Skip to main content
Posts by:

Tim Booher

House Data, Telecom and Audio Plan

Under Construction

Chrissy and I listen to a lot of audio books and when we’re not doing that we like to have classical background piano music playing. Lately, we’ve been amazed by how nice it is to have our Bose wave radio playing soft and quiet Christian music using Pandora which is being streamed from Chrissy’s iPhone. Since we’re putting some insulation in our basement and about to seal off the ceiling, we decided its time to at least wire our basement and consequently the rest of the house for whole house audio.

Fortunately, there a lot of great resources on the Internet for this. Crutchfield has some good tutorials, but they seem to be priced for much different market — namely those willing to spend a lot of money on audio. While we like technology, I’ve never quite considered myself an audiophile, at least at this stage to not have interest in buying the highest quality speakers in optimizing our sound throughout the home, but rather want to have good quality sound so we can listen to an audio book while we clean, or perhaps relaxing piano music while we play with our kids.

The three most helpful resources in determining our whole house audio plan were:

Crutchfield. Even though their prices are quite high, they have very good online tutorials. See their learning center. They also have a good selection of equipment, most focusing on custom multizone high fidelity systems.

Slashdot. This one really piqued my interest. Here you can find a great discussion from hackers perspective of how to build a whole house audio system doing everything from taking components of car stereos to modifying 70s gear.

I myself feel straddled between these two options. The thought of hacking a bunch of hardware together is those amazingly appealing, but nonetheless would require too much time. However, I called Crutchfield and asked them for custom system design. As expected, the price premium was too high. Fortunately, the spectrum between a hacked set of old hardware and a custom solution can be found from a number of other websites. The best tutorial that has a lot of DIY insights as well as links to equipment is found at the home tech website. Not only do they have good prices, but they also cover the history and a big picture view of whole house audio systems. There, they get down into details such as pre-wiring and installing a whole house audio system. hometech article

So after the research from sites such as those described above it looked like a system that was able to send audio data through category five cabling (what most folks know as ethernet cables) would provide the best option for the major zones around the house were simply looking for background music or mono audio signals. Not only could you buy the complete kit with nice key pads for under $600, but it seem like the level of fidelity and ease of installation were just right. Moreover, I’ll now have cat 5 wiring going to all controls throughout my house, which provides what I really want, an opportunity for progressive growth for our system, and preserves the potential for completely integrated home automation for the future.

From designing online businesses web presences,

what are our goals?

  • provide growth path
  • listen to an audio book throughout the house as we clean/work
  • listen to background music for party (indoor and out)
  • listen to music as our children play

what is our budget (equipment)?

we need an audio plan for our house

Design

Speaker Calculation

OSD Audio ICE620TT 6.5-inch 125-Watt Polypropylene Dual Voice Coil In-Ceiling Stereo Speaker, Single

  • Woofer: 6 1/2-Inch polypropylene woofer with dual voice coil
  • Tweeter: Dual (2) 5/8-Inch center mounted tweeters
  • Power handling: 125W, Impedance: 8 / 16 Ohms
  • Frequency Response 40Hz – 22kHz, Sensitivity 89db
  • Cut-Out Diameter: 7 3/4-Inch, Unit Dimension: 9-Inch diameter x 3 1/4-Inch deep
  • Shipping: This item does not ship outside the U.S

In order to power these, I’m thinking this OSD link, but much cheaper under the Dayton brand at Amazon. You can find the manual here.

So in order to distribute them, I’m thinking about this.

Downstairs audio and data plan

Upstairs audio and data plan

you can figure out where to place speakers here

By 0 Comments

Basement Lighting

http://www.recessedlightinglayout.com/
First, some terms:
A Watt is the amount of power consumed by a bulb per hour
Lumens are a raw measure of light output
Kelvin is color temperature – 2,700K (indoor soft white) to 5,600K is bright white like a fluorescent.

this paper might solve our cutting stock problem:
http://ac.els-cdn.com/0377221793E02775/1-s2.0-0377221793E02775-main.pdf?_tid=c30e007a-43ec-11e6-a368-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1467859664_ff7d7101ac220ca7831f48410693a63c

great way to think about this

great way to think about this

http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/productImages/400/29/297fa046-d7f9-405b-b52d-107b4c115a3f_400.jpg
these lights:
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Halo-5-in-and-6-in-3000K-Matte-White-Recessed-LED-Retrofit-Baffle-Trim-Module-80-CRI-RL560WH-R/203310667

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Halo-6-in-Aluminum-Recessed-Lighting-LED-T24-New-Construction-IC-Air-Tite-Housing-H750ICAT/202024775

great link on diy forum

awesome

here is the calculator

By 0 Comments

Open: An Autobiography by Andre Agassi and J. R. Moehringer

Some books I read are entertaining. Some books give me a new perspective on certain facets of the world. Some books give me the ability to brag to others that I read them. Open did all of this. (Except that bragging bit. By the way, did I mention I am reading Thomas Khun too?) In any case, I expected an entertaining read, but I was surprised to find some bigger questions than the stated subject matter: tennis and its most (im)famous protagonist. A book that entertained and taught me a bit about tennis would’ve still been great. Tennis has played a huge role in my life: it taught me self-confidence; taught me how to win. It is also the means of some of the blessings I hold most dear: a loving father who taught me the sport, close friendship, and opportunity to work hard at something and get better at it. When I remember having fun as a kid, I remember tennis.

So naturally, my experience was very different than Agassi’s. He was forced into tennis — without the loving father, the friends, the fun. The chorus of the book was “I hate tennis”. It is like he woke up surrounded by a tennis matrix. Fear held him in a like a prisoner who is kept in the middle of the desert with the knowledge that his escape would only lead to certain death. So while he was given much, and developed into a super athlete, his mental state was left underdeveloped, indeed very fragile, by his pathological father.

It is difficult for me to consider big questions from books off of the New York Times bestseller list because I’m aware of the motivations of publishers, the role of the ghostwriter, and the economic gains that everyone can enjoy from a bestseller. This forced me to ask myself throughout the book: how authentic really is this guy? While writing a sports autobiography like this is certainly fresh and inviting, it is also a great potential marketing strategy. Not only that, but as someone who desperately wanted the opportunities that Andre was given: the chance this practice tennis full time at the Bollettieri Academy, all the equipment, travel and advantages that a young aspiring tennis player could wish for, I found myself both jealous and disdainful of his lack of thankfulness for his once in a billion opportunity to become the best tennis player in the world.

However, despite its potential flaws, I have to say that I like the book for three reasons. The first two are pretty simple: it brought back and augmented memories foundational to my childhood, and the book is very well written. Beyond this, the book was something more than entertaining. Andre was not just cataloging how he became a great tennis player or what the life as a great tennis player was like, he continually asked and tried to answer the question: what is success and what is life’s overarching purpose?

While he never asked these questions overtly, they were made unavoidable by the narrative: how could someone who just finished second in a tournament like the French Open be launched into a deep and abiding depression by his “devastating loss”? He was the number two tennis player in the world! Few in history have had that honor. Simply losing one match was enough to crush him. Was this because of the fragile emotional state by his one-sided upbringing, or does this speak to something deeper that afflicts us all?

My initial reaction to this was that Andre was a first-class whiner. Why couldn’t he be happy with taking home a $50,000 check instead of taking home $100,000 check or whatever tennis players get from these big tournaments? However, as the book went on I was forced to think through and try to understand how similar this struggle is for all of us.

I was reminded of discussions with senior leaders in the US military who mentioned colleagues of theirs who retired bitter and weary, crippled from their lack of ability to get that fourth star. Or how about political campaigns? The scale of loss and massive defeat that surrounds the losing nominee (and their millions of dollars spent) is staggering. And, no matter what our endeavor, no one always wins (excepting, perhaps, John Maynard Keynes). Perhaps the first of Buddha’s four Noble truths is unavoidable:

bq. To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

Without forgiveness and the love it enables, I think this does describe the surrounding tissue of a life in this world: as surely as gravity pulls a stone to earth our activities will encounter suffering, but there is hope! And here I found this book most wanting — a great description of the problem, with a sorry excuse for an answer. While I was glad to be faced with the question of what will I center my life around? What do I consider success? I was not satisfied with: “give”. He was three letters short of the answer — forgive and be forgiven. While giving to others certainly is a source of the deepest joy I have known, can it be done without experiencing forgiveness personally? And without this forgiveness, is happiness truly attainable even if one finds the Steffi Graf of their dreams?

As the parent of young children, it is interesting to follow what pulls them through each day, each week, each month. They are always excited about something. Sometimes it’s their birthday, or school the next day, their smile always has a very visible reason behind it. Throughout the book I found myself wanting Andre to smile. Not laugh for joy from the elation of finally winning a grand slam or defeating Boris Becker after the summer of revenge, but to smile because he deeply enjoyed something in and of itself. A quote from Screwtape letters is foremost in my mind here:

bq. On your own showing you first of all allowed the patient to read a book he really enjoyed, because he enjoyed it and not in order to make clever remarks about it to his new friends. In the second place, you allowed him to walk down to the old mill and have tea there—a walk through country he really likes, and taken alone. In other words you allowed him two real positive Pleasures. Were you so ignorant as not to see the danger of this? The characteristic of Pains and Pleasures is that they are unmistakably real, and therefore, as far as they go, give the man who feels them a touchstone of reality. (Letter XIII)

All this forced me to ask myself why I smile and when I smile. I smile when I think about finishing various projects at work or about having a good workout. I joyfully look forward to moment when I can sit down and read a book, or write this a review like this. But on reflection reasons why I smile are much less important than reasons why I cry. I have cried while holding my daughter in my arms while I think about her future. I’m overcome with feeling of being blessed — so excited to have someone to give to, to love. Excited to do so from a position of being forgiven and therefore from a position that is able to forgive all others. As tears carefully creep down my cheeks I feel, in a moment, at total peace, and in that moment I worship my creator.

But Andre, he never let us into those things that made him smile (except for his trip to South Africa to meet Nelson Mandela) and, of course, Steffi Graf. In Open, two criteria were necessary for an event to be included in the book: it was either something that brought him great disappointment or something that created national news, which most often had something unknown and disappointing behind it — often a bit of his angst that he was hiding from the cameras. True, the end is uplifting and perhaps there was a smile on his face as he traded volleys with Stephanie. The story just felt incomplete without forgiveness. We were left with the fear of the Dragon but not the forgiveness to his father. We were left with the legacy of angry sportswriters without a cathartic sense that he understood their need to play to the crowd just like he did. We have his broken relationship with Brooke Shields, not forgiven, just replaced by what he claims is his ultimate fulfilling relationship with Steffi Graf, a final upgrade perhaps.

The other major theme that Open highlighted was the messy nature of reality. I seem to have a Panglossian notion of how two elite tennis players come together on a court — imagining a degree of precision and perfect preparation commiserate with the high-stakes game they’re playing. It’s funny how events in my life which seems so clean-cut and simple were messy in their execution. Just like Pete Sampras crippled by cramps before a stunning victory over Andre I often find myself needing to overcome insurmountable odds to make an event happen. Why isn’t anything easy? Is this a case for everyone? Shakespeare certainly thought so.

Enough of the big picture questions, Open still contained a great deal of information on how the world works, and for that alone it’s a highly recommended read. So many events that capture the world’s attention were explained from a fascinating inner perspective — good reminders to us all that all is not as it seems. It was fascinating to watch Andre catalog his rise to fame and its accompanying transformation on what his life was like. Though they had so much in common, clearly, his rise was about as different as possible from that of Brooke Shields, who essentially grew up being famous. It seemed to be his Wimbledon victory which took him from famous in tennis circles to to a household name and the story started to take place in places like Kevin Costner’s yacht instead of on a tennis court in Florida.

So highly recommend: whether you’re looking for a chance to peek in the lives of the rich and famous, a reinterpretation of one of Tennis’ most memorable stars, a chance to understand what the American dream really is, or even looking to ponder some of life’s biggest questions. Whatever their decision, Agassi and J. R. Moehringer decided to make this a different kind of sports autobiography, one that opened a life and provides us ample opportunities to see ourselves in the mirror and ask whatever questions we see when that happens.

By 0 Comments

Suffering reveals our true Humanity (1996)

Our world is large. Billions of others are living as you read these words. Each one of them, though from remarkably different backgrounds, is strangely similar. They all have hopes and dreams, fears and desires. They all live-and they all die. They all laugh-and they all suffer. Yet out of these experiences suffering is the greatest-for in suffering our true humanity is revealed.

Do not confuse the greatness of Suffering with the greatness of love. They are both great in different ways. Love is the greatest emotion. Suffering the result of any emotion. Love is the only force that really drives us onward, that fire inside of us that gives us life. But love adds to our thoughts, it deceives us. Suffering is different. Suffering rips off the masks. It shows us reality.

Everyone knows this reality because everyone suffers. Suffering does not practice segregation; it puts us all in the same position. Suffering is the great reception hall of all peoples. To enter this room we must shrug off the material world and stand naked.

We then find ourselves in a new world. A world where the things society values are meaningless. A world where the clothes we wear or the car we drive really does not matter. A world where what we are loses its meaning-and who we are makes itself known. When this happens no one can hide behind the facades and guises that plague our world. Sometimes what we find surprises us.

We find that people we think are worlds apart from us, really aren’t. Enemies look just like us. People of different colors and beliefs are difficult to tell apart. We all become common-we all become human.

The burial ceremony of the Austrian grand duke demonstrated this. His body was taken to the royal catechisms and a priest stood guarding the entrance. There an officer leading the pall-bearers would formally request the priest to open the door. The priest asked who they carried that was worthy enough to pass through. The officer pronounced the formal title of the grand duke (some thirty names). Yet the priest did not reply. He then called him by a lesser title, still no reply. This continued on until the officer said in an exasperated voice, “a fellow sinner like us all.” Then the priest swung open the door.

This ceremony showed that we all are equal at death (something we all must suffer). The same is true with suffering-we all suffer on the same level. Otherwise impregnable cultural walls collapse. Society and its expectations are shunned. Then we stand truly human: unarmed and fragile.

It is the most meaningful experience of humanity when we relate to someone on this level. The ability to relate to someone in their pain is the greatest ability we can posses. It is the only way to understand humanity. It is the only way to understand ourselves, for when we look into the eyes of another in pain-we see ourselves.

By 0 Comments

Truth (from 1994)

In the political mire of our day, the word “truth” is slung around like a worn-out baseball. Every politician, religious leader, self-improvement author and educator seems to know what will solve all our problems. Truth is thrown at us from every direction. Why then does mankind face the same problems today that it has faced since the beginning of time?

The problem is in the over-simplification of truth. Truth is not simple. Truth does not come with a hamburger and French-fries. Real truth is a solid reality that smashes all barriers. It transcends time and cultures. It never changes. The kind of truth that is tossed around in our society is not real truth. We now have two types of truth: real truth and play-dough truth.

Play-dough truth is the kind that makes us ooh and ahhh. This kind of truth enables us to make microwaves, automatic toasters, and toothpaste that sparkles, shines, and even tastes like bubble gum. This is great, but compared to the big picture, does this stuff really make a difference in our lives? It does make a difference in the way we do things, but does it really change why we do it? The Romans had bread and circuses. We have food-stamps and welfare. The Babylonians had spears and swords. We have guns, airplanes, and nuclear bombs. There is a place for this play-dough truth. It improves our quality of life. It awes us and gives us the ability to dream and impact our world. Scientists have been discovering this type of truth for centuries. It can tell us “what” quite well.

But it can not tell us why. It can not change human nature. Anything that we create can never surpass what already is. If one forms a doll out of clay that is pretty and nice. Yet it is nothing compared to the fact of the clay existing in the first place. Who can answer the question that explains why the clay is existing?

This calls for a greater truth. This truth is the unchanging, timeless force behind the existence of everything. It defies logic and baffles scientists. It just is. Great truth is found at the root of every field of study. Take mathematics for example. We can write proofs and theorems but we reach a point where we can no longer explain why things are. We have to guess. This truth is simple and powerful. It can not be explained, but it can explain.

For answers we have to dig down our very nature. Where it all happens. Where we find the motivations of our actions. A change in society can happen only by a change in heart.

For that to happen we must be careful to distinguish between both types of truth. We must realize the importance of great truth. We must face who we really are. That is the hard part.

By 0 Comments

Die Macht der Religion (in German)

Wir wohnen in einer Welt, die viele Religionen hat. Wir wohnen aber auch in einer Welt, die viele Kulturen hat. Natürlich gibt es viele andere Ansichten über die Beziehung zwischen Reli gion und Kultur. Sehr viele Leute denken, dass die Beziehung zwischen Religion und Kultur ganz ähnlich wie die Beziehung zwischen Kultur und Musik oder Kultur und Sprache und so weiter ist. Es ist wahr, dass alle diese Gründe Leute verbinden, und deswegen bilden sie eine Art Gruppen. Ein Kultur ist dewegen solch eine Gruppe. Aber Religion spielt eine besondere Rolle wenn sie mit mit allen anderen Gründen vergleichen wird.

Religion ist mehr als eine Philosophie. Eine Philosophie ist nur wie man spiegelt nur eine persönliche Denkweise wieder. Manche sagen, dass sie eine (zum Beispiel) christliche Philosophie haben. Zu dem werde ich behaupten, dass Religion ist, was man denkt, sondern was man glaubt. Was ist der Unterschied? Wenn man über etwas philosophisch denkt, erforscht und entdeckt man es mit Hilfe der Logik. Aber der Glauben rührt nicht von einer logische Ordnung her. Zuzugeben man verteidigt was man glaubt mit Hilfe der Logik – wir nennen das Apologetiken. Aber Philosophie baut auf den Grundgedanken von Glauben auf.

Nun, was meinen die Leute eigentlich, die mir widersprechen? Ich werde versuchen, ihre Argumente in den zwei folgenen Abschnitten darzustellen.

Kultur ist sehr kompliziert. Sie enthält “die Dinge und Werte der menschlichen Gesellschaft, die den Menschen vom Tier unterscheiden, wie Kunst, Wissenschaft, Religion, Sprache und so weiter.” Kurz gesagt, Kultur ist das Gegenteil von Natur. Das heisst, dass alles geistliche Kultur ist. Religion ist ein Teil des Lebens, für Manche ist sie sehr wichtig, für Manche sie spielt keine grosse Rolle. Es ist engstirnig, zu behaupten, dass Religion wichtiger ist, als alles andere. Trotzdem gibt es viele Kulturen, die nicht dieselbe Religion teilen. Amerika, zum Biespeil, ist ein Land mit Glaubensfreiheit, hat aber trotzdem eine Kultur.

Religion wird oft definiert als, “Der Glaube an einen Gott oder mehre Gvtter, mit dem man sich den Sinn des Lebens erklärt.” Manche brauchen etwas, damit sie elklaren können was nach dem Tod geschehen wird. Sie finden etwas, das sie überzeugt, und sie nehmen es aus ihrer Umgebung und Kultur. Man findet fast nie jemanden, der in einer Kultur aufgewachsen ist und eine andere Religion hat als seine Mitbürger. Deswegen hängt Religion von der Kultur ab. Kurz gesagt, Religion ist eine Untermenge von der Kultur.

Trotz der scheinbar plakativen Logik in diesen Gedankengängen stimme ich mit dieser Mei nung nicht überein. Ich habe mit vielen Leuten gesprochen, die das glauben, aber ich bin überzeugt, dass Kultur mehr ein Untermenge von “Religion” als umgekehrt ist. Religion steht in Anführungszeichen, denn ich definiere Religion anders als zuvor. Ich gaube nicht, dass die frühere Definition falsch ist, sondern dass sie nicht genügt. Religion ist mehr als ein Versuch, den Sinn des Lebens zu erklären. Religion definiert, was jemand eigentlich denkt, was wichtig für ihn ist, was ganz im tiefsten Innern seines Herzens ist. Deswegen behaupte ich, dass Religion ist, was jemand glaubt, seine Eschatologie, seine Ansichten, seine Grundgedanken, seine Grundsätze. Relgion ist also der genaueste soziologische Bezug, auf den man zurückgehen kann, um einander zu beschreiben. Der nächste Schritt zur Beschreibung ist die Identität und bezieht sich nur auf diese eine Person. Die Religion wird jedoch von vielen Menschen geteilt und beschreibt die Prinzipien und Werte, die diese Menschen gemeinsam haben, sehr genau. Aus diesem Grund ist eine kulturelle Gemeinschaft mit einer gemeinsamen Religion eine wahrhaft homogene Gemeinschaft mit gemeinsamen Prinzipien und Werten.

Aus dieser Bedeutung heraus kann man das Wört Religion viel spezifischer benutzen. Das he isst, zum Beispiel, wenn ich das Wört Christ benutze, dass ich mich auf Christen allgemein konzentrieren muss, sondern ich kann zwischen Katolishe und Evangelish unterscheiden. Ein anderes gutes Beispiel ist in Deutschland, wo von denen die meisten Türken in Deutschland nicht glauben wie Leute im Iran. Die Türken sind untereinander mehr verbunden wegen ihrer Religion als sie mit dem Iran wegen ihrer Religion verbunden sind. Religion ist näturalich nicht der einzige Grund, der die Türken mineinander verbindet, als mit iranischen Leuten, aber ich spreche über die Wirkung des Zusammenglaubens. Sie ist im Vergleich im ersten Fall grösser als im vorhergehenden.

Denn jetzt hat ein Atheist auch eine Religion mit dieser Definition, allerdings hat jeder eine Religion. Ein Atheist glaubt an keine spirituelle Dimension, und kein Leben nach dem Tod. Jeder glaubt an etwas das den Sinn des Lebens elklärt, und dieses Etwas ist mehr als eine Philosophie. Es muss mehr als Philosophie sein, weil Philosophe auf Grundsätzen aufgebaut ist. Diese Grundsätze kommen aus der Religion.

Diese Benutzung des Wortes Religion hat auch eine andere Folge, denn wenn man die vorige Definition allgemein anwendet, kann Religion Leute mehr trennen, als sie zusammenzubringen. Zum Biespiel in den Vereinigten Staaten gibt es viele Arten des christlichen Glaubens. Leute nennen eine andere Konfession eine Sekte, die ganz anders glaubt. Theoretisch sind beide Christen, aber in Wirklichkeit sind sie mehr getrennt als ein Christ und Muslim. Heisst das, dass eine Religion eine Kultur trennt statt verbindet? Nein, weil ich dieses Problem vermeiden kann, wenn ich mich auf die verschiedenen Kategorien konzentriere.

Vielleicht ein Problem zu dem früheren Argument ist von der Konflikt zwischen der katholischen und der östlichen Kirche oder der Katholischen und der Anglikanischen Kirche. Innerhalb dieser Glaubensrichtungen waren die Leute mitinander einverstanden, aber waren balt getrentt. Meine ich, dass diese Leute getrennt sind? Natürlich nicht, sie haben nur den Namen geändert. Ich behaupte, dass diese Leute verbunden sind, trotz diese Trennung. Sie können immer noch getrennt sein, aber das ist nicht wegen Religion, sondern aus politischen Gründen.

Ein anderes Argument gegen diese Idee, dass Religion wichtiger als andere Dinge ist, ist, dass Länder wie die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika viele Religionen und Glaubensfreiheit haben, aber dieselbe Kultur. Ich frage mich nun, ob wir ein Präsident haben können, der nicht Christ ist. Theoretisch ja, aber nicht in Wirlichkeit. Die wahre Tätsache ist, dass Amerika ein christliches Land ist. Ich meine nicht, dass wir keine Glaubensfreiheit haben, aber die traditionelle amerikanische Kultur ist christlich. Auf unseren Geldscheinen ist, “auf Gott vertrauen wir” geschrieben. Die christliche Kirche ist oft ein Teil der amerikanischen Kultur. Ich denke, dass Menschen anderer Kultur hier leben können und ihrer Religion dienen, aber sie sind leider Aussenseiter von echter Amerikanischer Kultur. Ich denke aber nicht, dass diese Leute den “American Dream” nicht erreichen können. Hier können die Leute ziemlich leicht in ihrer Kultur leben, aber sie gehoren nicht zur traditionellen Amerikanischen Kultur. Sie sind Aussenseiter, und Religion hat viel damit zu tun.

Etwas, das meine Theorie ein wenig ins Wanken geraten lässt, ist die Tatsache, dass ich seit mehr als einem Jahr die “Chinese Bible Church of Greater Boston” besuche. Dort fühle ich mich oft wie ein Aussenseiter, obwohl ich Christ bin, und ich mich mit der Doktrin übereinstimme. Warum? Ich bin der einzige dort, der nicht chinesischer Herkunft ist. Ab und zu gibt es etwas in den Predigten, das ich nicht verstehen kann, weil der Pastor viele Anspielungen auf die chinesische Kultur macht. Ist hier ein Beweis gegen meine Theorie, weil die Leute da verschieden sind, obwohl sie Christen sind?

Es ist ein Frage der Perspektive. Die Leute da sind halt Chinesen, die in einer anderen Kultur aufgewachsen sind. Die meiste Leute sind nicht in eine christlichen Familie aufgewachsen. Wenn da jemand wäre, der Chinese aber kein Christ ist, glaube ich, dass er sich viel fremder fühlen würde als ich. Auf jeden Fall, weil Religion der wichtigste Grund ist. Es ist aber nicht der einzige Grund.

Vielleicht ein anderes Argument gegen mein Anspruch ist, dass mehr Leute gestorben sind auf Kampfplätzen wegen politischen oder sogar ideologischen Gründen. Ich werde aber sagen, dass Leute für ihr Land sterben, weil sie dazu verpflichtet sind. Es wird oft gesagt, dass alte Männer Kriege mache, während die Jungen dafur sterben müssen. Es wird auch gesagt, dass es keine Atheisten in einem Schützengraben gibt. Ich bin im Militär und wir hören immer, dass wir vielleicht für unseren Land sterben müssen. Es wird “das ultimative Opfer” genannt. Aber Leute sind freiwillig für ihre Religion gestorben. Es ist ganz anders, wenn jemand für einen Land stirbt, als wenn er als Märtyrer stirbt. Ein Märtyrer stirbt aus Liebe. Die meisten Märtyrer waren allein, und sie konnten entscheiden, ob sie die Religion verleugnen wollten. Sie konnten das machen, und die andern würden in dem selben Zustand sein, aber ein Soldat kämpft, um sein Land zu verteidigen. Wenn ein Soldat gefangengenommen wird, ist es das Schlimmste, wenn er irgendetwas streng Geheimes preisgibt. Er stirbt nicht, weil er an irgendetwas glaubt, sondern weil er sterben muss, um einen politisches Ziel zu erreichen. Er ist ein Opfer, wenn ein Märtyrer, ein Held und Ideal ist.

Zum Beispiel gibt es in Deutschland viele Muslime aus der Türkei, das heisst, dass diese Leute eine Minderheit sind. Sie sind eine Minderheit, weil sie verschieden sind. Sie gehören zu eine Kultur, gegen die die Mehrheit ist. Was ist der Unterschied zwischen diesen Leuten und deutschen Leuten, und was hat es mit Religion zu tun?

Es ist nicht wegen anderer Kleidung, weil nicht alle sich gleich kleiden. Es ist nicht wegen des Familienlebens, weil nicht alle denselben Haushalt haben. Es ist nicht wegen Geld, weil es auch reiche und arme Türken gibt. Was ist es dann, das die Leute unterscheidet? Ich glaube, dass der Hauptgrund Religion ist.

Wenn wir anders glauben, denken wir anders. Wenn es in einer Kultur unterschiedliche Glaubensrichtungen gibt, kann es keine solidarische Kultur sein. Eine Kultur, die nur dieselbe Herkunft hat, ist nicht mehr als eine Gruppe. Sie können sich vielleicht anders kleiden, sie können sich vielleicht dieselbe Sprachen sprechen, aber wenn sie glauben, dass sie ein anderes Schicksal haben, dann sind sie nur eine menge Menschen.

Religion ist der Klebstoff, der eine Kultur verbindet. Wenn wir das vergessen, dann vergessen wir einen wichtigen Teil der Kultur. Alles hängt von der Religion ab. Wenn Leute die Religion ändern, dann ändert sich die Kultur. Die Kultur kann die Religion nicht ändern, nur die Haltung zu der Religion.

Man kann bei Sozialbewegungen sehen wie wichtig Religion ist. Es gibt Führungspersönlichkeiten wie Louis Farrakan, die wissen, dass man für eine echte änderung der Leute eine Religion braucht. Louis Farrakan versucht durch den Islam eine Kultur für die Schwarzen zu finden. Er weisst, das eine Kultur eine Religionbraucht, um in enger Gemeinschaft zu leben.

Ist es nur übereinstimmend, dass die grösste Sozial bewegungen mit Religion verbunden sind? Martin Luther King, Jr. hat die andere Richtigung gepredigt, dass alle Leute die gleichen Rechte haben sollen. Er war Christ. Sein Grund, frei zu sein, war wegen des christlichen Glaubens, das sagt das “Da ist nicht Jude noch Grieche, da ist nicht Sklave noch Freier, da ist nicht Mann und Frau; denn ihr alle seid einer in Christus Jesus.” Auch Ghandi war Religiös, und die Leute gehorchten ihm, nicht weil er ein sehr mächtiger oder schlauer Politiker war, sondern weil er ein “Heiliger Mann” war. Mann sollte nicht übersehen, dass Jesus Christüs die Geschichte drastische änderte, und er war ein Zimmermann. Alle von diesen haben nicht über den Nationalismus gesprochen, sondern nur die Religion, aber beiden haben Nationen geändert. Warum? Weil Religion mehr Kraft als alle sonstigen Dinge, die Menschen verbinden, hat.

Wenn zwei Leute anders glauben, seien sie auch Freunde, können sie nur bis zu einem gewissen Grad eng befreundet sein. Wenn zwei Leute Basketball spielen, sind sie verbunden. Wenn zwei Leute rote Hemden tragen, sind sie verbunden. Wenn zwei Leute etwas gemeinsam fühlen, sind sind sie verbunden. Wenn zwei Leute etwas zusammen erleben oder zusammen leiden, sind sind sie verbunden. Wenn zwei Leute von der gleichen Rasse sind, sind sind sie verbunden. Aber wenn zwei Leute denselben Glauben haben, sind sie viel mehr als verbunden. Sie haben dasselbe Schicksal. Es ist doch noch viel mehr, als zu einer Gruppe zu gehören.

Mann kann die Folge von dies mit der Türken in Deutschland sehen. Sie sind fast alle Muslim, aber viele haben ein Lebenstil, der anders ist, als es der Koran vorschreibt. Viele trinken Alkohol, und das ist nach dem Koran verboten, aber was wichtig ist, ist, dass sie die Kultur noch haben. Deswegen würden sie nie sagen, das die nicht Muslim sind.

Jeder will zu eine Gemeinschaft gehören. Aber man kann sich nur bis zu einem gewissen Grad ohne Religion näherkommen. Deswegen ist es sehr wichtig, dass die Leute die Religion achten. Hautfarbe ist nicht genug. Herkunft ist nicht genug. Politische Meinung ist nicht genug. Der Aufenthaltsort ist nicht genug. Zusammen Leiden ist nicht genug. Und nur Religion ist auch nicht genug.

Ich gebe zu, dass das, was eine Kultur ausmacht, zu komplex ist, um es vollständig zu verste hen. Aber eins ist sicher: man sollte niemals die Macht der Religion unterschätzen.

By 0 Comments

Athletics (from 1995)

I often see parallels between interscholastic athletics and life – sometimes I win and sometimes I lose. And the losses are always more instructive than the wins (though the wins are more enjoyable.) Over the years I have won much – and lost much, but the basic love I have to compete has never changed.

One would describe me as a competitive person. And I would admit guilty to that charge. Years of athletics have made me that way. Yet I know this competitive part of me enables me to accomplish a lot. It enables me to reach for goals that many say are unattainable. And it enables me to attain them.

This competitive side does not feed on hate, however. It thrives on love. Aristotle said, “The good man obeys for love, while the evil for fear.” He hit upon a substantial truth in that statement. I believe that a good athlete competes for love. Sometimes that love can be expressed in a fierce, intense manner, but at the heart of every great athlete is a love for his/her sport.

I can honestly say that I have an inbred love for both tennis and cross-country. I think that the same love is found in the bottom of both – a love of competition, or maybe even a deeper love beyond that.

I remember that as soon as I was old enough to stand, I wanted to play tennis. After all my father (my hero) played tennis, so why couldn’t I? I went out with the neighborhood guys and hit in the streets with the wooden rackets that I found in the closet. My father saw me out hitting in the street and decided it was time to travel to the courts with me. Most of my childhood memories involve my father and the tennis court. You could say that my relationship with my father has its roots on the court.

As the years passed, and my game picked up some speed, I learned to see the beauty in playing the game. I learned to channel that love into a competitive machine. These characteristics were easy to apply to other events outside of the athletic arena. I learned to be a fighter.

Running goes the same way. My father was a wonderful runner during my childhood. Running was one more way to be with my father. I remember when he was running a race one day I just decided to start with him (at age 8?). Without his knowing I took a short-cut and was able to get a very competitive time. He was so proud, I just couldn’t tell him what really happened. So I went out and practiced so that I could be a great runner. I became the fulfillment of what my father expected.

Now that my High School athletics are coming to a close I can see that though the actual competition between schools will cease – what I have learned will prove invaluable throughout life. I know that to succeed in anything I (1) need a definition of success, a goal, (2) A plan to achieve that goal and (3) the self-discipline to carry out that plan and achieve the goal. My participation in athletics has taught me much about this process.

Yet athletics have also taught me about myself. They have taught me that I can accomplish my dreams – if I am only willing to make them happen.

By 0 Comments

Back Yard Patio (small)

This should perhaps be posted to the development side. But I put in a patio in the back yard today and wanted to share some of what I learned.


Sub DrawVisio()

Dim oVisio As New Visio.Application

Dim oDoc As Visio.Document
Dim oPage As Visio.Page

Set oDoc = oVisio.Documents.Add("basic.vst")

Set oPage = oDoc.Pages.Add

'Set oPage = oDoc.Pages.Add

    Dim UndoScopeID2 As Long
    UndoScopeID2 = oVisio.BeginUndoScope("Page Setup")
    oVisio.ActivePage.Background = False
    oVisio.ActivePage.BackPage = ""
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPage, visPageWidth).FormulaU = "8 ft 6 in"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPage, visPageHeight).FormulaU = "11 ft"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPage, visPageDrawingScale).FormulaU = "1 ft"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPage, visPageDrawScaleType).FormulaU = "3"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPageLayout, visPLOLineToNodeX).FormulaU = "0 ft 1.5 in"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPageLayout, visPLOLineToNodeY).FormulaU = "0 ft 1.5 in"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPageLayout, visPLOBlockSizeX).FormulaU = "0 ft 3 in"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPageLayout, visPLOBlockSizeY).FormulaU = "0 ft 3 in"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPageLayout, visPLOAvenueSizeX).FormulaU = "0 ft 4.5 in"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPageLayout, visPLOAvenueSizeY).FormulaU = "0 ft 4.5 in"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPageLayout, visPLOLineToLineX).FormulaU = "0 ft 1.5 in"
    oVisio.ActivePage.PageSheet.CellsSRC(visSectionObject, visRowPageLayout, visPLOLineToLineY).FormulaU = "0 ft 1.5 in"
    oVisio.EndUndoScope UndoScopeID2, True

' 132 doc points = 11 ft => all units in inches

Dim iRow As Integer
Dim x As Double

For iRow = 1 To 7
    x = Cells(iRow, 1).Value * 12
    oPage.DrawLine x, 0#, x, Cells(iRow, 2).Value * 12
Next iRow

Set oDoc = Nothing ' minimal garbage collection

End Sub

So by taking measurements (with my laser), I was able to populate a spreadsheet which drew the lines I needed. I connected these lines with some splines and then was able to get the layout I wanted.

Picture coming.

By 0 Comments

The Reign of King Mob

After listening to seven lectures from “The Conservative Tradition” I have a much better understanding of what a conservative is and how our present understanding of conservative philosophy developed. While in the first lecture, Prof Allit explained that those holding conservative philosophies hold different beliefs in different periods of history, I didn’t really understand this until I could observe the United States in the early years. At this point, I would define conservatism as a philosophy which is skeptical of blueprints for society and aware of the fallen nature of all people.

For one, it was very interesting that many founding fathers (Adams, Washington, Hamilton) were very distrustful of democracy and were merely trying to restore rights to the American People that were only recently removed by King George’s radical interventions which were depriving them of their basic liberties earned in the Glorious Revolution one hundred years before. They were inspired by and idolized the austere classical heroism of Cato and Cincinnatus. While Thomas Jefferson was focused on the power of the people and placed special emphasis on the yeoman farmer, many of the founding fathers feared giving power to commoners and created a representative system of checks and balances. Their eyes were wide open regarding human nature — and they attempted to build a government around this realization. They also kept a careful ear on accumulated political wisdom of the ages and considered government a necessary evil, not an inherent force for good.

This set the stage for understanding conservativism in the years before the civil war — from both a northern and southern perspective, with the natural question of where my beliefs would have fit in the climate that proceeded the deaths of 620,000 men. Lincoln is a true hero of mine, as is Daniel Webster, and both had a strong love for the union and support for free enterprise. However, Lincoln believed in a strong federal government, while I tend to wish more decisions were deferred to the local level (state or city). Southern conservatives, also loved their society and deplored the conditions for northern factory workers, with their inhumane “free labor” impinging on their stable way of life and their vision of a balanced society where honor had sacred meaning (heavily influenced by Sir Walter Scott). In any case, this time period might be one of the best for understanding such a complex term as conservative.

In roughly the same time frame, Andrew Jackson is introduced. The first populist president, many commentators have been comparing President Obama to this “American Lion”. However, conservatives at the time were terrified at this “Jacobin” president, who vetoed the National Bank’s charter, bringing disaster to the economy under the name of ideology. In my mind they did have much to fear. In a desire to be loved by the people, Jackson totally ignored the Supreme Court (“let [John Marshall] enforce it”) to commit one of the worst acts of genocide in history in the trail of tears. (Undertaken essentially to clear the indians from northern Georgia where gold had been discovered.) Jackson’s willingness to radically change society made him anything but a conservative, but there is something more here that gave me a hint on where I personally stand. Namely, the need for virtuous leaders who derive their morality from within — not from a desire to represent the people. Think of the untold evil done by corporations to “please their shareholders” as a small example of the perils of emphasis on pleasing others instead of one’s internal conscience.

I would not have voted for Jackson (Henry Clay would have been my pick over John Calhoun) and I found that, for me, it comes to this: moral understanding, with wisdom and a correct understanding of the nature of man’s fallen state. Jackson was a blood-thirsty general whose morality was based on the victory of the strong, the will of the people, and the preservation of sacred honor. My heros: men like Churchill, Lincoln, Cicero, or Cato — are men of profound moral understanding and consuming passion. One can certainly be moral and feckless (maybe Carter), but I think my criteria for my political philosophy is starting to come into place. I feel this is a good start. Any thoughts?

By 0 Comments

Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Program

As a new civilian employee, I am interested in evaluating my options for life insurance (next will be health insurance, retirement plan optimization, etc). My first question was if the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Program was/is a good deal. My initial view was that this program was a good idea only for those who don’t have to submit to a physical.

By 0 Comments