 15 and it was a little burned.  Don't fall into either of these traps.

A Taste of Buddhism

I have decided once again to look into Buddhism.

This will be the second time.  From the beginning I was intrigued by Buddhism.  It's message seemed close enough to my own beliefs that it warranted some study.  So as an elementary school graduation prize, I chose a The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan which I started to read in my first year of high school.  Looking at my bookmark, I got through about 20% before giving up.

These were the days before the Amazon.com, before user reviews, and before the internet.  So my book choice was mostly random.  It took a scholarly approach to teaching about Buddhism, speaking dryly of the beliefs and going into great detail the differences between the lower vehicle and greater vehicle as if that was important.  It would be like teaching someone about Christianity by telling them the differences between Anglicans and Protestants.  The information may be interesting to historians but it's not important. 

Side note:  I do not know the difference betwen Anglicans and Protestants so I looked it up; the first link did not exactly clerify things.

This book turned me off my adventure.  I never dropped the desire to learn about Buddhism but I lost the drive.  Now as an adult I can look back at that experience and see that it was just the wrong book for me.  And I have the power to choose whatever book I like!  I chose What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.  The title seems to imply that it describes the teachings of the Buddha, which is what I'm looking for.  However, despite the existance of Amazon.com, user reviews, and the internet, I bought this book at a local Half Price Books after reading the name and the back cover, not even considering to use all the fancy technology that would have saved me in the first place.

Second side note:  It is interesting to note how important a single experience can be in shaping one's path; a single bad book had the power to derail for more than 16 years an investigation I cared about and deemed important.

In high school I did walk away with a vague idea of some aspects of Buddhism and as I grew to understand Christianity I did not find many great differences between Christianity and my vague ideas of Buddhism.

I'll let you know what I turn up.  Might the Buddha's gospel of peace and detachment be similar to my beliefs?  Might Christianity and Buddhism turn out to be similar?  Might this new book be as unhelpful as the first?  Tune in to find out.

Raspberry Jam Smackdown

Mark this day.  Someday someone will ask you where you were during The Great Raspberry Jam Eat-Off of 2012.  That day was today.

Our baseline, Greaves jam, is made in Niagara on the Lake and only available in Ontario, so we started looking for an alternative.  Greaves lists two ingredients - raspberries and sugar - so we want a jam that is similar.  No fruit juice concentrate, no corn syrup, and raspberries better be listed before sugar!  Finding such jam was remarkably difficult.  Everything in the US seems to be made from corn syrup.

Here are the top 5 contenders (and Schmucker's, which we bought out of desperation earlier):

Greaves	Sugar Raspberries (I assume it has pectin)
365	White grape juice concentrate Raspberries Cranberry concentrate Fruit pectin	We bought this because it's the Whole Foods brand, so it must be natural or free-range or something.
The Snohomish Nut House	Raspberries Sugar Pectin	Bonus: local from a farmer's market
Schmucker's	Fruit syrup Red Raspberries Lemon juice concentrate Fruit pectin Natural flavors	I bought this because it said "simply fruit" without reading the ingredients
Crofter's	Organic Raspberries Organice cane sugar Apple pectin Ascorbic acid (vitamine C) Citric acid	Bonus: organic!
Maury Island	Red Raspberries Sugar Fruit pectin	Bonus: local

From this lineup, only Greaves and the two local brands fit our requirements.  We decided to give the organic one a shot too so we can feel good about ourselves and be snobbish towards people who eat non-organic jam.

Eaten on their own, all jams were too sweet, some more than others.  My wife and I prefer it to be less than sickly sweet.

We judged the jams on a variety of factors, as one would judge fine wine:

• Aroma
• Taste
• Consistency
• Sweetness
• Raspberriness
• Existence of little bits (which make it look less processed)

And here's how it turned out.

Greaves	Light aroma A little sweet Good consistency Rich raspberry taste Has bits	Wife: Good Me: Good
365	Looks weird - dark purple Almost no smell Not sweet, per say No raspberry taste Too smooth No bits	Wife: "Ghar!" Me: Take it back; I won't eat it
The Snohomish Nut House	Slight raspberry smell Quite sweet (Wife: good sweetness) Very(!) red Me: Good consistency Wife: Too mushy Has bits	Wife: Goodish Me: Too sweet
Schmucker's	Stronger smell Fairly sweet Too Gelatinous	Wife: Too Gelatiny, not enough taste Me: Too Gelatinous
Crofter's	Looks fake - too consistent color Quite sweet Jelly-like.  Feels like a puree Firm raspberry taste Faint smell Bits have same color (weird)	Wife: Good, but a little too mushy Me: Ok.  A little sweet, too mushy,  good taste
Maury Island	Good color Good consistency Quite sweet Great(!) tart raspberry taste Sweet aftertaste is strong	Wife: Good, but a little too sweet Me: Good; great taste but too sweet

Wife's ranking: Greaves, Crofter's, Maury Island, Nut House, Schmucker's, 365
My ranking: Greaves / Maury Island (tie), Nut House, Crofter's, Schmucker's, 365

So the sad truth is that Greaves still wins - we're still stuck shipping jam from Ontario.  Also, but not sad, the top three were precisely the ones made from only raspberries, sugar, and pectin.

To celebrate, we also bought a rhubarb raspberry mix.  It wasn't very good.

And now we have six open jars of jam to finish.

Jury Nullification

In a recent conversation with coworkers about the law, I mentioned that, even if a defendant is guilty of a crime, the jurors need not convict if they think the law in unjust in that case.  My two coworkers, both American, completely disagreed.  It may work that way in Canada, but not here.  One had been on a jury and knew for a fact that the jury must judge based on the law; the trial judge informed him of this. 

This stance makes little sense since the purpose of the jury in America is to be judged by a panel of your peers.  Jurors have only one job, and that is to determine if someone should be punished for their crime.  To do this, the juror must:

1. Determine if the person has committed the crime
2. And if so, determine if the person should be punished for his actions.

If the prosecutor cannot convince twelve people that the defendant is guilty, then the case is not strong enough to send the defendant to prison.  If the twelve people are not convinced that the application of the law is just, the case is not strong enough to send the defendant to prison.  This is how laws are changed.  Judges only have the power to enforce the law, while the people have the power to change them.

Being diligent and preferring to win, I looked it up.

The practice is called jury nullification because jurors have the right to nullify a law that they see as unjust.  It is written in the constitution and John Adams, the second American president, had this to say:

"It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

It is of little surprise that judges are against jury nullification and prevent the defence from informing the jury of their power.  People in power like to stay in power.  I can see how someone might be annoyed that after years of dedication to the law a layman still has more power to decide a case.

What is surprising is that jury nullification is less acceptable in Canada.  The judge has the power to override a jury ruling if nullification was employed and the case can be appealed on grounds of nullification.

It is important for people to understand this right, since in America people have about a 33% chance of appearing on a jury in their lifetime.  More importantly, it may go some way to teaching people the difference between what is right and what is legal.  I find it alarming the number of times people use the law as a substitute for thought.  "What was wrong with his actions?"  "He broke the law!"  That's not an argument.  That's a cop-out.

Bad drivers, big cars

A friend of mine said that when she was younger she was a bad driver, so her mom bought her a big Jeep.  She got in a few accidents and each time the other cars were damaged but the Jeep was barely scratched.  Good thinking on the mom's part!

I find it odd that we live in a society where this is the norm.  In any other circumstance, if you heard "he's not competent so we put him in charge of the heavy machinery," would you be so quick to accept it?

This is not a statement about my friend (who's great and, of course, would accept a free car) or her mother (whom I don't know and, of course, would want to protect her daughter), but do other cultures enjoy this sense of entitlement?  Or do they work to make society better and safer?

Slightly more vegetables: three weeks later

I'm giving up on the diet.  After three weeks I have gained two pounds and, by the look of my stomach, none of it is muscle.  This is, by far, the fastest I have gained weight in my adult life.  It took a year at the gym to gain 2.5 pounds, so it is indeed significant.

The correlation is by no means scientific, however; my weight gain may be caused exercising less, for example, but I haven't been exercising much less.

I suspect it's the food.  I'm guessing that fruit simply has a lot of calories.  By entertaining a diet high in fruits and vegetables, I convinced myself that snacking on fruits throughout the day was healthy.  It may be a healthy alternative to snacking on chips and chocolate, but it's not necessarily a healthy alternative to snacking on nothing.

I'm still keeping up eating more fruits and vegetables than before, but gone are the days like the following:

Breakfast: Greek yogurt with stevia, a handful of berries, topped with some grainy cereal
Lunch: A small strip of steak, a dollop of pork, broccoli, mushrooms, asparagus, brussel sprouts, and a small cheese bread
Snack: A bowl of berries, lychee, grapes, a banana, or a peach; occasionally carrots
Dinner: Spinach, mushrooms, a handfuls of berries, raisins, nuts, a little cheese, and some meat

So long pseudo-healthy lifestyle.  Welcome back apparently-healthier pizza-and-saussage extravaganza!

Idolatry

Every once in a while while sitting in church I wonder what sermon I would give if it were my duty.  I always come back to the same thing - idol worship.  A few years ago I attended a sermon on idolatry; the sermon covered things like the worshiping other gods, statues, etc., and caring about money, cars, sports, fame, spouse/significant other, and sex more than God.

These are all bad things, sure, but I think it misses the big ticket item that many Christians need to understand.  I would add two items to the list: your kids, and, the big one, God.

Let's get the first one out of the way.  It's easy for people to sit back and say "I don't put money before everything else in my life" but suggest that their kids should not fill that role and they become hysterical.  While I say this from the perspective of someone without children, there are more important things than your kids.

Next, God.  How can God be an idol that detracts from my relationship with God, you may ask.  Here's how: many people don't worship God.  They worship "God."  The quotation marks are important, here indicating the word.  People create a mental image of God, combining, perhaps, passages from the Bible, sermons they've heard, and personal experience, then use this as a proxy for God, believing it to be Him.  They may worship a god who is like a father to them, or a god who sent his only son do die for them, or perhaps worship the son who died for them.  These mental images of God are just that.  These are ideas that are summarized in the few words of the Bible.

Often these images of God are extrapolations of passages from the Bible.  "God Hates Gays," says the picketers.  How do they know?  Because there are a few passages of the Bible that mention homosexuality in a negative light.  "You should love your neighbor, " says someone else.  Why do they believe this?  Because the Bible mentions loving your neighbor a few times.  They have created a model for God based on passages of the Bible, a model which they can understand and refer to instead of going back to the source.

In fact, I have heard many times Christians say that if you have a question you should go to the source - go to the Bible.  The Bible is not the source.  God is the source.  The Bible is a collection of pointers that people can use to prepare them to know God.  Jesus' messages were lessons meant to prepare people to know God.  There is a Buddhist saying that I like quite a bit.  It's summarized as "the finger that points to the moon is not the moon."  Here is one version of the story:

Wu Jincang, the nun, asked the Patriarch Huineng, “I have studied the Mahaparinirvana Sutra for many years, yet there are many areas I do not quite understand. Please enlighten me.” 

The patriarch responded, “I am illiterate. Please read out the Sutra to me and perhaps I will be able to explain its meaning.” 

The nun said, “You cannot even read the Sutra!  How are you able to understand the meaning?” 

“Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?”

Bringing it back to Christianity - don't confuse the Bible with the opinions of God.  A more kosher way of saying this: don't confuse knowing the Bible with knowing God.  In fact, this is a message that Jesus repeated many times.  The Pharisees knew the Bible inside and out but neither did they understand its meaning or God.  They used the Bible to create a model for God and then based their laws on the model rather than the real thing.

Are you worshiping an image of God instead of the real thing?  One way to find out is ask yourself what God is like; what Godly rules to you follow?  If you have to rely on your memory, on things you read in the Bible or learned in church, then you're hindering yourself.  God wants you (or at least me, but I assume you too) to love everyone, not because Jesus said so, but because that's the way He is.

This reminds me of the book of Genesis.  Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and were forever separated from God.  The most common explanation I have heard is that the knowledge is a metaphor for sex.  This never sat well with me, as it doesn't fit with the tree's name, the separateness of human and animals (animals also have sex), or with the fall of man.  It seems more like an extrapolation from people who have demonized sex based on their own extrapolations of other Bible verses.  My pastor explained it in a sermon as the knowledge of right and wrong - that the Devil persuaded Adam and Eve to eat of the tree so that they would know what is good and evil and rely on themesleves instead of relying on God for this knowledge.  They would know what God knows and, by extension, be as great as God.

This ties back neatly to my point - by creating models of God in our mind, by relying on the words in the Bible or our own intellect, we trick ourselves into thinking that we know what God knows and we no longer rely on Him.

There are also more tangible idols closely related to Christianity.  The cross or crucifix are images of God that we can easily turn into an idol.  From Exodus 20 we see that God does not want any image of Himself created:

Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold...If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.

And I find it interesting that God appeared to people as ideas that are difficult to visualize.  He appeared as fire, a pillar of smoke, and as a whisper.  These are things you cannot easily carve.  He made it impossible for us to create a picture of Him, perhaps because he knew that if we could picture him we would, and we would no longer know him but our picture instead.  From Deuteronomy 4:

You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars — all the heavenly array — do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

In the midst of writing this entry I was surprised.  My pastor gave a sermon on idolatry (not the surprising part, as we're in a series on the Ten Commandments).  He spoke of how we can create an image of God in our mind and that becomes an idol to us.  He also mentioned other potential idols that Christians may not see as such: the cross and crucifix, the church building, candles and incense, pictures of Jesus, a hymnal, your spouse and your kids.  I cannot claim that my pastor would agree with this post, as I take the idea slightly further than he, and in a more confrontational way, but it was refreshing to hear him bring up these issues.  Letters from Jesus' disciples to old churches, which make up much of the New Testament, often dealt with controversial or painful issues that the people needed to hear.

More from Exodus 20:

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.

Can do lists

You don't like to-do lists.  Same as me.  Good, you might like this idea.

'Can-do lists'

There it is.  I read The Happiness Project by Gretchen Rubin on the way to Australia.  I don't normally like books written by women, but the premise had promise.  Anyway, she said one thing like liked.  In order to decrease the weight of unfinished tasks in her life, she decided to not put off any task that takes less than a minute.  Seemed like good advice, so I thought I'd try it.  Only make it better.

I don't like to-do lists; they don't work for me.  I don't have any interest in letting an inanimate piece of paper tell me what to do.  And if the task is added by my wife, then it degenerates to a vicarious nag.  But can-do lists, now that's another story.  I don't have to do anything on them, but they'll probably make my life better.

Since I don't like lists, I made four: a list of 1-minute tasks, 5-minute, few-hours, and important tasks.  Now, if I have 5 minutes to spare and a desire to get something done, I have a place to look, but no rush.

In order that these remain positive in my mind, I have two rules:

1. It only contains tasks I want to accomplish - that I think will make my life better.

2. My wife cannot suggest a task for me to add - it's all me.

And there it is.  My smart phone has been essential in this endeavor.  As soon as I think of something interesting, I can add it to a list and not be concerned about forgetting.

Problem sovled.

Recycled toilet paper

Earlier this week I watched a presentation on positive behavior control.  In one example, one set of people were told that they use two large trees worth of toilet paper in their lives and another set were told the same thing but also asked to visualize cutting down two large virgin forest trees.  The second set of people were much more likely to use recycled toilet paper after the session.

That's great, compelling stuff.  But I don't buy it (by default).  The unspoken assumption is that if you use recycled toilet paper, you'll save two trees.

Since only one third of paper made in the US is from recycled paper, that means that all recycled paper is used (otherwise we wouldn't be cutting down trees to fulfill the need).  So, if you use two trees worth of recycled paper, you're taking two trees worth of pulp out of the pool of paper-pulp, which must be filled by cutting down two trees.  That is, you're not saving trees.  But that's just my estimate; let's do the math!

Let's start with the facts:
1. Paper can be recycled about 6 times.
2. 1/3 of paper comes from recycled sources
3. Used toilet paper is not recycled :)

Let's make some assumptions:
1. People recycle virgin paper at the same rate as recycled paper (given a piece of paper, you don't decide to recycle it based on where it came from).
2. All recycled paper is used (recycling facilities don't throw out recycled paper because there is too much).

So, let's calculate the percentage of paper that is recycled.  It should be close to 33%.  Let's call this "m"

The pool of paper pulp has equal parts paper, wood chips, and recycled paper.  Given 1/2 a tree, 1/2 a tree's worth of chips, there is 1/2 a tree's worth of recycled paper.  That is, one trees worth of wood creates 1.5 trees worth of pulp if recycled 6 times; or one trees worth of wood creates:
    m trees worth of 1st generation recycled paper
    m^2 trees worth of 2nd gen paper

    m^3 trees worth of 3nd gen paper

    m^4 trees worth of 4nd gen paper

    m^5 trees worth of 5nd gen paper

    m^6 trees worth of 6nd gen paper

There is no 7th gen recycled paper.

That means that m + m^2 + m^3 + m^4 + m^5  + m^6 = 1/2 a tree.  Solving this gives m = 0.333640134.

Reality check:  0.333650134 is close to the 33% that we'd expect.

What happens if we use 1st gen recycled paper for toilet paper?  How many trees have to be cut down to make one unit of recycled paper?  K trees create K*m trees worth of recycled paper, so K*m = 1 or K = 1 /  m = 2.997.
So, 2.997 trees creates 2.997 + 1 = 3.997 units of paper instead of the maximum potential of 2.997 * 1.5 = 4.495.  So, 4.495 - 3.997 = 0.4986 potential trees are wasted.
The total number of trees cut down is to make your toilet paper is
    N = 2 / (efficiency of using 1st gen / efficiency of using virgin wood)
    N = 2 / ( (1 + 0.4986)^(-1) / 1.5^(-1) )
    N = 2 * ( 1 + 0.4986 ) / 1.5
    N = 1.99616
You could write this as 2/m - 4/3*(1/m) = 1.99616 (which I derived by gathering the terms in the above paragraph and simplifying; we'll double-check this a little later).

If you use 2nd gen, you cut down 2/m^2 - 4/3*(1/m^2 + 1/m) = 1.992 trees
If you use 3rd gen, you cut down 2/m^3 - 4/3*(1/m^3 + 1/m^2 + 1/m) = 1.976 trees
For 4th gen, you cut down 1.926
For 5th gen, you cut down 1.778
For 6th gen, you cut down 1.333

Reality check:  If you use 6th gen paper, you waste nothing because it can't be recycled again - it'll be thrown out anyway.  In this best case, 2 trees create 3 trees worth of paper (using the 1.5 factor), so it would take 3/2 = 1.333 trees to create the two trees you needed to wipe your butt.  This is what we calculated above so the math works out :)

Now, our last step.  If you use recycled paper, you get mostly 1st gen paper, less 2nd gen, etc.  And we have the percentages above: m/0.5 1st gen, m^2/0.5 2nd gen, etc.
So, on average, you'd cut down 1/0.5 * (m*1.992 + m^2*1.976 + ... + m^6*1.333) = 1.990 trees.

1.99 trees is really close to 2 trees.  That is, you cut down the same number of trees if you use recycled paper as non-recycled paper.

So, does this mean you shouldn't use recycled toilet paper?  Not necessarily. There is some talk that toilet paper comes from virgin forest rather than tree farms.  I can't tell how true this is.  If tree farms are going unused in favor of toilet paper companies using virgin forest trees, then using recycled paper saves virgin forests.  According to this article, 9% of paper comes from virgin wood, and it would certainly be good to decrease that.  9% is pretty small though - it's conceivable that the no virgin trees are cut down for paper and the 9% comes from the wood chips left over from cutting down virgin trees for other purposes.

There is also a macro economic argument that if people buy more recycled toilet paper, the price of recycled paper will go up and business and government will persuade the people to recycle more (such as how certain states will buy back aluminum cans and beer bottles).  I expect that one person has little effect on this.

The real lesson, however, is how important it is to recycle.  The more people recycle (above 33%), the more paper each tree can produce.  If we recycle 100% of paper, then each tree can produce 7 trees worth of paper.  This is, of course, assuming that it is better for the environment to recycle paper than to cut down trees from tree farms.  An International Institute for Environment and Development study states that:
“Most of the studies support the view that recycling and incineration are environmentally preferable to landfill. There is less agreement on whether recycling is preferable to incineration. Critical factors are the nature of the pulp and paper making process, the level of technology at all stages of the life cycle and the energy structure of the countries under study. Interpretation also plays a role in weighing up of increases in some emissions against reductions in others.”

Overall, the best plan is to simply use less paper.  Everyone, wipe with your hands :)

Slightly more vegetables: one week later

Inspired by my mom's decision to eat and live healthier, my friend's obsession with testing diet myths, and the decreasing price of produce as summer arrives, my wife and I decided a week ago to eat more fruits and vegetables.

Here's the plan: eat at least one significant serving of vegetables and fruit every day.  By a significant serving, I mean that half of the meal has to be fruits and vegetables.  And the following don't count: rice/grains, potatoes, peanut butter, and alcohol (yes, even amaretto).

Okay, so it's not a 7-day water diet followed a month of Savannah eating, but it's something.

Two days we had salad for dinner - spinach, nuts, cheese, sausage, berries, and a vinaigrette.  Other days it was asparagus, broccoli, bok choy, and mushrooms.

And the result after week one: I can't sleep.  5 hours a night most nights.  I go most months without sleeping pills but this week I've had two.  Let's hope it's not related to the vegetables.

Of Stars and Trash

For the inaugural entry, let's talk about everyone's favorite subject - celebrity gossip.

I'm not at all into celebrity gossip or the personal lives of movie stars.  They entertain us, that is all - they are not our friends, our heroes, our lives, or our role models.  We should not expect them to behave well off camera, we should not be recording their phone conversations, and there is no need to buy magazines detailing their actions.

I have never been interested in the celebrity magazines, which is why it was so surprising that I couldn't help but snatch one off the shelf a few weeks ago.  I even skimmed through an article.

Stepping back two weeks, in the airport awaiting my plane to Australia, I had a conversation with someone in the movie scene.  We were talking about how much crap is in the celebrity gossip magazines, how much of it is complete fabrication.  And she gave a few examples, one being the perfect marriage stories of John Travolta.  "And everyone knows he's gay," she exclaimed; "he's sleeping with one of my friends."

That small encounter made me a happy - I was glad to have this inside information.  And then when the story came out, I was intrigued.  I knew something before the rest of the world!  It's completely unimportant, but there are millions of people who care and I knew it before them.

And there it is; there's the draw.  Maybe people read these magazines to feel like they know something, no matter how insignificant, before their friends.  I don't care about John Travolta and I don't care that he's gay, but do enjoy knowing that I found out before the world.

That feeling lasted for a few seconds before the thrill of wondering if the leak had something to do with me.  Did someone overhear our conversation in the airport?  Did I have an effect on the gossip that millions of people will read?

I suppose it's only a small step between being happy that you knew something useless before the entire world and being happy that you knew something useless earlier than your friends.