Wheat-free, Egg-free and Dairy-free Nut Bread

From Facebook

On bus back to Austin. Didn't get mugged. Was it because of inherited karma or earned karma or just didn't?

Mark Manders, painted bronze figure

Waiting for trains to museums

Inside Bank

There was a big copper building and I thought that was the bank. But no, it is a nice neighborhood bank with lots of wood.

Coppermart Bank

Dart train to Lovers Lane

Progress in Big D.

30 minutes to Big D

No photos

Cop just told me I can't take pictures. Said it had to do with terrorist activities.

Austin Greyhound Station

Going on the bus today to big D to see art. Actually just to have a mid-life adventure.

May the Lord smile on you and be gracious to you. (Numbers 6:25)

First I made this sketch in 2009:

I made this drawing in 2009.

Then I decided that a line drawing wouldn't work well in the book. So I colored it.

Kingdom of God is within you.

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."—Luke 17:20-2

There is nothing either good or bad ...

There is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so. 

(Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, Scene II)

My former student, Jeff, wrote that he disagreed with William, saying that harming another is bad, especially when there is murder (my words). At the same time, another former student, from my days teaching in Dallas, wrote about virtuous capitalism. He imagines a bunch of business men who forego profits to give more to their employees and public than need be. Of course, the net result might actually not be so good for some. The shareholders might need to tell their kids that they can't go to college, and their competitors might go out of business because they can't compete with a company that gives away bread. Is this really virtue? (For a much more articulate expression of the social responsibility of business see: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005373.html).

I like to think about what morality would be like if there are no humans on Earth. Most people would agree that there would be no good and bad. There is only be ecosystems. One animal eats another, who then eats another and so on. They are usually wired to protect their own and to survive by taking advantage of those smaller or weaker than themselves.

Enter humans onto Earth who make judgments galore. And then they make judgments on others making judgments. Hitler decides that "X" could make his country better. Then someone else decides that Hitler is evil. A cycle is started that produces strife and war. Even two people who love each other have a tough time at getting along.

Buddha wrote (though not with Shakespeare's conciseness),

Do not form views in the world through either knowledge, virtuous conduct, or religious observances; likewise, avoid thinking of oneself as being either superior, inferior, or equal to others. The wise let go of the “self” and being free of attachments they depend not on knowledge. Nor do they dispute opinions or settle into any view. For those who have no wishes for either extremes of becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, there is no settling into the views held by others. Nor do they form the least notion in regard to views seen, heard, or thought out. How could one influence those wise ones who do not grasp at any views. —from the Sutta nipata

Jasper's Excusion

Jasper and I, on his last day in Austin this year, went on a excursion to the Bullock museum to see the Flying Monsters Imax movie. Excursions with me always end up more elaborate, and the plans change by the moment. We went to the art museum first, but it was closed. Then to the Ramson Center to see the Bibles and the first photo, but it was closed except for the Gutenberg Bible. Then to Bullock, where I refused to buy him $4.75 junk popcorn (he took it like a cool dude, but later his mom thought it was abuse). Anyway, it was a great trip, reminding me of the trips with my kids when they were that age. Click on the pictures to see them enlarged.

Scale

Flight jacket at gift store.

Gutenberg Bible, 2012

Don't Mess with Texas!

Big football, little boy.

Before Abraham was I am (John 8:58)

My favorite Zen riddle is "who were you before you were born?" This question stumped a star student who thought he knew everything. He went and faced the wall of a cave for a number of years to find the answer. When he returned to give the answer to his teacher, he asked why the teacher had not just given him the answer. "You would have hated me if I did," the teacher answered.

Nothing is permanent. And everything is eternal. That to me is what the mystic John is saying.

The shadow of death

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

— 23rd Psalm

Food is a necessity.

Friend raised a lot of questions on my recent blog. I'll just deal with one at a time.

She wrote: Food is not a right. . .  It’s a necessity. Housing is a necessity. Education has to happen if you want to survive. It doesn’t matter if the constitution or the delectation of human rights considers them ‘rights’. . . Without food, you die. Without water, you die. Without housing, you are exposed to the elements and have no real security . . .  and you will probably not live long. So there is what do people deserve and what people need in order to live.

No doubt that food is a necessity. Even Buddha discovered as much when he almost died on his diet of 1/2 of a grain of rice a day.

Some people have too little food to eat. Some of this is unnecessary. We have stockpiles of food that are being kept off the market to prevent prices from falling. Distribution of this food to the peoples of the world should be an important initiative.

Going back to the fact that some people have too little, we have a number of alternatives. One is do nothing, another is to have the government give them food (or teach them to fish), and a third is rely on charity to feed (or teach) those unable to feed themselves.

Doing nothing is not a good option. Just from a selfish standpoint, I or my children could be without food at some point in our lives. I would not want to live in a society where help was not available. The libertarian asks whether this is a role of government or whether private citizens (most charity comes from individuals, not businesses) could take care of the hungry.

1 in 3 Americans helped charities in 2005, giving 260.3 billion dollars. I understand that when we had less welfare than we do now, an even greater percentage of our income went to charity. A good way to wean the government off the feeding of the hungry is to have an option on our taxes to get a tax credit (not a deduction) when we give to charity. That way the charities could compete for dollars. Those with the best record for giving (most of their money goes to the hungry, not to administration) could get the most dollars to give.

This is not a simple or easy problem. Sometimes not giving is the best gift. But sometimes it is not. What I don't think we need is coercive taxing to feed the hungry. Through voluntary giving we not only solve the problem but we create a world village.

Charlie at 10 days old.

Short time with Charlie in the car while my daughter went into the drug store. But we got lots done. Took about 30 pictures. We worked on the vowels. I associated each vowel with a finger, as if we were counting with sounds. He tried to say some of them and was really interested (it made him stop crying (he was hungry)). We also counted and went to 5 instead of 4. I'm fascinated with the fact that we can count different elements in the same group and form a relationship that didn't exist (like 4 fingers and 4 apples). Oh, we also talked about fingers being part of the hand and the hand being part of the body and the body being part of the world. He's not quite ready for that, but it will be old hat by the time he is. Oh, I introduced up and down, a totally confusing concept that can't be explained unless you already understand it (like most concepts). Not bad for ten minutes in the back seat of a car!

What do we deserve?

One of the seemingly disagreements between the political parties seem to be about this question. I hope to point out that it may not be so much about what we deserve but rather how we might achieve that which we deserve.

The Declaration of Independence stated that we have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The latter was

"...one of the "unalienable rights" of people enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" and "liberty." "The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment." Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757, (1884.)"

Some say that we have the right to education, to food, to healthcare, and to housing. Though these are not specifically guaranteed by the constitution, one could argue that they are necessities for the pursuit of happiness and therefore also unalienable rights mentioned in the declaration of independence.

One means to achieve these "rights" is to redistribute wealth. This will work to the extent that there is enough to go around and that the powers-to-be have sufficient strength to make such a distribution.

There may be some consequences to redistribution. The "haves" might lose their incentive to accumulate. The "income" of the wealthy is a small part of their wealth. So in addition to high taxes, we would have to distribute their investments. Which may mean that companies that produce goods and services might become impoverished. The "have nots" might lost their incentive as well, having all that they need for their good life.

I love the saying, "give a man a fish and he has food for a day. Teach him to fish and he has food for life." It suggests a libertarian view of providing a better life for all. The ultimate outcome of a prosperous society will be happiness. That happiness will mean that more have the quality of life that they wish.

I believe both of the presidential contenders want the best for their citizens. The question is how that might be achieved.

Dialogue with friend on vouchers

Kim: A friend wrote a response to my posting the article about Romney supporting vouchers (though not calling them that). The local governments does three things with k-12 education: they make it mandatory up to a certain age, they tax people to pay for it, and they run the schools. Some have said that the schools could be run privately. The voucher system is a means to jump-start that process, taking some of the money generally given to public schools and giving it, through the parents, to private schools.

Friend: My thoughts about that school voucher issue. . . Not that you actually asked for them.

I once heard Bob Moses argue that we (the US) run a system of failing schools and we rescue the students that we can. We rescue them through ABC programs, charter schools, affirmative action, vouchers, ect. He argued that the reason the system doesn’t blow up is because the steam is allowed to escape in the form of these programs. He suggested there needed to be a national discussion about the SAT and/or ETS.

Kim: I think mandatory city-run schools are like the draft. If it was required that everyone must send their kids to public schools then we'd really see an explosion. Parents who can afford it send their kids to private schools because the kids get a better education there, and also are not subjects to the dangers of public schools.

Friend: I have also heard the argument that the voucher program is not a viable or desirable because you get a voucher for x amount of dollars (too lazy to look up the figure at this point) and this is not money enough to go to any private school. Moreover only fools would take there child out of a school system where their child is worth greater than x dollars to get a voucher for x dollars to try to get that kid into a school that requires greater than x dollars. The voucher program (at least as it runs currently) devalues a child’s worth in many peoples’ minds. (I have no child and am therefore uncertain if this is true.)

Kim: It is true that in practice vouchers are not equal to the amount spent per student. This should pacify the teacher unions who claim that vouchers deplete the resources of the public schools. Public schools profit when students choose to use a voucher for a private school, because they still get some money for that student. I've never heard that the voucher program devalues a child's worth, so I can't respond to that except to say the if any devaluing is done, it is in the minds of those doing the devaluing. 1/2 of the money given to public schools per student is a welcome tuition for some schools.

Having said that, economists talk about two ways of talking about costs. If you have a widget company, you can divide your investment by the number of widgets you produce to find the cost per widget. But if you decide to make one more widget, then you might spend a minimal amount ... nothing close to the cost per widget from the first calculation. If you reduce the number of students by 10% you don't reduce your cost of operation by 10%. Adding a few students to the classroom might not cost additional monies, thought it may negatively impact the learning.

Friend: I personally find it odd that the article you posted is using the words, ‘voting with their feet’ and that Mr. Romney talks about giving poor students the freedom to choose a public school outside their district. I think if Mr. Romney spent any time in the school I went to he would completely understand why I have to laugh about this. I do believe that Romney has never heard the argument that the school system went to hell when they started bussing in students. I have heard this argument many times and I am more than confident that you have heard this as well. I would argue that this is the number two reason people who participated in that white flight event playing out in the 90s give for having to move out (the number one reason being all the crime coming into the area). The bussing program was meant to give some poor students the (I don’t know that I would say freedom) ability to attend a public school outside their district. And this is the reason the schools got bad and forced many people to move away from their communities according to many. I really want to know how this voucher program is different than the bussing program in the minds of people who might be willing to pack up and leave (or vote with their feet) once those ‘poor students’ show up in their district. Also much of the opposition to the bussing program involves the idea that it is too expensive to bus students in and that it would be better to use that money to lift up the district the poor students are trying to escape. I think the very some argument would be applied to a voucher program in only a short matter of time.

Kim: I agree that bussing didn't work. The students were treated like stepchildren and never fully integrated into the school. There are many variables for success in school. One is the school, another the parents, another the upbringing and parental support for education. Vouchers put the responsibility of education back into the hands of the parents and for that reason should make more of a difference.

Friend: If one is willing to give students enough money to go anywhere they want for school, why not just start discussing how schools are funded. If it is the case (and I don’t know that it is) that the underfunded schools (those with a smaller influx of money) are also the schools that do not perform to standard, then maybe instead of sending the kids else where, the funding mechanism could simply be redesigned to redistribute funds more evenly. School funding is based on the property values of an area. Schools in neighborhoods with high property values have more money. In most cases around me, these are not the schools that are having academic performance issues. If the education money were distributed more evenly, I really think students wouldn’t need vouchers to travel across town to try to educate themselves in places that might be hostile to their presence. I realize that some districts have a money management problem (or that they are just controlled by thieves) but if the money was being redistributed than even those outside of an underperforming district would have a stake in how that money was being spent.

Kim: This article from 2008 in the Washington Post says that the cost per student in the Washington DC is $25000 per student. These are failing schools. I don't believe it has been shown that throwing more money at a school will necessarily improve it.

Friend: People already ‘vote with their feet’ when it comes to education. People are willing to pay more for less house and community services in order to ensure they are in a decent school district. This has been the case for my entire life. This (as I have already argued) is the number two reason mass migration occurs in my city. Vouchers and charter schools are not going to fix this issue.

Kim: I agree that people who can afford it will choose to live in neighborhoods with better schools. Hopefully vouchers will encourage new schools to form in neighborhoods with failing schools to give students a choice. This is the hope.

Friend: Don’t get me wrong. If given a voucher back in the day, I would have high tailed it right out of the unaccredited school I graduated from. But my education at a poor school allows me to recognize the absurdity in the idea that letting some kids go to schools outside their district is a solution. That shit was done before under a different name. And nobody. . . not the kids on the bus; not the kids in the good district, not the parents of any of these children seem really happy about how all that turned out.

Kim: That you'd choose a voucher is indicative to me that it is a good program. You want to choose your school. You might want to go to a school for kids interested in art or science or cooking. This will be more apt to increase your passion for learning, which, for me, is the key to getting an education.

A Mountain is a Mountain

Edward Weston, in his Daybooks, wrote about the zen saying that a man who knows nothing thinks that a mountain is just a mountain. With some knowledge, he sees that a mountain is not a mountain. And then, when he understands, a mountain is once again a mountain. This painting is the mountain of the man who knows nothing. A tree blocks his full view of the mountain and he labels the mountain, "M," thinking he gets what it is. There are no details because it is just a mountain. I did the other mountains in 2009 but forgot to do this one.

Be still ...

"Be still and know that I am God"—Psalm 46:10

Hello Darkness my old friend ...

Hello Darkness my old friend,
I’ve come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain,
Still remains, within the sounds of silence.
—Simon and Garfunkel

I Object ...

One person told me that Robin Hood is just one lens through which to see the world. Another lens would be to do what is necessary to do to support a community.

Another said that one type of fairness would be to distribute wealth evenly. The other would be to provide better education so everyone could create wealth for themselves.

There seems to be two issues here: coercion and what works.

To what extent do we want to be coerced to pay taxes, invest for the future through Uncle Sam (Social Security/Medicare), and all the other sundries that are required to live in the United States?

What really works to create community? Is it a matter of distribution? Is it a matter of equal access to good resources (quality education, housing, healthcare).

Can community be created with the free-market? Can the government create community? If so, at what cost to our freedom?

Is there one solution?

Leica M9 Photos

I recently took a Leica workshop. The highlight was having a M9 for the day. This is way beyond the finest camera I have ever used. The sharpness is terrific. You can click on the images to see them a little larger.

Unfair advantages

I heard recently about a few instances which people claimed gave "unfair advantages" to some. We expend a lot of effort to make things fair ... or to complain when they aren't fair.

There is a runner who had his legs amputated to the knees. He uses some springy devices that enable him to compete favorably with full-bodied runners. It is claimed he has an unfair advantage because he doesn't have any feet. The runners commission recently ruled that he could compete. I'm not sure that they used the argument that anyone could have their feet cut off if they wanted to run faster.

Then there are the complaints that corporations shouldn't be able to contribute to political candidates. But efforts to make it fairer might cause more problems than they solve. And it is an easy law to bypass. Corporations simply have to increase salaries with the expectation that their employees contribute.

And it isn't fair that Romney paid only 18 million in income tax, a mere 15% of his income, where someone who makes far less pays a higher percentage.

Some say insider trading should be allowed. It actually could benefit everyone, because we'd see what the insiders were doing and could trade based on that information. Others, of course, say it ain't fair.

We love to demonize. One way of doing that is to complain about what we don't have. "Fair" seems to be one means to get what we want. We deserve it, we say, because we don't have it. When my kids would pull the fairness argument I would just say that life is not fair. They didn't think of coming up with the retort, "well, it should be, and so let's take the first step."

What do you think? Should life be fair? At what cost to our freedom?

There is a God

Click on image to enlarge.

I think that is what people say when something good happens to them. I found a hearing aid that fell off my ear. I would have been upset to spend $500 to replace it (that's the cost with insurance!).

Job still believed in God even when things weren't going so well for him. Maybe he just wanted to give the devil a hard time. I do not know.

I recently reread the story of Adam and Eve. So Eve takes the first bite after the serpent tells her that God doesn't know what he is talking about ... and that she will not die if she eats the apple. I will no longer take advice from a serpent. And I'll continue drinking one or two apples a day in my live forever smoothy.

I've been thinking about regulation lately. It is likely that the serpent did not really speak to Eve. Rather, Eve was tempted to eat the beautiful fruit and did so. Perhaps if she had more self-control, or what I'm calling regulation, she would have left the apple alone.

Most of us believe that we know what other people should do. We can make judgments faster that a speeding bullet. We see a plump woman wearing horizontal stripes and we wish that we could have dressed her.

So I figured out the other day, since everyone knows what I should do, that I would just do what someone tells me. So I tried to put my wife in that role. I vowed to do anything she told me to do. This lasted about ten seconds. We were at a restaurant and I asked her if I should eat 5 tortilla chips. She said "sure." I knew she was wrong... that 5 would lead to 500. So I fired her as my regulator.

In art school, teachers tell you what is wrong with your art and then they tell you what kind of art you should make. I think they are good at the first task, and terrible at the second task. Fortunately some of us had a teacher who said, "listen to everyone and believe no one." I did.

But I'm still stuck on this idea that regulation is the key toward accomplishing one's goals. Jack London wrote 50000 words a day, even when he was sick (I might be off on the number). Others get up at ungodly hours. On the other hand, some don't self-regulate.

Imagine if you knew nothing but how to fulfill your intentions. What a habit that would be! What a great line for job applicant, "I do what I say I will do."

So next time a serpent tells you something, take it with a grain of salt.

Dessert by Dad

Let's get it straight . . . .

Let's get it straight,
or maybe
crooked.

We all want to be
on the other side,
where there aren't
any beer cans
or plastic
bags.

And this ain't no
metaphor. The
other side is not
in the city or on the
moon.

It is about water,
and really about
Nirvana, that place,
so very far away
that we don't even
see it when we
look in the
mirror.

Sharing iPad