One thing that really bothers me is waste or wasteful practices. Maybe because I grew up not having much money and we had to fix things up, make them do or simply do with out. I never had the coolest toys as a child or the latest in fashion. I had to work hard and save money to buy myself my first car. I worked hard in school to earn scholarships. I worked while in college to pay for other things like food. I did not like it when my money was ill spent or I was not careful. I still do not like that.

I realized long ago that we as a society as a global community produce a lot of waste. Recently I started thinking about heat as waste. I came to realize that a lot of the energy produced is wasted in the form of heat. For example, most of our modern electronics use DC power. Some use 12 volts, others 15 but they all use DC power. TVs, Computers, radios, cellphones, iPods, and the list goes on. The problem is that all the power must be converted to DC before being used and the conversion is, for a good device, 70% efficient. That means about a third of the energy going into the converter is lost and it is lost in the form of heat.

That bothers me a lot. So, I have spent some time chewing on these facts. I realized that if there was one efficient device in the home, it would cost more but you would only need one -- think of all the "wall worts" you have from old equipment and how much they cost in materials to manufacture and to you to purchase-- it could be placed in or adjacent to the water heater so that any parasitic heat is not completely lost. Then with industry defined standard voltage and standard plug the rest of the house could be wired. It could be low voltage and would thus be much safer than our current AC power in home electrical distribution. Coaxial cable could even be placed along the carpet/wall interface to minimize the cost to the home owner. The end result being that we would use less energy to heat the water and run electronics saving us much money.


Now, for those wanting to live off the power grid, with something like solar panels, it would be even easier. The energy from solar panels is DC and is now typically inverted to AC to be transmitted, even just around a house, only to then be turned back to DC to be used. This process means that about half or more of the electrical energy produced by solar panels is lost. That is all conserved by keeping the power as DC.

I met a very nice couple tonight who went with their entire family and members of their church to an orphanage in Ethopia. They did not go to preach their particular denomination of Christianity, rather they went to assist the orphanage by building a small water treatment facility so they can drink clean water. What a great experience.

This conversation caused me to recall a news story I heard on NPR some months ago. It is here if you want to hear it. The story is an interview with Dambisa Moyo who wrote a book called "Dead Aid". She writes about how western countries, with good intentions, have ruined much of Africa. We send money, food, T-shirts, medicine, and other items because we think this is the "humane" thing to do. In reality, she points out, it has caused them to be dependent on us, unwilling to work because they can get things for free, and they have not learned valuable skills. Thus we have stifled their economies and made them even poorer than they were before.

This is the difference between "soft" love and hard love. "Soft" love would have us see someone who is suffering and instantly have simpathy and give them stuff. If you step back and look at the situation it is often prolonging their suffering by giving a handout. The better thing to do is to find out their situation, everyone is very different, and help them get the tools they need to work out their troubles themselves.

A book that exemplefies this topic and struggle between soft and hard love is "North and South" by Elizabeth Gaskell. It was turned into a TV-movie in 2004 by the BBC. In the book, the cotton mill workers go on strike. They are on strike for an extended period and many are without much food. The main character takes baskets of food to a family with six children. She is trying to be helpful and compassionate but is only prolonging the strike and thus the suffering of that family. We need to be compassionate but that kindness needs to be well placed or may sever to make the situation worse.

For many years I have heard comments about how in the U.S. the poor are getting poorer while the rich get richer. At the same time I have also heard how the number and size of donations to charitable organizations have increased dramatically. Why after decades of receiving are people still poor and in need? The government also hands out money and food, after some paperwork, to anyone who does not make very much money. We have trained the recipiants to think that there is nothing better in life for them and that they will never amount to anything. People grow to expect a handout and when it is, for whatever reason, not available they cry fowl.

The worst of this was several years ago when many people, dependent on the government from years of handouts, were hit by Hurricane Katrina along the gulf coasts of Luisianna and Mississippi. Some people huddled into the Super Dome and literally screamed "Why isn't the government helping me!". At that point it was our fault and we had to help them. But it is sad that they were put in such a state by our own giving. Had we instead helped them to get some training and get a better paying job they would not have been in such dire straits after the devastating hurricane.

I think soft love is "easier" for the giver because we can justify to ourselves that we had empathy and "helped" someone in need. By so doing we attempt to wash our hands and feel good inside. Really nothing can be further from the truth this is acknowledged in our conscience as we feel pricked. We then do it again to assuage the guilt.

Today the French celebrate when average people stormed the Bastille. This was a prison but more importantly it was a garrison. There were weapons and ammunition inside. How could the people form a rebellion without weapons when the government officials, unelected, did not listen to their grievances. They had no alternative but to revolt. In their greed and lust for power they went too far in the revolt. I admire that they knew when to take action but let us be more like General George Washington, who when he had control of the reigns of governance and the will of the people on his side he humbly handed control back to the people.


Today, we still have some methods to make our grievances known to our "elected" officials. It seems as if they say one thing in campaign to woo our votes, "What a politician ha[s] to say", and then ignore us and their promises until 9 or 10 months before the next election. They then point to all the earmarked pork money that they bring back to their respective states and suggest that if they do not get re-elected that money will dry up.


In commemoration of the start of the French Revolution, it is also interesting to note that the elite (rich) in France did not support King Luis the XVI. They were tired of paying high taxes.

I was talking with a couple coworkers about food the other day. One was asking me about different foods I like to cook and eat. I mentioned that I like quinoa and foods from India such as curries, tandoori style and na'an (a type of flat bread). We both reminisced about various Indian restaurants in which we had eaten. We were then overheard by another coworker who is from India. He interjected about Indian cuisine and we talked for some time. He then stated that he could make us some food if we wanted. Of course we did. So I invited him to my place to do the cooking and we all agreed upon a time.

He came over and showed me how to cook. I first put diced onion and serrano peppers into the hot pan. He corrected me and I pulled them back out. We then waited to heat up a little bit of oil and then added whole cumin seed. As the seeds were heating he told me that this is the most important step in the cooking. We had to wait until the seeds were just beginning to brown and they would pop a little bit. I wondered of why this would be and thought he was simply following traditional methods. When that was ready we then added a couple bay leaves, garlic powder and a little bit of ginger powder. After heating those for a little bit we then added a bit of tumeric, garamsala and curry powders. We next added the diced onion and pepper. The smell was amazing! We added various other ingredients and to be honest I don't quite recall, all I remember was the intense wonderful smell. It was so strong that I opened the windows and doors. As the others started to arrive they each mentioned that the smell outside was strong very.

I had cooked curries before with essentially the same ingredients but mine had not been so strong in smell and flavor. What did he do that was different than what I did? Then it hit me. The heating up the spices in the oil first had released essential oils from the seeds and spices into the oil. This then impregnated the food and air.

So, I learned that by heating something up, to a point that I thought it would be destroyed and ruined, it turned very flavorful. As a side note, you might be interested in the same process for the spice called "asafoetida".

This can also be called "the refiners fire" among other names. We learn by failing and if we are denied the chance to fail and take responsibility for that failure we will never learn and succeed. The light bulb clicks on.

When our previous president, congress and the Federal Reserve said that some companies were "too big to fail" I about choked on the water in my mouth. I felt like I had been water boarded into an alternate reality. Nothing is too big to fail. We rise, like the Phoenix, from the ashes of failure into success. This is also what Charles Darwin saw when he went to the Galapagos Islands. When an animal has a trait that does not allow it to function fully, the animal will not be able to breed. Thus preventing the unsuccessful trait from being passed on. However, traits that give animals a competitive advantage do get passed on. If we step in and force a certain animal to breed and others to not breed we mess up the process of natural selection resulting in poor performing companies and a weak economy.

I often see parents give in to their kids, just to shut them up. This happens in the grocery store and the kid gets a piece of candy or some of the sort. Or maybe this happens when the parent is trying to talk with another adult. Are we encouraging this behavior? The thought process may be "I screamed and I got candy. Will it work again?!"

The child learns this pattern or doing something against the will of the parent and getting rewarded. It is no small wonder that as the child grows to be a teenager they act out again and again pushing the boundaries and wanting to get rewarded.

The action of appeasement has never been successful. Well, it is usually successful in the short term but in the long term it leads often to tragic results. Perhaps the most infamous appeaser is Neville Chamberlain. He was the Prime Minister and Great Britain in the latter portion of the 1930's. This was the time when Adolf Hitler, under the guise of protecting ethnics Germans in other countries, began to annex countries such as what was not too long ago Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement which essentially told Hitler "if you act out, I'll give you a lolly pop". What do you think Hitler (and the rest of the world) learned? Did Hitler stop there or did he do it again?

President Kennedy did the same with the Soviet Union and its leader Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviet Union was doomed to collapse unless it continuously took new territory with more people to tax (in more ways than with money) and more natural resources to pillage. He wanted us to help him to do threaten us into helping them, he threatened to put missiles in Cuba. Kennedy formed a blockade. Both sides knew this would not be good and backed down. To encourage the Soviet Union from doing this again, our President gave them technology and sold them grain at reduced prices. What do you think the Soviets did each time they needed more food or money later? Successive U.S. Presidents continued this appeasement until Reagan. By not selling the Soviet Union grain and giving the food, He forced them to collapse.

Sadam Hussein was a student of history and we appeased him. The Iranians want nukes and they think they can get them if they act out enough. Our government has already said, "OK, OK, you can have nuclear power, just not the bomb, if you promise to stop saying bad things about us." That is almost literal.

Vladimir Putin does the same thing to get us to agree not put up the missile defense shield over eastern Europe. What does he have against it? It is purely defensive, designed to stop them from attacking first. So, he says he will not talk to Iran and North Korea is we put it up. Put the Missile Defense Shield up!!!

North Korea is the same old story all over again. For conterfeiting our money, firing missiles over the Sea of Japan and possibly threatening Hawaii we give them food and real money. Why?

Someone please tell me why we continue down this road of lunacy with continual appeasement.