Jeff lost my radiator cap

This week I have had two of the easiest car fixes ever. First, while driving my car, Jeff somehow managed to lose my radiator cap. So I bought a new one ($8) and some coolant ($13) and the problem was fixed. There were no leaks, no insane pressure build-ups, no anything beyond spilled coolant.
Since then, however, it had been running a bit rough at times, sputtering somewhat. It almost felt like a piston was misfiring or something. So I thought I would check the easy things first because I don't want it to be difficult or expensive. Turns out, one of my wires had come off of the spark plug. I put that back on, made sure the rest were tight and took 'er for a test spin. No misfiring and it seemed peppier than usual (though that might have just been me driving the car harder and faster than usual).
So there we go, two fixes for under $25, and taking no more than an hour.
Now go and Grasp the Nettle.

I like wallowing in the mud...so I became a politician

I am not a very political person. I have never followed politics very closely, just keeping aware enough that political satire makes a modicum of sense. But something bugs me (actually, many things bug me about politics, but today I will focus on one area), especially around election time. It is the matter of only voting for one party.
A great deal of what I read about in regards to the American electoral process leads me to believe that the approximately 20% of people who are "undecided" each election are usually seen as being somewhat weak and silly in their thinking. Most people, it appears, believe that a person should have their allegiance to one particular political party or system and that is it. I find that scary, truth be told.
To remain completely loyal to one particular system of thinking is a dangerous thing in the political word. It ignores the fact that the world is constantly changing, that situations come and go. Sometimes a country needs one type of leadership, and at other times it will need another type of leadership. If you really look at all of the political parties and what they stand for (if you can actually find that information in the dirth of mud slinging), you will likely find at least some things that are good ideas, and some things that you don't agree with, even if it is the party that you support. It is mostly a matter of how their ideas are implemented and how they are handled.
Now, I do not have a problem with a general leaning. There is nothing wrong with having a preference and with sticking with it as long as you are examing that position regularly and honestly. There may be times when the state of the country is such that it needs to have a period of leadership from the party that you don't usually look to, simply because the national, or even global, situation has changed to such that the party you normally like is not up to the task of leading.
For example, during World War II, if the government that you liked had vowed to completely pull out of the war and let Europe burn for whatever reason, then would it not make sense to vote for the other guys who were vowing to do everything they could to stop evil from spreading across the continent, and likely bleeding across the ocean eventually. I realise that is an extreme and fictional example, but it illustrates my point. There was a certain type of leadership that was needed then, and to have voted otherwise simply because it wasn't 'your' party just does not make much sense to me.
And heavily related to that is the issue of how a Christian should vote. It is infinitely worse in the United States where the evangelical christian is almost a political entity unto itself. I think that if you are a Christian in the United States you are supposed to vote Republican because...I don't know - the Democrats are Satan's party? Someone made the comment to me a few weeks back when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's VP. He said that he was glad that she had been picked because it would be good to have an evangelical Christian as VP (even though we are both Canadian and are not necessarily directly affected). That was all he was basing it on. He had no idea what she stood for, what policies she supported or anything. He had never met her or heard much about her, so he had no idea what she actually believed. But the fact that she was an 'Evangelical Christian' (I don't even know what the means when people use it in political conversations) was enough for him.
Shouldn't we, as Christians, be more diligent in trying to elect a government that will actually govern well? Being told that as a Christian I should automatically vote Republican, or Progressive Conservative in Canada, makes me somewhat angry, or in the very least indignant. I think it would be a better idea to actually look at what each party believes and to then vote in a manner that would get the best party into power. But that seems to be a foreign concept for too many people, and like I said earlier, it actually frightens me a little.
I don't like politics for many reasons, and I honestly think that the 'democratic' system we have in place is not the best way of doing government, though perhaps it is the best way of doing it that we currently have. But without changing the system, it could be much better if people would take the time to actually decide who they are going to vote for instead of voting for 'their' party or voting how they are 'supposed' to. Once that starts happening, maybe the politicians will actually become worth voting for.
On a side note, I find it interesting how judgemental people are of Bill Clinton. I know he did some pretty dumb things while he was president, but I feel like he is treated more harshly than he maybe should be. I say this largely based on Philip Yancey's book What's So Amazing About Grace. In that book, Yancey talks about meeting Clinton and about the kind of man he is. Yancey actually respects Clinton (remember, this is based on actually meeting the man and getting to know him personally) and has good things to say. He does not excuse Clinton's actions, but he does try to show grace to a man who has made a mistake. That does not have much to do with the rest of this post, but it is something that I have thought about off and on for a long time. It worries me how quickly we let our grace and forgiveness go out the window when someone important like that makes a mistake. I'm no different, I have the same struggle. I just hope I can remember that the next time a leader makes a mistake (I'm guessing it will be soon because...well, let's just say I don't have much faith in politicians in general).

More Grasping, Less Nettling

I have updated Grasp the Nettle yet again. Actually, that is not technically true - as of the time I am writing this, I am not quite ready to post it, but in the next ten or fifteen minutes, I swear. Of course, by the time you have read this, I imagine I will have updated already, so I probably could have lied and you would never have known. Curse this infernal honest streak! I'll never be a politician this way...

Yolks on me

I think my fridge is set too cold. I say that because I went to fry some eggs today, and when I cracked some of them, they were frozen on the inside. A frozen egg looks weird.

Back on Track

I have updated Grasp the Nettle yet again, thus returning myself to my regular schedule. Hope you're enjoying the stories! I know I am. I never know what is going to happen next...which, come to think of it, may not be a good thing.

Bathroom Follies

I am working part time as a custodian at my church right now...well, I just got home, but I am under the employ of the church as a custodian. :D Anyway, I have noticed something odd about people that I have trouble understanding. Part of my work is to clean the bathrooms of the church. On occasion I have to do this while there are people in the building at an event. I will go into the bathroom, parking my cart so that it blocks the door entirely. The cart's length is almost exactly the same as the width of the door (I think the cart is about an inch or two longer), so there is no room to get past it into the bathroom. Yet, while I am cleaning, I will have people wander in and look at me nervously, as though wondering what I am doing.
Now, call me crazy if you will, but I would like to assume that if a janitor's cart is blocking the door, there should be a couple of things that can be assumed: 1. That probably means the janitor is cleaning; and 2. He likely wants you to stay out until he is finished. I can understand there being confusion if I have the cart beside the door but not impeding the way at all, but when it is in front of the door that should be a rather clear message, should it not? Yet I have people come in on me constantly. It is not so bad if a guy walks in on me because I am a guy. But when I am in the women's washroom, it really makes things awkward. Oddly enough, women are worse than the men. I don't know if the percentages of people that come in would be the same but more women come in because there are more women using the bathroom in general or what, but I have had twice as many women as men come into the bathroom while I am cleaning it.
What really gets me is that the people have to physically move the cart to get in, and then they are surprised when they see me in there. I wonder what is going through their minds as they move the cart ("golly, what a sloppy janitor - he left his cart in front of the door while he is off somewhere else cleaning"). Ladies, can you give me any hints as to why this might be? It's not like there is only the one bathroom - there is another set of bathrooms that can be used.
This has happened to me on at least three separate occasions since I began working for the church, but once was my own fault - I timed my cleaning poorly and the event let out while I was still in the ladies room, so people were coming to that bathroom because the other one had a line. But the other times there was no excuse.
I guess I just don't get it.
Also, the women leave their bathroom as dirty, or dirtier, than the mens.

...Kotter

I'm back.
A while back, I heard one of the students in my dorm (so this would have been last May or earlier) say in a smug voice: "They still don't know how a bumblebee flies. Take that science!" I shook my head and spent a couple of hours over the next few days finding out if that oft touted 'fact' was true. It is not. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that according to the physical properties or laws regarding fixed wing (wings that don't move, like an airplane) flight, the bumblebee's wings would not support it and it could not fly. However, the fact that it beats its wings changes all of that, and though they could not fully explain how until a few years ago (I think 2004 or 2006) does not mean that it scientifically could not fly. It just means that it could not be explained with what they knew - but no one ever said they (whoever they are) knew everything.
This summer, when I was living with my brother and a friend, I had my laptop hooked up in the living room and it became a bit of a joke that any question, especially entertainment related, that they asked, I would soon have an answer for, and anytime I didn't have the answer, they would tell me to get back to my job and look it up.
I find these little facts and background things fascinating. I watch a movie, and then I go to www.imdb.com and look up the trivia and the FAQs sections about the movie, seeing the background details. When there is something I am interested in, I enjoy looking at the background info about it. I want to be on a movie set not because I want to see the acting, but I want to see what the gaffer actually does. I want to see how the cameramen perform their art. I want to see how they figure out where the shot is going to be.
There is an episode of Futurama (basically my favourite TV show) where Fry, the main character, goes back in time and meets his grandfather. He becomes worried that gramps will get hurt and die before he can have Fry's...parent (they never say if it is his mom's dad or his dad's dad), and so Fry makes it his job to protect his grandfather at all costs. At one point they are sitting in a diner and they see Fry's grandma, and Enos (his grandpa) makes some sort of comment that implies he may actually be gay ('do you ever feel like you are only going with a woman because that is what you are supposed to do?' 'DON'T EVER SAY THAT AGAIN!'). Later, Fry, in a fit of paranoia (I am going somewhere with all of this, I promise) takes Enos to the middle of nowhere ('the safest part of nowhere') and tells him to just 'stand here and enjoy this pin up calendar'. The calendar has a picture of a woman in a 1940s style swimsuit. Enos looks at the calendar and then flips to the next month which is a picture of a shirtless cowboy. He smiles and just looks at the picture. Fry gets an intensely irritated look on his face and slowly forces Enos' hand down so that the girl is displayed once again. Here's the point - it is a funny gag, but I think I enjoy it differently than most people would - I don't just laugh because the broad joke is funny, but I also laugh because I deeply appreciate the expression they were able to get on Fry's face in animation. It is so incredibly complex and fitting - showing exactly what a real live person would show if they were feeling the same way.
I love the background stuff, and I love knowing the truth about things. The problem is, I know most people don't, at least not in the same way I do. The question becomes, for me, how much do I tell people? When do I become a 'know-it-all'? When does my pursuit for the truth become a detriment? If you are wondering how it can be bad to know the truth, the issue becomes whether or not the truth matters. I think of an episode of the Simpsons where they are celebrating Jebediah Springfield, the founder of their town. He is held up as a hero ('a noble spirit embiggens us all'), but Lisa finds out that he was a goon and a crook and a generally nasty guy. She wants to tell everyone the truth, but when she sees how his image has inspired so much goodness among the townspeople, she decides that his good reputation is worth more than knowing exactly what he was like. I wonder about that sort of thing all the time. Never with anything quite so grand scale, but it is still a similar sentiment. If someone repeats a story they have heard about, say...Spider-Man's origin back in the sixties, but they are wrong, and I know that for a fact, do I set them straight, or do I let it go because in the grand scheme of things it does not matter? What sort of funny fact or amusing anecdote could I crush with my mighty treasure trove of knowledge (read that last part with a deep booming announcer-guy voice...it sounds cooler that way) when it really does not matter? There is a clip that someone just sent to me that features an 'Australian politician' being interviewed by a 'news reporter'. It is supposed to be an example of a politician trying to put a positive spin on an oil tanker breaking apart (the front fell off) and the ship dumping 20,000 tonnes of crude oil into the sea. It is in fact from a comedy satire program in Australia. Do I tell people that (obviously yes) and thus let them know the truth about the piece, or do I not mention it and let them go one believing that the politician is a complete moron and a bit of a sleeze, something that they find amusing and perhaps a bit of a reflection of their attitudes towards politicians in general (ironically, that is basically the point that the satire in the piece is making)? I wonder about that all the time. If I was a more aggressive person I would be destroying people's perceptions on things all the time, but I am rather laid back towards the whole thing, so instead I just shrug and carry on, except when I don't.
The exception is those little tid bits like the one about the bee, or the forwarded emails that are supposed to be all 'rah-rah God', but which are full of inacurate information. I refuse to let those slide, because if a Christian is trying to make a point and they use very inacurate information, then it just makes us all look ignorant and backwards and makes it that much harder for people to take christians seriously. Just because there is a scientific explanation for why bumblebees can fly does not make it any less cool or impressive that God made it. It just shows once again that God likes us to learn and that He likes things to have a purpose and a reason. We know how rainbows are scientifically formed - does that lessen God's message at the end of the flood in Genesis? No.
That's my rant for the day.