Simpsonized

Yes, I have been Simpsonized. I wondered what I would look like if I lived in Springfield, so I went to the web site via a link from the Simpsons movie web site. At this site, you upload a head shot, and it is morphed into a Simpson character. If you don't like their choices for some features, they let you select from a large variety of replacements. You may want to give it a try: http://simpsonizeme.com/#

The images are in .png format, but I cropped mine, and converted them to .jpg format.

They even let you place yourself in a typical Springfield background. Since they gave me a hammer, I put myself in the kitchen, ready to start some repairs.

The Simpsons movie page lets you create a Simpsons avatar to tour springfield with Homer, but no photo is involved; you select your own characteristics from a limited set.

I have to go; those repairs need to be attended to.

Redecoration, part 2

The base boards, door casings, and crown moldings were installed Saturday. They really look great! There was one base board by the front door that did not look right to us. A man will be out this afternoon to fix it.

In order to put the lighted crown molding in the hall, they had to lower the top of the arch that leads to the family room. Lowering the top also allows us to replace the door casing around the arch, for which there was not room before. The change left a 6-inch piece of molding between one side of the arch and the ceiling that I did not care for, and of course, the new section needed painting. I removed the molding and painted the wall Monday. Now it looks like it was always that way, except of course for the new casing.

Next the painters will come to caulk all of the cracks and nail holes in the woodwork, and paint the woodwork and the ceilings. But they have to wait until we receive some ovelays for the living room cabinet doors and a medallion for the dining room ceiling. So things will be messy until well into August.

Now that work has started, we feel more anxious to finish the job

Redecoration, Part 1

Bonnie and I decided that our big project of the year would be to redecorate our living room and dining room. Although the two rooms are coordinated in terms of color, the dining room is sort of modern (if you call 1980's modern) and the living room is sort of traditional, except for the sofa. Although they are pleasant enough, they have always seemed a little cold, formal, and uninviting. We want to tie the two together in a Victorian style with darker woods and warmer colors.

Bonnie found a decorator, and we have been selecting fabrics, furniture, paints, and accessories for a few months now. We will replace all of the door casings, the baseboards in all of the areas, and the crown molding in the dining room. The new crown molding will be lower, and will have an embedded 'light rope' to provide indirect lighting. The chandelier in the dining room will also be replaced. And there will be new window treatments.

We have selected most of the furniture--a custom sofa, 2 club chairs, a coffee table, and 3 lamp tables for the living room, and a new dining table and custom chairs for the dining room. All have been ordered, and the coffee table and lamp tables have arrived already. We stuffed them into our 2 extra bedrooms.

The project really got underway last Sunday, July 15, when we cleared all of the furniture and accessories out of both rooms. We also cleaned out the entry way and the connecting hallway. The project extended into the two halls because we decided to remove the acoustic 'popcorn' from the ceilings. Now we have decided to add some indirect lighting to the hall as well. With the added tasks and the unexpectedly high cost of the furniture we selected, the project is already about 100% over the originally planned cost, even though we ditched our plan to put a raised tin ceiling in the dining room.

Disposing of the old furniture has been somewhat problematic. Everything has that dated " '80's look." The lamp tables are a lighter wood that is out of vogue these days, as are the wing back chairs--the local consignment shops would have nothing to do with them. We sold the travertine dining room table on eBay. When the guys came to pick it up, we started to lift the top off the pedestal, and the top cracked across the center into two pieces. After we all recovered from the shock, the buyer agreed to take the table and we agreed to accept 1/2 of the sale price. Nobody was very happy at that point, but at least the table was gone. Bonnie found a friend at work who took the sofa and the dining room chairs.

On Monday the 16th the dry wall crew arrived. They scraped the ceilings and removed most of the existing base boards, door casings, and crown moldings in the 2 rooms, the entryway and the hall. An electrician wired the power and switches for the indirect lighting in the dining room and the hall. And a lady arrived to measure the windows for drapes.

Tuesday and Wednesday were pretty much 'off days,' except that on Tuesday the material for the new base boards and moldings arrived. The door casing material was not the pattern we wanted. So they had to take it back and get the molding that matches the door frames in the family room.

Today, Thursday the 18th, the dry wall crew is back. They will re-surface all of the ceilings.

Saturday will be molding day. On Friday, I plan to paint just the top one foot or so of the halls in the dining room and hall in preparation for the crown molding. Then I get to paint all of the walls next week. We will have a professional painter do the ceilings and the trim.

When it's all done I will take and post some pictures. I regret that I did not take some "before" pictures. Maybe I can find some in the archives.

The Arrogance of Power

Power begets arrogance. Republican or Democrat, President Bush or Senator Kennedy--it matters not. Once elected to public office, some people believe they are BETTER than the people who elected them. The believe themselves to be smarter, better informed, and more deserving of special treatment and benefits. I know I am not the only person who sees this arrogance. A letter from Larry Lipson of Orange, California, to the editor of the Orange County Register is a perfect example:

"I feel my senators' pain, and they will feel my vote

"I fully empathize with the frustrations expressed by numer­ous senators, such as Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein, as they complain that President George W. Bush ignores their constant pleading to start withdrawing troops from Iraq. The president ignores them and does what he wants to do.

"I feel my senators' pain because it is the same pain that I experienced after sending many letters and e-mails to my senators pleading for them not to pass the amnesty bill that they seemed so bound and de­termined to pass.

"The responses that I received said that I did not 'understand' the real­ities of the situation (being the unin­formed citizen-voter that they be­lieve I am) and only they, the omnip­otent senators; know what should be done for the good of the country.

"Talk-radio rallied millions of citi­zens to action. The senators' e-mail system was overwhelmed and the Senate's phone system crashed un­der the load of citizen-voter calls. The Senate's response to this citizen pressure was first to kill the amnes­ty bill (they whined and complained about the stupid citizens interfering with what the senators wanted to do, but killed the bill, anyway). Sec­ond, the Senate attempted to pass a bill to return the "fairness doctrine" to throttle talk-radio broadcasting, hoping to prevent a re-run of this type of illumination of the self-exalt­ed (and obviously none of my busi­ness) Senate deliberation process and to prevent a re-run of citizen in­volvement in the federal lawmaking process.

"My plan to ameliorate the pain of my arrogant, omnipotent senators is to vote the straight 'non-incumbent' ticket in the next election. It is time for citizen-voters to take this coun­try back."

Larry's plan will not work, first, because a significant number of voters will not do as he does; second, because if enough voters did that, they would be removing the good guys along with the bad. It sure would be refreshing if voters in general perceived this arrogance and voted against it in future elections. We should vote for people who support our positions on major issues and who offer sensible solutions to the nation's problems, not for the ones who offer glib rhetoric or charming personalities.

Politicians tell us over and over again that they are smarter than you and I. I don't know about you, but it's not true for me. I received better grades than Bush, or Kerry, or Kennedy in an Ivy Leage College. They say that they know more than you or I. It's true that they have access to more information than we do on some subjects, such as progress in the Iraq war, but they don't read all of it. They have staff members that filter out what they know the boss "is not interested in." They ignore or trivialize the facts and statistics that do not support their personal beliefs. And they brush off the questions and comments of those who disagree with them. One hundred senators voted on an immigration bill that most of them had not read all the way through, and many voted in favor of it anyway.

Our elected officials put their pants on one leg at a time just as we do. We are "smart" enough to have elected them to office. But once they are in office, the arrogance takes over, and they no longer pay attention to the voices of the very people who elected them. Shame, shame, shame...

Wealth and Happiness

"Money can't buy happiness," our parents always told us.

Apparently that's true for society as a whole. We are more affluent than ever, and we have luxuries that our grandparents never dream of. In the last thirty years, our homes have become larger, and they are stuffed with all kinds of devices--big screen color televisions, microwave ovens, digital cameras, personal computers, compact disc players, DVD players. But surveys show that people are not any happier. Over the last 30 years, the statistics have changed very little: Very happy, about 34%; pretty happy, about 55%; and not too happy, about 11%. Our increased wealth is just not producing increased happiness. The question, of course, is why?

In a book titled Falling Behind, Robert Frank, a Cornell University economics professor, argues that one reason may be that increasing affluence causes us to be in continuing consumption contests. People want larger homes because their friends have larger homes. They may take a second job or assume more debt to get the larger home, and that results in less leisure or more stress, or both. Moving farther out into the suburbs creates more traffic congestion and pollution, and commuting leaves us less leisure time.

It's obvious to me that larger homes and more complicated machines require more maintenance. They break, and need to be repaired. We become so accustomed to them that it is very frustrating to lose the use of them even temporarily. Again, the result is less leisure and more stress.

Robert J. Samuelson, a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post, believes that a major barrier to happiness today is increased econonomic insecurity. The median job tenure for men aged 45 to 54 dropped from about 13 years in 1983 to 8 years in 2006. The increased practices of outsourcing and importing labor give many people cause to worry.

On the other hand, the sources of true happiness are probably fairly constant in our lives--things like our relationships with family members and friends, the satisfaction we get from helping others, and the enjoyment we derive from our hobbies, the pleasure we get from fine music, literature, and art.

I think that a lot of happiness comes from within. Regardless of our wealth, life is going to present us with good events and bad events. It's how we deal with those events that determines our degree of happiness. Some people complain no matter how wealthy they are; others will smile through the worst of tribulations. I once mentioned to my boss on a new job that the job presented a lot of problems. He said, "Those are not problems; they are opportunities." When I have one of those days when everything goes wrong and I start to feel angry or depressed, I try to remember those words.

Strategy for a Presidential Campaign

In the Los Angeles Times Opinion section on Sunday, July 15, Frank Luntz proposes a "GOP comeback strategy. Actually, this approach might work well for just about any candidate for the Presidency:

1. Empathize with and embrace a nation of voters who are "fed up" with the current situation in Washington. Many voters are unhappy with both the executive and legislative branches of government. Congress has failed to deliver on tough ethics standards, elimination of wasteful spending, and fixing the immigration problem. And the President has the lowest approval score since Richard Nixon.
2. Develop a message of hope--offering a vision for what America can and should be. Don't tell us what is wrong. Tell us what you will do right. Don't talk about the past. Talk about the future.
3. Be authentic. Don't re-hash another president's theme. The "great society" and the "shining city on a hill" belong to other persons and to past times that cannot be copied or recaptured.
4. Win Ohio. This means, Mr. Luntz explains, articulate a culturally conservative message fused with government accountability and economic opportunity, tailored toward voters in the industrial heartland of the nation.

There is a lot of good sense here. A good campaign avoids ad hominum attacks, which are a scoundrel's substite for a well-articulated vision of the future. An effective campaign looks to the future, not to the past. It offers specific improvements in an atmosphere of respect, integrity and trust. It responds positively to the voiced requests of the majority of the voting public as opposed to the hidden agendas of the wealthy few.

Whether one takes guidance from Dr. Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking, or Rhonda Byrne's The Secret, or just tries to Keep on the Sunny Side of Life, he will find that the greatest achievements are accomplished by concentration on a positive vision, not by constant criticism, complaining, and bickering.

When Jerks Break the Law

In a recent opinion, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court said words to the effect, "There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a person from being a jerk."

He's right, of course. There are a lot of jerks in our country. They are always right, and everyone else is always wrong. Jerks annoy, frustrate, and anger almost everyone they come in contact with.

About the only thing worse than a jerk is a jerk who breaks the law. Even after he is forced to comply with the law, or punished, the jerk insists that the law is wrong. And the people who enforced the law are wrong.

Moreover, the jerk insists on getting revenge against the "wrong" people who enforced the "wrong" law. The jerk always has to have the last word. A good example is running the email circuit these days:

A city councilman in Utah , Mark Easton, had a beautiful view of the east mountains, until a new neighbor purchased the lot below his house and built a new home. The new home was 18 inches higher than the ordinances would allow, so Mark Easton , mad about his lost view, went to the city to make sure they enforced the lower roof line ordinance. The new neighbor had to drop the roof line, at great expense. Recently, Mark Easton called the city, and informed them that his new neighbor had installed some vents on the side of his home. Mark didn't like the look of these vents and asked the city to investigate. When they went toMark's home to see the vent view, this is what they found...

The guy broke the law. The councilman had the city enforce the law. But the neighbor is a jerk--selfish, inconsiderate, pig-headed, and vindictive. But even a jerk has freedom of speech under our constitution.

I know of two places where jerks get there due. The first is the emporer in Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado: "My object all sublime/ I shall achieve in time/ to let the punishment fit the crime..." The second place where jerks got their due was in a comic strip. It was called Hatlo's Inferno, and appeared as the Sunday edition of They'll Do It Every Time, by Jimmy Hatlo. There, the jerks spent their eternity in Hell having their own bad acts performed on them over and over again by demons.

The irony is that the more upset you or I get about the actions of a jerk, the more enjoyment he gets out of it. So, I guess the best way to handle jerks is not to get angry, or at least not let your anger and frustration show. But I still yearn for a way to make the jerk suffer dearly when he does his evil.

Vice President Cheney

I just read the Washington post series of articles about Vice President Cheney. It was very enlightening.

Cheney deserves some credit for piercing through and working around the bureaucratic static that has rendered prior VPs virtually ineffective. He would probably be a valuable asset to a stronger and more intelligent president.

I strongly oppose Cheney's pro-big business agenda. Government policies should serve to improve life for all of us, not for just a few obscenely wealthy CEOs.

But it is all too easy for us to criticize Cheney. His critics harp incessantly about what we should NOT be doing. But few have the courage to spell out specific alternatives, and to explain how those alternatives would produce better outcomes. They seem to concentrate more on winning an election than on real problem solving.

My friend, Bruce, commented that "It may have nothing to do with courage. There may not be a clear alternitive to a course of action or a policy. But if one course of action or policy is seen and understood to be catastrophic, it is very important to say so. If you saw conditions on a train bridge that you understood would cause the bridge to fall down when the next train passed over it, it would be your responsibility to say so, even if you had no clear way of fixing the bridge. First and most important would be to prevent a wreck."

While I agree with Bruce, those are two very important conditions: (1) impending catastrophe, and (2) no clear alternatives. I can see how some topics can be viewed, and are viewed by many, as meeting both conditions. But I don't believe that ALL of these issues meet BOTH tests:

Health care
Government debt
Equitable taxation
Iraq war
Terrorist actions
Illegal immigration
Abortion
Stem cell research
Eminent domain
Global warming
Oil depletion
Air and water pollution
Corruption in Legislative Branch
Corruption in Executive Branch


Some politicians seem to view virtually everything as an impending disaster. They complain and complain that everything in life is terrible, and that the only solution is to "shoot the tsars." Just as in Orwell's animal farm, once these critics get the power, they abuse it as much or more than the tsars did.

By the way, once one has stopped a train, one must be prepared to deal with the foreseeable consequences of that action: getting the passengers, mail and freight to their destinations, dealing with the losses from missed meetings and delayed shipments, repairing the bridge, determining the cause of the bridge collapse, and finding ways of reducing the chance of another collapse, etc, etc. Also important, one must be convinced that stopping the train will not cause an outcome even more horrible than the train crash.

Fear is a frequent companion of the lust for power. Most solutions to a problem will be imperfect--they will have pros and cons. Fear that the cons of a specific proposal will lose him votes keeps a politician from making the proposal. And the politician assumes that the voters are both less informed and less intelligent than he is. So he finds it easier and more colorful to launch an ad hominum attack.