Nicholsclan Blog

NRG - The Next Generation

We're hearing a lot about energy policy in the current political debate, but most of it is focused in areas that are nearly irrelevant. Both candidates support (at least with words) the idea of energy independence, use of renewable or non polluting energy sources, and increased domestic oil production. The major difference being that the GOP position is best summed up by the title of Newt Gingrich's new book, "Drill Here, Drill Now." While the Democrats (along with most every geologist and economist in the country) seem to think that drilling everywhere domestically is a short-sighted strategy with only minor long term effect. But there is also wide agreement that oil companies prefer the GOP strategy and there is a feel-good political aspect to it that resonates well with people who have the political attention spans of... well... most Americans.

But few people, and fewer politicians are talking about the real long term energy strategy needed and what that means to America far outside the realm of gas prices. Energy technology is the next economic wave. Not oil, not natural resources, but the technology associated with clean efficient energy production, distribution, and consumption of all forms of energy. Post WWII, we developed an industrial manufacturing base unrivaled in the world. In the 1960's, we began an electronics revolution that wove the computer and the Internet into the very fabric of modern life. But those waves are have passed. The next wave is most likely energy technology (ET).

When we think about ET, we tend to think only in terms of reducing foreign oil dependency. While that's important, it is far too short sighted. Yes, we need to reach a point where the Mid-East does not have a disproportionate influence on our foreign policy. But close on the heels of the Mid-East, we have a looming trade deficit with China and a credit issue with Russia and other countries on the ascendancy that won't need to win a war with us, they can simply foreclose. More than cheap gas, we need an exportable product of our own. Something that will carry us well into the century as the economic power we've come to enjoy being. And remember, it is that sustained economic power that enables us to be the political and military Goliath that we have come to take such pride in being. It is also that economic prowess that will provide jobs, rebuild our domestic infrastructure, educate our children, provide universal health care, shore up Social Security, and raise our standard of living. It all hinges on us finding a way to fuel economic growth, not our SUVs.

Both candidates recognize that economic growth is key. They differ over how to get there in the next four years, but honestly neither of them has yet illuminated a vision for what achieves growth over the coming decades. The answer is ET. We are, for the time being, the most innovative country on the planet. We possess the capability to find technical solutions for economically producing, storing, distributing, and efficiently using energy in multiple forms. In the short term this solves our domestic energy consumption and pollution problems. But while we're doing that, countries like China, India, and Russia are polluting themselves into oblivion (have you seen the "mist" in Beijing?), and increasing their own dependency on an oil resource which, over the next few decades, will be globally in short supply. And guess who'll have the answer, and be willing to sell it to them at a tidy profit? That's right, the good 'ol US of A.

Gee, you're thinking, that sounds swell. But how do we get there? Well "my friends" (sorry, just trying to appeal to any Republicans out there) the answer is government sponsorship.

I know, I know, you're thinking that the government can't possibly be the answer to anything, but let's look at history. During WWII, FDR incented and challenged industry to build up its manufacturing capability to support the war. The post war result was an unparalleled manufacturing infrastructure repurposed for domestic production. That boom created the new American middle class and decades of "happy days". In the 1960s, JFK challenged America to beat the Russians to the moon. The money that was poured into the fundamental research required to get us into space fueled the high tech industries which made our modern life possible. Those achievements would never have been made without government sponsorship and inspiration. The free market alone would never have driven innovation at that rate.

Something similar is required now. There are two key ingredients to make it happen. One is an external focal point. We have spent seven years now fixated on Islamic terrorism. It's time to let that go. They are an unworthy enemy, and in the greater scheme they are unimportant. Once we achieve our ET goal, we won't have reason to meddle in the affairs of the Mid-East, and they will move on and hate someone else. Will we get a bloody nose or two in the meantime? Probably, and we need to do what we can to minimize that. But we can't let it paralyze us. The real threat, the real enemy, is China. And no, I don't mean enemy in the sense that they are evil and want us all to burn. (Quite the opposite, they want us to thrive, to a degree. We are funding their ascendancy.) But they are the "enemy" in the sense that the Yankees view the Red Sox as an enemy. They are competition, and increasingly, damn formidable competition.

Europe passed into an economic downslide post WWII and is only now beginning to pull out of that nosedive. Prior to that, they were the cultural and economic center of the planet, a role we hold now. China is rising and will supplant us as the next cultural and economic superpower unless we prevent that. They need to be our external focus. They are a worthy opponent.

Second, we need an inspirational leader. One who will rally people to a cause, make them believe in their future and in their children's future. One who will commit government resources to incent the innovation and fund the research. One who can create a societal commitment that will transcend his term of office. I don't know if Obama is up to that task, but my friends, John McCain and the GOP are not.

The Definitive Sarah Palin Analysis

Don't they know he has TiVo??

The GOP and Science

Let's be clear. Science is not about belief. Asserting students get to decide whether or not they believe in evolution makes no more sense than saying they get to decide whether they believe 2+2=4, or that they believe the Civil War started in 1861. The veracity of evolution is no more a debate in science than plate tectonics, the atomic structure of matter, gravity, or genetics. To be fair, not all scientific theories are verified. String theory is a perfect example of a very well developed scientific theory on which there is great debate. It may well turn out that strings go the way of recapitulation (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) and get relegated to the dust bin--or not. But evolution has 150 years of data and observation verifying it. There is no debate among scientists.

Yes, debate skills are useful, critical thinking skills are essential, and discussion is healthy in an educational environment. Debating the merits of the philosophies of Kant vs. Marx is healthy. Students should get to hear both sides and decide for themselves if Johnson made the right decision to lead the U.S. into Vietnam. Getting information to come to their own opinions on when human life legally begins is a topic worthy of discussion. I would personally like to see students get balanced views of Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva contrasted with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To learn about the Jesus of the Qur'an as well as the Jesus of the Bible. But I suspect the people who are all about "teaching the controversy" in evolution (where no controversy exists) would not be so keen on teaching the controversy on religion where the world is rife with it.

The point being, "debating" evolution is actually counter to the goal of developing critical thinking skills. One of the key elements in the critical analysis of anything is sorting out the facts from the assumptions. Teaching students that 150 years of verifiable and repeatable data collection is merely an assumption is the basis for the sort of reasoning that produces Holocaust deniers, not scholars. To take this to it's logical conclusion, students should not accept anything they are taught as fact. And no one is seriously advocating that.

Why am I talking about this now? Because the GOP is. Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin have both stated they support teaching evolution and Creationism in science class and letting children makes decisions about what they believe. (To their credit, at least they are talking explicitly about Creationism and not trying to couch it as Intelligent Design.) John McCain has said he believes in evolution, but he can see the handiwork of God whenever he hikes the Grand Canyon. This makes him sound more reasonable than his wife and running mate, but doesn't clearly illuminate his position on whether or not Creationism should be recognized as science. More troubling, it asserts that he finds evolution to be a matter of belief. Yet I recognize (as does he) that he cannot come out and say Creationism has no place in science class without alienating the base he just energized with his Palin pick.

Why does this matter? Because I think it's essential that our leaders possess unparalleled critical thinking skills. That includes being able to separate facts from assertions. It also includes being smart enough to be aware of what you don't know, and wise enough to know who to trust to provide that expertise. By asserting that evolution is a matter of belief, they are demonstrating neither talent. And that concerns me.

GOP Convention - Wednesday Recap

A post from bloggerette Kim:

Today, I have a couple of firsts in my life. The first one is that I'm not going to "comment" on a blog, I'm actually going to write one.

The second is that, yes "for the first time in my life", I'm actually ashamed to be a woman that might get attached to last night's disgusting display at the Republican National Convention. I, like everyone else, started a path of trying to get to know who Sarah Palin was when she was the surprising pick by John McCain for the VP of the United States. Immediately, my reaction was, "He picked a women and it was a ploy to get Hillary voters." Having thought that, I was still willing to give her a chance to show why he picked her. Unfortunately, I still haven't figured that part out yet. I, like many others, am willing to leave everything personally about her pregnant teenage daughter out of my mind, as kids are off limits (and I'm not dumb enough to think it couldn't happen in my family). But the mother's policy making ideals and judgments, even about her raising her family, are not off the table. They will determine what policies she goes after if elected.

From what we've learned, she doesn't believe in birth control, sex-education, pro-choice, etc. If she had believed in the first two of those things, we wouldn't really have to discuss the third one or her views on it quite yet. But since we do have to discuss it in America far too often, isn't the Pro-Life movement about more than just abortion? Shouldn't it also be about the choices you make for ALL lives? If so, then why personally, did she choose to put her baby Trig's life in potential jeopardy while in labor with him and get on a plane, fly as long as she did, pass by very reputable hospitals, just to get home? This, after all, was a high risk pregnancy for a couple of reasons... first, she knew it was a challenged baby, and second, her age alone puts her in that category. That decision does speak to judgment in my point of view, and one that should be on the table for debate. And then, politically, pro-life should also be about the death penalty as well. After all, even President Bush said that he would always come out on the side of life (well, with that one exception of the death penalty law).

On top of that, we've learned that both her pregnant daughter and her soon-to-be husband have both dropped out of school. Now I know that Sarah being the mother of a 17 year old, can't tell her not to drop out (any more than she could tell her to not have sex). But, wouldn't she try to counsel her that it would be in the baby's best interest to have parents that are at least high school graduates.

All this could be left aside if it wasn't for the fact that John McCain brought her on to the national stage and introduced her as a great mother with great judgment and practically the second coming of Jesus (if you listen to the extreme Christian right of the party). And that brings me to why I am so ashamed and embarrassed at the thought of being lumped with a woman like I saw on TV last night. She spent much of her speech being that "pit bull in lipstick" that she referred to as the hockey moms. She was demeaning, sarcastic and downright nasty with so many personal attacks to the opposite side, that I almost had to turn it off. The hypocrisy of the Republican party based on good Christians values was repulsive. Isn't that the same group that is supposed to love everyone and treat people as they want to be treated? Aren't they supposed to be the party that is based on What Would Jesus Do? Well, I know as a real Christian, that Jesus wouldn't have done what she or any of the other speakers did last night. It was personal for them last night. I wish everyone watching those speeches last night, would also watch the fact-check sessions today to hear the real facts about the very few discussion points about policy that came out. But not to worry.. there weren't many of those. The whole evening was devoted to slams. On the plus side for her... she wasn't the only one I was disappointed in. You see, I once thought Mitt Romney would be the best choice the Republicans had to win, but even his own party decided he wasn't good enough. I decided that last night for myself as well. Huckabee... another slamming Christian that got rousing applause each and every time he slammed. And as for Rudy... I can't even go there. He was just not even worth my typing ability.

At any rate, there is one thing I can say the Republicans did well last night... even masterfully. Their strategy in this speech made a pit bull out of Sarah, and it played perfectly to their notion that no matter what any Democrat says about her today... they can scream sexism. And yes... it's already happened. It happened immediately after when Harry Reid said her speech was "shrill and sarcastic". The women commentators even said as woman that was a bad word to use. However, as a woman who won't vote for someone simply because they are one too, he was spot on in that assessment. Of course you couldn't call a man's speech shrill, but that was what it sounded like to me too. I'm just not the kind of dumb woman that they were hoping would fall for this speech.

I happen to think that after last night, it's a sad day for women... not a good one. If any other woman, in any aspect of her life, acted as our potential VP did last night, she'd be called far worse than shrill and sarcastic... and has been many times. So if she can act like this, why can't we say the same about her?

When this campaign season started, I was actually saying that if McCain got in the race, I could almost see me voting for him. That was before he did a complete 180 so that he could play to the base. I was a bit lukewarm on Obama, but knew I would vote for him over McCain. Now, after having watched both party's conventions (and even before watching McCain tonight), I'm way more aligned with the Obama camp. He tried to inspire people, while the RNC just tried to tear him down. I've had enough of the hypocrisy.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Snicker, snicker...

The trouble is, in Kansas and Louisiana they don't know this is satire.

Palin Photo Timeline - Time to Rest the Rumor Mill

Okay, I'm becoming more convinced that baby Trig really is Sarah Palin's child. Look at the following photos. They require you to accept that Palin was not visibly pregnant until around 7 months, which coincides with when she actually did announce she was pregnant.

Here's Palin on Feb. 6th, near the end of her second trimester. Note the very skinny hands and unswollen fingers.


Here she is on March 14th, a week after she announced her pregnancy, and a month before the birth.


And finally, here she is on April 13th, just days before attending the Texas RGA luncheon and going into labor.


On April 18th, she gave birth to a 1 month premature Trig Palin, who weighed in at 6 pounds and change. There's no reason to suspect any of the photos are fakes, and the time line seems consistent. Still, it's unusual for a woman to wait 7 months to announce a pregnancy, especially one in the public eye. It's unusual for a woman to show less on her fifth pregnancy than on her first (see below).


It's unusual for a 5th pregnancy to be leisurely enough to travel thousands of miles to a hospital. (But apparently it's not unusual for Palin to gestate for only 8 months, since her son Track was born just 8 months after she eloped. ) It's also curious that the flight crew on Palin's return trip from Texas noted, "...her stage of pregnancy was not apparent by observation as she didn’t show any signs of distress." But maybe they meant that she just didn't seem to be in labor, and by all accounts, she's a pretty tough cookie. Tough enough, in fact, to return to work 3 days after giving birth.

While many of the circumstances seem fantastically unlikely, they are not impossible. And the only "evidence" supporting the claim that Trig is not Sarah's are those same fantastic circumstances. Therefore, I'm choosing to accept that the official story is the truth. And I will continue to assert that her daughter Bristol's pregnancy is of no importance. Yet even so, the official story should give conservatives pause with regard to the judgement she exhibited and where the priority of politics relative to her family seem be based on her actions. Curiously, this should resonate loudest with the Christian Right. Yet they are the one group that seems to think Palin was a great pick for VP. Time will tell.

But Wait, She's Pregnant Already!!

This is just too convenient. Palin's family has now announced that 17-year old daughter Bristol is 5 months pregnant. This was explicitly disclosed to quell rumors about Bristol having been the actual mother of 4-month old baby Trig. The glove don't fit, so you must acquit.

This may be the actual truth, but it still seems suspicious, maybe entirely because it's so convenient. It's about the only story which ends the debate on Trig. The math of the story obviously doesn't work for Trig to be Bristol's. And no one can, or should, start digging through Bristol's life to determine how genuine the pregnancy is. She's just a kid, and either she is really pregnant or she just was 4 months ago. Either way, she has way more than enough going on in her life. Leave the kid alone. Besides, sometime right after the election we'll know the truth based on whether or not she actually has a baby. But I'm not the only one who will be less than surprised if she somehow "loses" the baby along about the second week of November give or take.

In the mean time though, Sarah is fair game. Let's accept her statements as fact. We still have issues with a woman who's judgment we are supposed to trust, who's values are unassailable, and who values the sanctity of all life. This woman, already in labor, boarded a plane for a 13 hour flight. This was against airline rules and certainly against the advice of any competent doctor. Further, this champion of the family now has a home with a 4-month old special needs baby and a pregnant teen daughter planning a wedding. In the midst of this, she's going to run an aggressive campaign schedule which allows precious little time for family. All of this to hopefully win an office which will require her to move over 5000 miles away. Will Bristol and her new hubby and grandson move as well? Whether they do or not, the new baby will be separated from at least half it's extended family. Further, couples that young with a new baby will more than have their hands full. They will require a lot of family support. But Sarah really doesn't have time for that even if everyone moves to DC.

There's no way to look at this and rationalize that she has her family priorities straight. She's supposed to appeal to Christian conservatives and women, and both those demographics are heavily about family. Something Sarah Palin has clearly relegated to the back seat.

As I said before, the real loser here is John McCain. But this unarguably is his own doing.

GOP Convention Schedule

A sneak peek at what the Republicans have on their agenda, assuming Gustav doesn't spoil their plans. (Click the image if it's not big enough to read)

I'm My Son's Grandma

This hasn't hit the mainstream media yet, but the news/rumor is all over the Internets that GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin's infant Down's Syndrome child may, in fact, be her teenage daughter's kid. Now, the evidence is still circumstantial, but it's damn compelling. The trouble is, either way, she's politically toasted based on the facts. Either she's committed fraud by claiming the kid as her own (there's a birth certificate with her listed as the mother) and lied about the situation to everyone (hardly consistent with Christian values), or she exhibited really poor judgment flying 13 hours from Texas to Alaska while in labor with her fifth child (not too consistent with her pro-life Chistian values either).

And the real loser in all this is McCain. He made a "maverick" decision and went with an unknown who had not been properly vetted. He's running on the premise that he has the experience and superior judgement to make good decisions. Regardless of how the Palin pregnancy pans out, he's made a bad decision, and clearly not one he consulted his advisors on. Is this what we want? Another President who follows his gut regardless of data and without the counsel of his advisors? Isn't eight years of this enough?

Pondering Palin

McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate assures one thing. This fall will be an historic election, one way or the other. But while on the surface, the choice of Palin seems like a Hail Mary pass to disaffected Clinton supporters, I think it more likely it's a lateral toss to the Christian Right.

It seems unlikely that more than a handful of Clinton supporters will take the bait. They may have wanted a woman in the White House, but I doubt they want this woman. The last thing this country needs is to be led by a pro-gun anti-gay religious fundamentalist/creationist bent on overturning Roe v. Wade.

... oh wait, we already are.

Fox News Skybox Flooded at DNC

It doesn't make up for 10 years of biased reporting, but it's a start. Key quote:

The sprinkler was located on the club level in a skybox which had recently been renovated to host a news crew. It appears the skybox belongs to Fox.

After going off, the sprinkler released 50 to 100 gallons of water per minute and 9NEWS crews estimate it was on for around 5 minutes.

Funding with Flapjacks

Well this morning brought the second big fundraiser, this time for swimming. They had cut a deal with a local restaurant to have a pancake breakfast. The kids all filled the roles of hosts/hostesses and wait staff, and they bussed tables. Amazingly, for an early Sunday morning event, there was much more energy coming from the teen staff than was shown at the afternoon car wash. This couldn't possibly be because teenagers are naturally more bushy-tailed in the morning. Usually they are comatose at that hour. However, this was a combined girls/boys team fundraiser. One might suspect, if one were inclined to, that the presence of the opposite sex was the motivating factor missing at the car wash. Let's face it, any teenager would go out of his/her way for the prospect of attracting the eye of the opposing gender. While that same teen in that same circumstance would barely grunt in the direction of an adult.

Ahhh... these are the days...

Workin' at the Car Wash Blues

It's almost time for school to start. Let the fundraisers begin.

The boys volleyball team held a car wash today. Let that percolate in your brain for a bit. Conjure up images of energetic teens playfully soaping and rinsing cars while soaking each other with hoses. Enjoy that image. Then file it away with the rest of your unrealized fantasies.

This was a group of listless boys who clearly would have rather been anywhere but a parking lot being subjected to forced manual labor. The two boys up the road in charge of marketing were completely prone on the grass where they would limply raise from their chest a sign hawking the car wash. You parked your car and got out while a dozen boys drizzled water on your car, then lazily slapped on some suds from a bucket. Finally, the damp dirt was wiped from several surfaces of your vehicle with window squeeges and soaking wet towels. Then a parent took your money and you drove away.

Given that they were in front of a McDonald's, maybe they should have taken some of the proceeds and bought the kids some coffee. Minimally, none of the guys should give up on their plans for college, and those not destined to be desk jockeys should seriously consider joining state road crews.

Cake Wrecks

When professional cakes go horribly, hilariously wrong

The Girl / Geek Divide

Having once sent my beauty a digital picture of a rose in lieu of actual flowers, this just kinda struck home.

It's Good to Be Mom

Well... it's good to be Michael Phelps' mom. Not surprisingly, he's projected to rake in $100M lifetime in endorsements from his medal run in Beijing. But it is surprising that his Mom is also beginning to land endorsement deals. Key quote:

The savvy Debbie Phelps, who has received more prime-time coverage than most Olympic athletes in Beijing, has a sponsor list of her own. After taking “the hearts of America in terms of parenting and mom of the year,” per Carlisle, she is doing some work with Johnson’s (of Johnson & Johnson) Baby. She also appears to be endorsed by Chico’s, the ladies clothing store who is claiming to be her lucky charm. She even has her own collection!

I guess our young cheerleader wasn't the only one who thought Michael's mom was the cutest thing ever...

Nuke Me Amadeus

Ooo nuke me Amadeus
Nuke me Amadeus...
Nuke nuke nuke nuke me Amadeus
Nuke me all the time to the top

... sorry... little MTV flashback there. But speaking of unfortunate things to happen in Europe in the mid-80's, remember Chernoybl? It was an unmitigated humanitarian and environmental disaster, but its largest impact may turn out to be that decades after the event it still has Americans scared of nuclear energy. Let's put this in context. Nuclear power accounts for 20% of the electricity produced in the U.S. today. There have been no new nuclear plants constructed in the USA in 30 years. To maintain that 20% slice, we need to build 3 or 4 plants/year starting in 2015. That's just to stay even. It does nothing to lower our carbon footprint or reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If we don't start exploiting more nuclear power soon, we'll need to make up that deficit with coal or oil. Not to mention that we'll need to burn more of that as the petro slice of the electricity pie is growing as well. After all, our electricity needs are projected to rise 50% by 2030.

But wait, you say. What about wind, geothermal, and solar? And I hear they're working on wave power, and hydrogen, and we can always burn ethanol and switchgrass, right?

Yeah... sorta. Solar power is still a long ways from being an efficient way to generate electricity. Geothermal is similarly underdeveloped technically, although Iceland is leading the way. Wind power is nice, but to generate the electricity we needed in 2005 with wind would require windmills to cover an area the size of Texas. And burning crops for electricity is still a carbon issue and not a terribly good use of land that could be growing food. The reality is that while we absolutely need to invest in the technology for these alternate energy sources, none of them will move the needle in the next decade. They may well be our future, just not our immediate future.

But isn't nuclear dangerous? What about the waste? What about the radiation?

First, nuclear is safe. A Chernoybl like accident simply cannot happen in a reactor designed to minimal US safety standards. It couldn't happen back in 1980. It didn't happen at Three Mile Island in 1979. While that incident created panic, absolutely no one was injured. Technology and safety regulations have improved since then. Compare that to coal. Particulates and other air pollutants from coal-fired power plants cause somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 premature deaths in the United States each year.

Further, nuclear has no carbon footprint. Given that over 50% of our electricity is produced by coal, switching coal to nuclear results in a significant reduction of the USA's carbon emissions, on the order of 25%.

The waste is similarly small. A nuclear fuel pellet is about the size of your finger tip. It has the energy equivalent of almost 1800 pounds of coal. Our 104 reactors generate about 2,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel a year. That may sound like a lot, but consider that coal produces some 100 million tons of toxic material annually. Less toxic to be sure, but the comparative volumes are staggering. From an engineering standpoint, the prospect of handling nuclear waste is comparatively simple compared to the challenges of sequestering carbon.

Nuclear is a proven technology. We understand it from a science and an engineering standpoint. It's cost effective, and compared to the alternatives is environmentally friendly. It has the unique capacity to move the energy needle away from coal/oil in the near term. It should be high on our energy agenda. But it's not. Both presidential candidates are for it. McCain somewhat vocally, but Obama's support is barely a whisper. It is deemed political suicide - the 3rd rail of energy. Ironically it is opposed by many environmentalists which can't look up from their herbal tea long enough to do the math. We need a re-energized nuclear power program, and we need it now.

...and yes, I'd buy a house next door to a nuclear power plant. Probably for cheap.

Commercials Should Be Simple

If you've watched any Olympics coverage you've doubtless seen the commercial. A good looking hunky shirtless guy irons his girl's clothes while making 6-month Anniversary reservations on the phone. There's some background patter about the Chevy Traverse, and then you see the guy cleaning the toilet. (Sorry, I couldn't find the video online)

At first, my kids just asked me what this ad meant and why it was a car commercial. That's a fair question, but I had to watch it two or three times before I figured it out. It strikes me that commercials which are that hard to figure out might be missing the mark. But then I'm clearly not in the target demographic. In retrospect, I should have just said it was a commercial for girls and left it at that. But I'm only that smart in hindsight. So I try to explain that Chevy is depicting a "perfect man" from a girl's point of view and equating that to the perfect car.

But this begs the obvious question, is that really what girls want? Well... no. It's what some girl's think they want, but most girls wouldn't really want you to act like that. Well... maybe the cleaning the toilet part... and the washboard abs, most girls would rather like that (but not the 2 hours a day you spent in the gym). And okay, remember an anniversary now and again, but don't remember more dates than they do. Some would like you to iron your own damn clothes, but most wouldn't want you anywhere near theirs. And in my experience, they'd be suspect of a guy who can accurately separate laundry. Guys do laundry on the theory of "if it gets wet, it's clean". In fact, we think that about most things which is why we don't clean the toilet. It's already wet.

"Gee that sounds awfully complicated."

Yes, but not really. Clean up after yourself. Pay attention to her. And frankly, knowing how to fix the toilet is often more highly valued than knowing how to clean it. Remember Red Green's sage advice: "If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." An adage that is more true the older you get. Which is fortunate since you tend to get more handy as you age, but not more handsome. Unless you're Sean Connery or Paul Newman... I suspect no one cares if they can fix a toilet.

Did You Miss Me?

I'm fresh back from a long week at the lake. Blogging's been sparse lately as a result. I had a pretty tech-free week. Granted, I checked my email via my phone, and addressed a few of Mom's tech support issues, but otherwise was off the web for 10 days. And yes, I'm recovering nicely.

I had plenty to keep me busy though. The bunk house is pretty well set. The toilet flushes (mounted exactly 2 bays from the wall), the lights light, the fan spins, the mirror reflects, the door swings, and the metal roof sounds great in the rain. All in all a success. One minor hiccup on the beds. We built them all out of fresh (green) lumber as that's what the Amish sell for cheap and that's what the rest of the place is built from. However, it turns out that when you slap a mattress atop green lumber, it acts like a big sponge. Doh! So we dried the mattresses out and placed a vapor barrier under them. I expect they'll be dry enough by spring that this won't be necessary.

We also resurrected the boat shelter. Lots of new steel frame parts, a few new straps and supports to prevent another roof collapse. Keep your fingers crossed for a mild winter.

And finally we fixed the boat. It ran for a day and died an unrelated death. It died on my son this time, the one who swims 5000 yards a day. But he breaks down 50 feet from the dock. That's not fair. Anyway, I dragged the boat home to work on it over the winter... unless it gets stolen first. That would be an awful shame.

Oh, and speaking of swimming... yeah we did a bit of that intentionally too... but how 'bout that Michael Phelps? We do get 2 channels of Olympic coverage up there, but one is Canadian and for some reason they seem to focus a lot on minor athletes sporting maple leaf emblazoned jerseys. But we did see all of Phelps' swims. It was an amazing feat, but kind of cool to me personally as well. I was near my sons' ages when Mark Spitz swam in Munich for 7 gold medals. He was an inspiration for many of us who swam competitively back then. In a way it felt like passing the torch down to my sons who are now being inspired by Michael Phelps and his 8 golds. Not all were so inspired though. One young lady (who shall remain nameless) was mostly focused on Phelps' mom, who was just the cutest thing. But don't mind her, she's just sore because cheerleading isn't an Olympic sport... yet.

Real Men Don’t Think Things Through

It's been a while since I've been on the political soapbox, but I found that Paul Krugman's recent editorial put its finger on something I've been thinking, but haven't quite been able to put into words. I've spoken often on this blog about the dumbing down of America, but somewhere along the way the Republicans institutionalized this trend and capitalized on it. Key quote:

"...know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

Most of our current problems: the housing bubble, our deteriorating infrastructure, our dependence on foreign oil, the war in Iraq, the looming Social Security and Medicare crises, the debt position of most familes, and other issues are all borne of the inability to think long term through complex interwoven issues. My parents' generation was steeped in the ideology that sacrifice now for greater good later was the key to a good life. Most religious ideology has similar roots (although you usually have to die for your reward to come), but the idea of sowing now to reap later is core to most faiths. Are we so self-absorbed as a generation that we can't see the implications of our short-term pay-me-now philosophy on our children and grandchildren?

If something looks to good to be true, it probably is. That's why Lipozene won't make you thin, why playing Lotto doesn't count as a retirment strategy, why drilling for more oil off the coast doesn't solve our energy issues, and why kicking Saddam's butt doesn't make the Mid-East more stable.

I don't think for a minute that Obama has all the answers, but I'm encouraged that he seems to believe that progress is incremental and sometimes painful. I also worry that a likely bi-cameral majority of Democrats with a Democratic White House will yield a different but equally destructive unchecked reign of government. But at this point the Republicans are acting like children and haven't shown the maturity of judgement required to lead. I miss the pre-Reagan G.O.P., the one that was truly fiscally conservative, the one that was interested in nation-building in our own country. It balanced the Democrats' socialism and provided true choice. But not anymore.

I'd like to blame the Republicans for the slide into the "Me Generation" abyss, but I can't. They are victims of their own success. As a nation, we buy Lipozene and Lotto tickets, and we elect politicians who sell the idea that each of us can be better than average. We respond to the sound bite. We don't think things through. There was a time when politicians appealed to the best of. Asking us to ask what we can do for our country. Inspiring us to be better as a group than maybe we thought we were individually. But now they appeal to our baser instincts. They divide and conquor. They ask us to be better to ourselves than to the nation as a whole. And unfortunately they succeed with that strategy.

How does this change? Only when we change. If we buy it, they will sell it, not the other way around. Think things through, or at least follow those who you believe do. Don't fall for what makes you feel good. Don't take the easy way out. Recognize that progress is hard work and requires sacrifice. Accept that half of us will always be below average. Inspire. Aspire. Perspire.