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.