Monday, December 30, 2013
Proverbs, Chapter 11, Verse 4
"Riches profit not in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivereth from death."
Monday, December 23, 2013
Proverbs, Chapter 3, verse 28
"Say not unto thy neighbor, Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give, when thou hast it by thee."
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
"Try and ... "
The Associated Press filed a story today entitled "12 gold miners dead in Guinea after collapse."
In that story the author said:
"A rescue operation was underway to try and find the eight who remained missing after the collapse early Wednesday but authorities said the hope of finding more survivors was slim." [Emphasis added.]
"Try and find?" Really. So, they're going to try to do something, we don't know what, and they're going to find them?
It should be "try to find." I know people say and write "try and ... " all the time, but it isn't correct.
If the Associated Press can't get it right in a written story, where the author has plenty of time to check his or her work and has an editor who should be doing the same, is there any hope for the average person getting it right?
In that story the author said:
"A rescue operation was underway to try and find the eight who remained missing after the collapse early Wednesday but authorities said the hope of finding more survivors was slim." [Emphasis added.]
"Try and find?" Really. So, they're going to try to do something, we don't know what, and they're going to find them?
It should be "try to find." I know people say and write "try and ... " all the time, but it isn't correct.
If the Associated Press can't get it right in a written story, where the author has plenty of time to check his or her work and has an editor who should be doing the same, is there any hope for the average person getting it right?
Friday, August 23, 2013
An Adventure in La Macarena
If you are looking for an adventure, but you're not quite up to climbing to the top of Mount Everest, allow me to recommend Cano Cristales in La Macarena, Colombia.
I never do this. But, I recently visited Cano Cristales in La Macarena, and it was such a fantastic place and such a wonderful visit that I am doing what I've never done before: I'm suggesting a place for your vacation. And no one is paying me a dime for this recommedation.
My fiance is from Colombia, and she took me to visit her country of origen. We stayed in Bogota, which is, in it's own right, an amazing city worth visiting. But, for three days and two nights, we visited La Macarena and toured the national park there.
We arrived by plane from Bogata, about an hour flight. When we got out of the plane, the first thing we saw was a big, twin-engined cargo plane sitting on the grass next to the runway, with a zorra parked under the wing in the shade. A zorra is a horse-drawn cart - and this one was complete with horse. It wasn't there for tourist effect, it was there because it was actually used to carry the cargo to and from the plane.
The airport terminal was open-air - a building with a corrugated tin roof and almost no walls. On the street outside, we met our guide, a professional young man named William. William walked us down the main street of La Macarena for about two blocks, then turned a corner and another block later we were at our hotel. There are fourteen hotels in La Macarena, but William assured us this hotel was the best.
In this area, the streets of La Macarena were wide and paved. In fact, they were boulevards, with grassy medians and tall trees down the middle. However, it didn't seem to matter which side of the median you drove on. People just seemed to select whichever side suited them best at the moment. But, that wasn't a big problem, because in three days in La Macarena, I saw two, maybe three, cars. Lots of motorcycles. Not a few riders on horseback. Lots of pedestrians. Some commercial trucks delivering to the various stores, but almost no cars.
And, the stores do not seem to have doors. Each of them was open-fronted, with a garage door that they could pull down to close the store in the evening. People and goods of all kinds spilled out of the stores onto the sidewalks everywhere, so that most people just walked in the streets.
Our hotel was beautiful and charming - sparkling white tile floors, pristine white walls, lots of dark wood trim everywhere. Our room was small, but clean and just as charming, with the additional touch of a window unit air conditioner and a cable television.
As soon as we had a chance to change, our guide met us in the street and we headed off for Cano Cristales. He led us down the street, across the town square - a grassy square bordered and criss-crossed by sidewalks complete with horses freely ranging around, mowing the grass the way that horses mow grass. Then we reached a gravel street on the far side of the square, which lead quickly down to the wide, muddy river, past the local gymnasium, equipped with every sort of work-out machines you can imagine. You can join the gym in La Macarena!
At the river, we donned life jackets and boarded a somewhat unsteady canoe carved from a single, hollowed out log. When we were all settled, the canoe driver started the motor boat engine and we headed up-river. Along the banks of the river as we sped by was jungle. Real, honest-to-goodness, like-you-see-in-the-movies jungle. We passed turkeys roosting in the trees, and two different types of monkees scampering about in the branches, some holding their tiny babies as they lept from branch to branch. On the trip we saw other birds, a ring-tailed lemur, iguanas, lizards, and an indescribable variety of plants and flowers.
About twenty minutes up the river, the canoe pulled up to the bank and we got off. A short climb up the bank led us to a waiting pick-up truck and driver. We all piled in and set off across the plains (Los Llanos) for another twenty minutes or so. We traveled on a road in name only. In some places it was a road only in the sense that it was connected to other areas without vegetation. But, the views were majestic. Los Llanos are on the eastern side of the Andes, so they form part of the plain that ultimately leads to the Amazon. Much of it has been cleared for cattle over time, but a lot of it is still jungle. The view of the low rolling hills, with the jungle in strips and patches, was magnificent.
We reached a tin-roofed shed and dismounted. From here we would go on foot. A walk down the hill brought us to the most beautiful stream I can imagine. Crystal-clear water flowing over flat rocks, and growing in patches from the rocks - vividly colored algae. Reds and greens and yellows, from which the cano - a creek or a stream - derives it's nickname - the River of Five Colors. I thought, "This is magnificent. Well worth the trip." It turns out it was only the beginning.
Three days of trekking across the plains and through the jungle (we returned to our hotel and a fabulous dinner each night), criss-crossing the canos back and forth and following narrow trails through the jungle and a over steep, volcanic rock escarpments, viewing some of the most incredible scenery imaginable. It turns out that first little stream we crossed, which I thought was so amazingly beautiful, was small compared to the rest of what we saw. Beautiful waterfalls, fantastic colors, deep swimming holes - in which we swam, by the way, but no sunscreen! They are very ecologically sensitive and no perfume, deodorant, or sunscreen is permitted if you swim in the waters of Cano Cristales. This trip is definitely eco-tourism.
And, the second night, the village of La Macarena held a party for all the tourists. After showering and changing at our hotel after a day of hiking, William led us to an outdoor stage, complete with band, and a wonderful dinner prepared and served by the people of the the town. During the middle of the party, it started raining, so everyone, the band included, just moved under a nearby roof and continued. There was wonderful music, and lots of dancing. I danced the "joropo!" (Forgive my spelling if I got that wrong.) I am probably one of the few Americans who has danced the traditional dance of Los Llaneros, in Los Llanos.
When we were about to leave, the owner of the hotel asked me to tell everyone in America that it was safe to come to La Macarena, Colombia. They are very afraid that foreigners will not feel safe visiting in that part of Colombia and they are working very hard to change that perception.
I will tell you, not only did I feel perfectly safe every moment of the trip, I had a great time. And, more than once, I thought, "This is not Disneyworld. This is a real adventure." Okay, it isn't climbing Mount Everest. We had a seven-year-old in our group and I saw an old man with a cane sitting next to one of the canos. But, it is real, it is beautiful, and it is worth every penny and every moment it takes to get there.
I never do this. But, I recently visited Cano Cristales in La Macarena, and it was such a fantastic place and such a wonderful visit that I am doing what I've never done before: I'm suggesting a place for your vacation. And no one is paying me a dime for this recommedation.
My fiance is from Colombia, and she took me to visit her country of origen. We stayed in Bogota, which is, in it's own right, an amazing city worth visiting. But, for three days and two nights, we visited La Macarena and toured the national park there.
We arrived by plane from Bogata, about an hour flight. When we got out of the plane, the first thing we saw was a big, twin-engined cargo plane sitting on the grass next to the runway, with a zorra parked under the wing in the shade. A zorra is a horse-drawn cart - and this one was complete with horse. It wasn't there for tourist effect, it was there because it was actually used to carry the cargo to and from the plane.
The airport terminal was open-air - a building with a corrugated tin roof and almost no walls. On the street outside, we met our guide, a professional young man named William. William walked us down the main street of La Macarena for about two blocks, then turned a corner and another block later we were at our hotel. There are fourteen hotels in La Macarena, but William assured us this hotel was the best.
In this area, the streets of La Macarena were wide and paved. In fact, they were boulevards, with grassy medians and tall trees down the middle. However, it didn't seem to matter which side of the median you drove on. People just seemed to select whichever side suited them best at the moment. But, that wasn't a big problem, because in three days in La Macarena, I saw two, maybe three, cars. Lots of motorcycles. Not a few riders on horseback. Lots of pedestrians. Some commercial trucks delivering to the various stores, but almost no cars.
And, the stores do not seem to have doors. Each of them was open-fronted, with a garage door that they could pull down to close the store in the evening. People and goods of all kinds spilled out of the stores onto the sidewalks everywhere, so that most people just walked in the streets.
Our hotel was beautiful and charming - sparkling white tile floors, pristine white walls, lots of dark wood trim everywhere. Our room was small, but clean and just as charming, with the additional touch of a window unit air conditioner and a cable television.
As soon as we had a chance to change, our guide met us in the street and we headed off for Cano Cristales. He led us down the street, across the town square - a grassy square bordered and criss-crossed by sidewalks complete with horses freely ranging around, mowing the grass the way that horses mow grass. Then we reached a gravel street on the far side of the square, which lead quickly down to the wide, muddy river, past the local gymnasium, equipped with every sort of work-out machines you can imagine. You can join the gym in La Macarena!
At the river, we donned life jackets and boarded a somewhat unsteady canoe carved from a single, hollowed out log. When we were all settled, the canoe driver started the motor boat engine and we headed up-river. Along the banks of the river as we sped by was jungle. Real, honest-to-goodness, like-you-see-in-the-movies jungle. We passed turkeys roosting in the trees, and two different types of monkees scampering about in the branches, some holding their tiny babies as they lept from branch to branch. On the trip we saw other birds, a ring-tailed lemur, iguanas, lizards, and an indescribable variety of plants and flowers.
About twenty minutes up the river, the canoe pulled up to the bank and we got off. A short climb up the bank led us to a waiting pick-up truck and driver. We all piled in and set off across the plains (Los Llanos) for another twenty minutes or so. We traveled on a road in name only. In some places it was a road only in the sense that it was connected to other areas without vegetation. But, the views were majestic. Los Llanos are on the eastern side of the Andes, so they form part of the plain that ultimately leads to the Amazon. Much of it has been cleared for cattle over time, but a lot of it is still jungle. The view of the low rolling hills, with the jungle in strips and patches, was magnificent.
We reached a tin-roofed shed and dismounted. From here we would go on foot. A walk down the hill brought us to the most beautiful stream I can imagine. Crystal-clear water flowing over flat rocks, and growing in patches from the rocks - vividly colored algae. Reds and greens and yellows, from which the cano - a creek or a stream - derives it's nickname - the River of Five Colors. I thought, "This is magnificent. Well worth the trip." It turns out it was only the beginning.
Three days of trekking across the plains and through the jungle (we returned to our hotel and a fabulous dinner each night), criss-crossing the canos back and forth and following narrow trails through the jungle and a over steep, volcanic rock escarpments, viewing some of the most incredible scenery imaginable. It turns out that first little stream we crossed, which I thought was so amazingly beautiful, was small compared to the rest of what we saw. Beautiful waterfalls, fantastic colors, deep swimming holes - in which we swam, by the way, but no sunscreen! They are very ecologically sensitive and no perfume, deodorant, or sunscreen is permitted if you swim in the waters of Cano Cristales. This trip is definitely eco-tourism.
And, the second night, the village of La Macarena held a party for all the tourists. After showering and changing at our hotel after a day of hiking, William led us to an outdoor stage, complete with band, and a wonderful dinner prepared and served by the people of the the town. During the middle of the party, it started raining, so everyone, the band included, just moved under a nearby roof and continued. There was wonderful music, and lots of dancing. I danced the "joropo!" (Forgive my spelling if I got that wrong.) I am probably one of the few Americans who has danced the traditional dance of Los Llaneros, in Los Llanos.
When we were about to leave, the owner of the hotel asked me to tell everyone in America that it was safe to come to La Macarena, Colombia. They are very afraid that foreigners will not feel safe visiting in that part of Colombia and they are working very hard to change that perception.
I will tell you, not only did I feel perfectly safe every moment of the trip, I had a great time. And, more than once, I thought, "This is not Disneyworld. This is a real adventure." Okay, it isn't climbing Mount Everest. We had a seven-year-old in our group and I saw an old man with a cane sitting next to one of the canos. But, it is real, it is beautiful, and it is worth every penny and every moment it takes to get there.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The "Sequester"
I'm not sure why they call it the "sequester," but the "sequester" is an across-the-board set of federal budget cuts set to take effect on March 1.
There is a lot of finger-pointing and blaming and cross-accusation about the "sequester," making it pretty hard to know exactly what it is and what's going on, but here are a few things about the "sequester" that seem to be true and undisputed.
1. It's real.
These are real budget cuts, they are really across-the-board, and they are really going to take effect. Apparently, the law is written in such a way that the executive branch has no discretion to cut spending where it chooses, but must make cuts pro-rata across all the departments.
2. It's bad.
Except for a tiny group whose objective seems to be to destroy the federal government, everyone agrees that the "sequester" will be bad for America. There is substantial dispute about how bad it will be, from those who say "It won't be that bad" to those who say "It will be a disaster." Some say that it would be good to cut the federal budget in the total amount of the "sequester," but even they agree that across-the-board cuts, with no judgement as to what programs get cut and in what amounts to accomplish the total, is bad. But, as far as I can tell, no sensible person claims that it will be good. Everyone agrees that, to some extent, it will be bad for America.
3. It's manufactured.
The Congress of the United States, in a law signed by the President of the United States, created the "sequester." It is not the necessary result of forces beyond our control. It is self-inflicted. This does not mean that it isn't real. It is very real. But, it is manufactured. We created it.
4. It could easily be avoided.
All the Congress has to do is pass a bill repealing the "sequester" and the President sign that law and this thing that is real and admitted by virtually everyone as bad will simply disappear. There is nothing that is unavoidable about it.
But, there do not seem to be any plans, at least no public plans, to avoid the "sequester."
So, it appears that the Democrats and the Republicans are playing a game of chicken. They are trying to see who will swerve out of the way first as they drive headlong into each other. And, from all appearances, both have decided it won't be them. Which will result in a crash.
Unfortunately, it won't be the Congressmen or the President, it won't be the Democratic leadership of the nation or the Republican leadership of the nation, who are hurt the worst. It will be the average American. Vital services - services that almost everyone agrees are necessary - will be cut. Programs considered extremely important by average Republican Americans will be cut, programs they would never cut if given the choice of cutting that program or some other. Programs considered extremely important by average Democratic Americans will be cut, programs they would never cut if given the choice of cutting that program or some other. And the economy will be hurt, impacting virtually everyone. No one knows how much the economy will suffer, but virtually everyone agrees there will be some damage to the economy, and some pretty smart people think it will be disastrous to the economy.
Nonetheless, it appears that our leaders are going to let it happen, even though they know it is bad.
In case it wasn't obvious, here's what I think ought to happen: the Congress should pass a law and the President should sign that law repealing the law by which our Congress and our President created this real, bad, yet manufactured event. Then, how much, if any, and where, we cut the federal budget should be fought out in the process of adopting a federal budget. And we should adopt a budget, not just pass continuing resolutions and never adopt a budget. If someone has the votes to make a cut, then so be it. If they don't, then they need to stop trying to sabotage America with these manufactured crises.
Who should we hold responsible? We should hold responsible every U.S. Representative and every U.S. Senator who does not either file a bill or support a bill filed by someone else to repeal the "sequester." If they pass such a bill, we should hold the President responsible if he doesn't immediately sign it.
Enough of this craziness.
But, speaking of craziness, none of this will make a spit worth of difference in the long run if we don't do something about global climate change. If we don't deal with that problem, the effects of the "sequester," no matter how bad, are going to seem like a holiday.
There is a lot of finger-pointing and blaming and cross-accusation about the "sequester," making it pretty hard to know exactly what it is and what's going on, but here are a few things about the "sequester" that seem to be true and undisputed.
1. It's real.
These are real budget cuts, they are really across-the-board, and they are really going to take effect. Apparently, the law is written in such a way that the executive branch has no discretion to cut spending where it chooses, but must make cuts pro-rata across all the departments.
2. It's bad.
Except for a tiny group whose objective seems to be to destroy the federal government, everyone agrees that the "sequester" will be bad for America. There is substantial dispute about how bad it will be, from those who say "It won't be that bad" to those who say "It will be a disaster." Some say that it would be good to cut the federal budget in the total amount of the "sequester," but even they agree that across-the-board cuts, with no judgement as to what programs get cut and in what amounts to accomplish the total, is bad. But, as far as I can tell, no sensible person claims that it will be good. Everyone agrees that, to some extent, it will be bad for America.
3. It's manufactured.
The Congress of the United States, in a law signed by the President of the United States, created the "sequester." It is not the necessary result of forces beyond our control. It is self-inflicted. This does not mean that it isn't real. It is very real. But, it is manufactured. We created it.
4. It could easily be avoided.
All the Congress has to do is pass a bill repealing the "sequester" and the President sign that law and this thing that is real and admitted by virtually everyone as bad will simply disappear. There is nothing that is unavoidable about it.
But, there do not seem to be any plans, at least no public plans, to avoid the "sequester."
So, it appears that the Democrats and the Republicans are playing a game of chicken. They are trying to see who will swerve out of the way first as they drive headlong into each other. And, from all appearances, both have decided it won't be them. Which will result in a crash.
Unfortunately, it won't be the Congressmen or the President, it won't be the Democratic leadership of the nation or the Republican leadership of the nation, who are hurt the worst. It will be the average American. Vital services - services that almost everyone agrees are necessary - will be cut. Programs considered extremely important by average Republican Americans will be cut, programs they would never cut if given the choice of cutting that program or some other. Programs considered extremely important by average Democratic Americans will be cut, programs they would never cut if given the choice of cutting that program or some other. And the economy will be hurt, impacting virtually everyone. No one knows how much the economy will suffer, but virtually everyone agrees there will be some damage to the economy, and some pretty smart people think it will be disastrous to the economy.
Nonetheless, it appears that our leaders are going to let it happen, even though they know it is bad.
In case it wasn't obvious, here's what I think ought to happen: the Congress should pass a law and the President should sign that law repealing the law by which our Congress and our President created this real, bad, yet manufactured event. Then, how much, if any, and where, we cut the federal budget should be fought out in the process of adopting a federal budget. And we should adopt a budget, not just pass continuing resolutions and never adopt a budget. If someone has the votes to make a cut, then so be it. If they don't, then they need to stop trying to sabotage America with these manufactured crises.
Who should we hold responsible? We should hold responsible every U.S. Representative and every U.S. Senator who does not either file a bill or support a bill filed by someone else to repeal the "sequester." If they pass such a bill, we should hold the President responsible if he doesn't immediately sign it.
Enough of this craziness.
But, speaking of craziness, none of this will make a spit worth of difference in the long run if we don't do something about global climate change. If we don't deal with that problem, the effects of the "sequester," no matter how bad, are going to seem like a holiday.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The Debt Ceiling
Imagine a couple who sit down and work out a budget for their family expenses. They look over it when they're done, and the wife says to the husband, "You know, this budget for expenses is more than our income." The husband says, "I know." The wife asks, "So, how are we going to pay for this budget, when it allows us to spend more than we make?" The husband says, "We'll have to go into debt." "You mean, borrow money so we can pay for the things in this budget?" "Yes," the husband responds. "Exactly. We'll have to borrow money." "So, you know that means our creditors will expect us to pay them back, right?" "Yes, I know that." "And you know they'll be right in expecting us to pay them. If we borrow money from them, they have the right to be paid back. You know that, right?" "Yes, I know that." "And you agree to this budget?" "Yes, I do," says the husband. "Okay, so do I," says the wife.
So, the wife goes out and spends the money called for in the budget they both agreed to. Of course, to spend that money, she has to incur debts. She runs up their credit card, but she doesn't spend a dime that isn't in their budget.
Then the credit card bill arrives and it's for $100, and the husband says, "I don't want you to pay that $100 to the credit card company. I don't agree to you paying it."
"Wait!" she exclaims. "Wait! You agreed to our budget! We both did! And you knew we would have to incur debt to pay for that budget! Now you don't want to pay that debt?"
"Well," he says, "I agreed that you could spend $100 more than we made in income, and I agreed that you could charge it to our credit card, but I never agreed to pay the credit card company."
"Are you serious?" she asks incredulously. "Are you really making that argument that you agreed we would incur a debt, but you never agreed to pay it, and now you aren't going to agree to pay it? Really?"
"Yes, that's exactly the argument I'm making. I agreed to incur the debt, but I never agreed to pay the debt."
"But, you know this will ruin our credit rating, right?"
"Yes, I know that."
"And you know, no one will ever be willing to trust us again, because we don't keep our word, right?
"Yes, I know that, too."
"But, you still don't want to pay the debt that you agreed we should incur?" asks the wife.
"That's right," responds the husband with a straight face.
That would be weird, wouldn't it? Few people, if anyone, would think that the husband was being honest, or fair, or trustworthy, if he really did that.
But, that's exactly what Congress is doing if it refuses to raise the debt ceiling so that the executive branch can pay the debts that Congress already agreed the executive branch could incur when the Congress passed the budget.
Dishonest, unfair, and untrustworthy.
So, the wife goes out and spends the money called for in the budget they both agreed to. Of course, to spend that money, she has to incur debts. She runs up their credit card, but she doesn't spend a dime that isn't in their budget.
Then the credit card bill arrives and it's for $100, and the husband says, "I don't want you to pay that $100 to the credit card company. I don't agree to you paying it."
"Wait!" she exclaims. "Wait! You agreed to our budget! We both did! And you knew we would have to incur debt to pay for that budget! Now you don't want to pay that debt?"
"Well," he says, "I agreed that you could spend $100 more than we made in income, and I agreed that you could charge it to our credit card, but I never agreed to pay the credit card company."
"Are you serious?" she asks incredulously. "Are you really making that argument that you agreed we would incur a debt, but you never agreed to pay it, and now you aren't going to agree to pay it? Really?"
"Yes, that's exactly the argument I'm making. I agreed to incur the debt, but I never agreed to pay the debt."
"But, you know this will ruin our credit rating, right?"
"Yes, I know that."
"And you know, no one will ever be willing to trust us again, because we don't keep our word, right?
"Yes, I know that, too."
"But, you still don't want to pay the debt that you agreed we should incur?" asks the wife.
"That's right," responds the husband with a straight face.
That would be weird, wouldn't it? Few people, if anyone, would think that the husband was being honest, or fair, or trustworthy, if he really did that.
But, that's exactly what Congress is doing if it refuses to raise the debt ceiling so that the executive branch can pay the debts that Congress already agreed the executive branch could incur when the Congress passed the budget.
Dishonest, unfair, and untrustworthy.
An Apology
Some time ago (my last post here, which has since been deleted), I wrote an article here which was insulting to my sister.
There are several reasons I wrote it, but there is no excuse for it.
It has been deleted.
I apologize.
There are several reasons I wrote it, but there is no excuse for it.
It has been deleted.
I apologize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)