I recenty had a problem with my Apple HD and I didn’t find anything good online, so I am going to post what I did here so anyone else trolling the search engines might get some help.

Scenario:

I don’t reboot my laptop often, but I noticed that it’s running a little sluggish, so I decided maybe it’s time to give it a good restart.  I am, of course, looking over some of my notes for the two presentations I am giving in a couple of days as it does this.  As the computer starts back up, I turn away.  When I look back, it is turned off.  Odd, but my laptop has some quirks, so I give it a go again.  This time I watch.  Yup, it starts to boot and then just turns off.  Weeeeeird.

I get my handy boot/install disk and check the system log, where I see messsages like this..

kernel[0]: HFS: Runtime corruption detected on HD, fsck will be forced on next mount.
kernel[0]: hfs_swap_BTNode: invalid forward link (0xb6baad6e >= 0×0000a280)
kernel[0]: node=33456 fileID=4 volume=HD device=/dev/disk0s2

Bad juju, but hopefully not a big deal.  I pull up Disk Utility and I get this lovely message.

Invalid record count
Volume check failed
Error: The underlying task reported failure on exit

1 HFS volume checked
1 volume could not be validated or repaired because of an error.

Blah.

So I play the “I’ll look away and then it will do it” game for a while, but I can’t make it work.  I go back to the command line and use the checking tool myself.

fsck_hsf -d /dev/disk0s2

Same result. Thanks.  I, of course, run this a couple more times, ’cause, yeah, you never know.  Hah.

I do some research online and find very little.  I’m looking at some of the fancier tools and then realize I haven’t tried all of the options with fsck_hsf.  I notice it always fails at the catalog check

fsck_hsf -dr /dev/disk0s2

Ahha!  -r rebuilds the catalog.  It runs through about four checks over about 10-15 minutes, but comes out saying it’s clean.  I run one more check just to be safe, but it doesn’t detect any problems.  Cross my fingers and reboot and, viola, it works.

This probably means my disk is toast or going to be toast soon, but I’ve been monitoring the log and so far no errors, so we’ll just have to see.  I have my system backed up, so it wouldn’t/won’t be tragic to replace the drive, but it’s work I don’t really want to do if I don’t need to.

I hope this helps someone–fun with disk problems!

I have to admit that I am not a master in the theory or theology of the resurrection, so I write this post with a little trepidation and the disclaimer to do your own research if this gets you thinking.

This post is inspired by the recent discovery of a tablet which talks about the resurrection of a messiah after three days which has, I am to understand, been reasonably dated to before the time of the birth of Christ.  This tablet has apparently created an amazing about of debate and sparked some pretty hefty arguments.

What’s the big deal you might ask?  Much to my surprise, there are Christian apologists who apparently have an argument which suggests that one of the things which makes the resurrection of Christ story so compelling is that there are no other stories about a three day resurrection–that is to say, it is unique.  In scholarship, this is an extremely important point and, even though I was unaware people were making this argument, it is a very good argument to make–if there is no tradition to build on, why three days?  This seems like a rather strange thing for someone to make up, so it makes a lot of academic sense (with the appropriate level of pontification and long-winded arguments) that it likely had to happen.

Except that I do not think it is true.  I think there are a lot of examples in prior traditions.  It is no secret that the resurrection story itself is not unique.  The most obvious–and hotly contested–which comes to mind is Mithra.  I am not going to go into all of the (supposed) parallels of Mithra and Christ, but one of the important ones is that Mithra died and resurrected.  Some even claim that he rose three days later, but I do not have any support for this (anyone?).  I do also feel obliged to say that I think these two figures/traditions are so intermingled, it may be hard to ever understand how each influenced the other.

Anyways, the point at hand is that the resurrection story is not unique.  Mythical heroes have been getting resurrected in some way since there were myths to be told.  But what about the three days?  This is just not true.  There are resurrection stories in Egyptian mythology and the most prominent to the point is the story of Horus, who died and was resurrected three days later.  Another story is that of Attis, a story from Greek mythology, who was raised to life three days after being driven mad by a goddess who loved him and killing himself.  I am not making the broad comparison with these stories that others would–I am not saying that they are Christ-like stories or that Christianity stole them.  What I am doing, however, is pointing out that there is already evidence for other three-day resurrection stories.

A point I am even less knowledgeable in, but think should at least be brought up, is the potential significance of the number three.  In my limited knowledge, I have heard the number three used to suggest small numbers or a short time.  Keep in mind that in antiquity numbers were not always used as definite in story and myth.  For example, it has been suggested that the number of 144,000 people who will be saved was not meant to be taken literally, but it is such a big number that it is supposed to represent infinity.  That and something about the importance of twelve.  So the theory is that three days is not a literal three days, but simply “a short time.”  But, again, this is not really an area I know much about, however I wanted to bring it up because it might be relevant, but I admit it is pure conjecture on my part.

I guess I am rather dismayed over the hoopla around this tablet.  I think it is a very neat discovery and the more things we find like this, the better we can understand the people of that time–so it is not the discovery or the tablet itsel which I am bothered by, but it is the big deal around the three day resurrection of Christ being unique.  Sure, it makes a great academic argument, but I think it is simply a wrong argument.  The tablet is interesting and unique in that it potentially demonstrates the idea of a three day resurrection in Jewish thinking at the time (do not forget that apocalyptic stories were a dime a dozen back then and the coming of the Messiah was highly anticipated, especially under the heavy persecution over hundreds of years–for example, some thought the Persian king Cryus was the Messiah because he ended the Babylonian Diaspora), but I do not think this discovery changes anything–unless, of course, one has put faith only in the story of three day resurrection being historically unique.

However, there is slightly more to the story.  As we drove into Salt Lake City last weekend, something sparked a chain of thoughts that ended with “You know, I hate Orrin Hatch.”

The response: “Why?”

The witty return: “Uhh.. I.. uh.. I.. don’t know.  I.. uh.. think he did something I didn’t like.”

I sat for a few moments and I couldn’t think of one single reason.  This smacked of ill-formed, ignorant opinions and generic biased thinking, so I started to do some research.  To be honest, I have not put a big amount of research into the senator, but I did a little research to try to understand who he is a little better.

So I found what he did that made me feel some kind of dislike for him:  his staunch view on copyright laws.  Now, for the record, I am not a zealot about copyright law.  I do think the system is broken, but I don’t really know why–and, really, I have not put a lot of time to study it.  But what I know is that I believe people should be paid for their work–and really, it is up to the individual artist to decide this.  If they want to give it away, great.  If they want to charge you ten cents for every second the music is played, great.  I won’t spend money on the latter and the artist probably won’t make any money.

Orrin Hatch aggitated a lot of people (let’s call them The Internet) because he sided strongly with big music and movie companies in the debate surrounding filesharing, which of course still rages strong today.  I couldn’t tell you what they are anymore, but the things I read about what he was doing certainly made me angry.  But, uhm, I don’t remember what they were.  Should I still be angry?  Hey!  It turns out I’m not angry anymore, just biased, thought I find myself using such a strong word like hate.  I don’t really approve of that, it turns out.

And, lo and behold, the man is a musician in his own right and has several music copyrights and has actually made some money from the business.  I remember people clammoring about how he was in the pocket of the RIAA/etc and that may even be true, but I think it’s not a small detail that he has a personal interest in the process.  Now, many people would stand up and shout about conflict of interest and such, but I think I’d have to disagree.  We need people with passion and vested interest to be in government service.  That’s part of what this country is built on:  it’s supposed to be regular people in government.  Now that’s totally not how it works and I’m not even trying to suggest that someone like Orrin Hatch is a “regular person”… clearly he’s spent his life in government and he plays the game, but I can’t support an argument which would tie his personal interests and pursuits to a conflict of interest with his legislative aims.  That doesn’t mean, though, that I agree anymore with his strong stance.

Okay, so now I feel sheepish for really uncovering my own failing and I find myself feeling much more neutral about the senator.  What is there to learn?  He sponsered the “Hatch-Waxman” act.  What’s this?  From the unverisal fountain of truth that is wikipedia, it is apparently the law which made our modern system of generic drugs.  Now, again, our drug and health care system is completely out of whack–that is to say almost broken beyond repair–but I don’t know anyone who does not appreciate generic drugs.  And, in fact, I find it pretty amazingly how quickly generic drugs can make it to the market and so I find this in potential conflict with the efforts he has made with copyright reform.  But, then again, I hardly know anything about the generics and pharmaceuticals, so I could be totally and completely wrong.

It also turns out that, and I did some research on this one after reading it wikipedia, he’s a supporter of stem cell research!  That’s pretty awesome.  He is pro-life, yet pro-stem cell research.  That’s refreshing.  For the record:  I am 100% in favor of stem cell research.

So what did I learn about Orrin Hatch?  Not much, really.  I learned there are some things I like and some things I dislike.  That’s really true with most people.  If I looked closer at the issues and his positions, I’m sure I’d feel much stronger about my view of him as a legislator, but the truth be told, this wasn’t about Orrin Hatch.  It was about myself and my own biases.  I learned more about the fact that I took a few headlines and turned them into disdain for someone which I never even bothered to research.  That’s not cool.  It’s that kind of attitude which makes bickering, fighting, and war.  People don’t taken enough to learn about the people they are dealing with or the reasons those people do what they do–and that ignorance is used as a foundation to build hate and further misunderstanding.

So here is something I have -never- understood about dating: what’s up with all the ignorin’?

Imagine a scenario like this:

Young Jimmy is a bright, decently attractive young man. He sees Susy, a smart, decently attractive young woman. Perhaps they talk. Perhaps they are in the same class. In this day and age, maybe it is on a dating site or he reads her blog. Jimmy gets infatuated with Susy and decides to ask her out. Perhaps he calls her. Or maybe he emails her. If he calls, there is no answer, so he leaves a voice mail. With his email, he just has to wait. And he does. He waits. And waits. And Waits. And Susy never responds, clearly not interested. Or is it so clear…?

I can not decide which person is weaker: the person who would rather ignore someone who is interested or the person who is interested who cannot take the rejection. You see, I think that there is decades of cultural weight and a lot of crazy people who are to thank for this. I think that one of the reasons this happens lies somewhere between a person who either feels bad or does not want to face someone and tell them no and a person who can not handle or take the rejection.

Maybe I have a different attitude, but I would rather know someone is not attracted to me (and maybe even why) than to be ignored. I can easily take someone saying, “Hey, not interested.” I know that I’m a pretty unique person and I think that really limits who might be interested. I can even take someone saying “Hey, I don’t think you are attractive.” Yeah, it doesn’t make me want to jump up and down and celebrate, but it’s the truth and that is important. Especially because I am not Brad Pitt… hey, I’m not even Ron Perlman. But knowing is important. I’m also not one who will get angry, or weepy, or cunningly master a guilt trip.

I don’t know if I understand why people do the ignoring part, I can only guess. Most of this is, well because in my vast history of getting ignored I’ve never had a chance to find out why… because I’ve been ignored. See the vicious circle here? But enough about me. Does anyone understand this better? I mean, is it because someone doesn’t want another person to feel bad? Or because he/she cannot face turning someone down? Or is it because it is just easier? Or maybe people just get more offers than I am naively aware of and one cannot expect him/her to have the time?

I have some good friends who are very important to me and who I definitely do not spend enough time with. When I talk about community, I do not talk about individual friendships or groups of friends and associates. I am talking about being a part of something bigger than oneself–about having a network of people to invest in, to lean on, and to support. I’ve tried to find groups who share passions that I do: atheists, hockey fans/players, readers, etc… While I’ve met good people and even found groups to be a part of, I’ve never felt like I belong.

Some of that I attribute to my childhood. Until I got into the middle of my freshman year of high school, I moved every year or two–three times I moved states. Each time, I had to give up everything I knew–everyone I knew–and start over. I look at pride with being able to be self-sufficient and to find the strength I need to get through in myself, but I often wonder what it would be like to feel part of something bigger.

The other side of the coin, though, is that community often includes necessary exclusion–by definition, there are outsiders. Sometimes this is nominal and sometimes it is highly marginalizing. I have joked about this before, but I really do feel marginalized sometimes. A big issue is religion–not believing in God (and the lack of belief being important to me) makes me quite a pariah–and not being militant about it makes me feel distant from many, if not most, atheists.

There is something about atheism which breeds militancy. Someone very important to me recently said, on an unrelated but similar topic, “I don’t want to spend my life on the defensive.” I think that feeling plays into it–what better defense than an offense? I know I went through a period of militancy, but I just felt empty and hollow–I don’t hate religion, I don’t hate people who believe in God. I do hate ignorant group-think. I do hate blind thinking and perception. I do hate intolerance. But none of these are unique to religion or adherents.

Intolerance is something which can come along with community, especially community with boundaries of righteousness. And the greatest irony is that the stronger the walls that a community builds, the more they are at risk from isolating themselves from society, which in turns causes inward focus on the community, which in turn builds stronger walls…

One of the areas of religion I have studied is cults and one of the characteristics which people first identity as “cultish” is strong isolation. Give up your family, your friends, your past–they are tainted, we have the answer. That sort of stuff. But people are too heavy handed with their use of the word cult. It is, important I think, to understand how any strong community risks breeding this sentiment, especially from outsiders. The challenge is finding a way to balance community and interaction with the greater society.

I know I want to feel a part of a greater community–like I belong. But the honest truth is that I will never, ever give up my ability or interest in judging a person on his/her individual merit for a sense of belonging. I would rather be entirely alone and honest with myself and my relationships with others. I will never be a part of something which draws lines and says “you are in or you are out.” Those of you who know me or have been reading my writing for long enough know that among the top of my frustrations is either/or ideas. If my options are “all or nothing” then there is a serious problem with my options.

Burke gave his two vacillating stars until the Draft (June 20-21) to make up their minds. This applies more for Niedermayer, who still has one year left on his contract, than Selanne, who will be a free agent, but whichever way it goes, Burke has sent a strong message, to which I feel confident in saying it is about time.

In addition to dealing with on-the-verge-of-retirement superstars, Burke has the task of resigning Corey Perry and several other soon-to-be-free-or-restricted-agents: Hiller, Weight, DiPenta, Sutherby, among others. Burke has repeatedly said he is going to sign Perry, but I wonder how much he is going to rely on the cap increase for that signing and if another team will squeeze an RFA offer in–Burke would be liable to explode if that happened again and, honestly, I would probably pay money to see that, though I would rather just see Corey Perry signed.

It will be interesting to see the rest of the moves made. I have heard a lot of people say good things about Hiller and his 10-7-1 record is not too shabby, but personally I thought he was a lot shakier than I would like and there are rumors that he will be going back across the pond. He performed excellent in the pre-season and had some good outings during the regular season, but I am not yet convinced he is the best backup choice.

I will be genuinely shocked if Weight returns. He never found his groove and many Ducks fans feel pretty jaded about loosing Andy Mac for basically some cap room. This decision was lamented even more when Selanne returned and out-skated everyone on his line(s).

Lastly, for a moment of personal soapboxing, I think DiPenta has gotten the raw deal. While not a superstar player, I feel he has been a solid 6th defender and a man that the Ducks have been able to count on and he has not gotten enough respect–from the coaching staff or from the fans. Maybe everyone else knows something I do not know, but I hope the Ducks either commit to him as a member of their team or move him somewhere where he can contribute every game.

But I have to wonder–is there something acceptably human in the failure of the attempt to codify the divine ideal? Take the line of thinking: Humans are fallible (let’s assume some kind of personal, divine intention for this), God reveals truth to humans, humans attempt to interpret that truth, the interpretation becomes codified laws, those laws are not perfect–that seems to make some sense to me. Unless of course you choose to believe that divine inspiration is divinely perfect, and then you’re just screwed in explaining how things go wrong and why that is okay.

And how does individual interpretation of revelation factor in? Does the institution have divine inspiration and therefore represent the full and actual culmination of God’s will and desire? If the church is seem something as man made, and therefore fallible, I find my level of acceptance for problems in law and practice much higher. But, again, if the codified laws are divinely inspired, no way. Can the individual decide for him or herself what is right and wrong? How does human fallibility play a role in that interpretation?

Besides the fact that I believe the codified laws found in organized religion can simply be wrong, I also believe that at some point the religion becomes more about the worship of the law than about any kind of relationship with divinity. That, to me, is an ultimate tragedy. I find beauty, wonder, and grace in the world around me. If I were theistic, I would probably try to find divinity in the world, in my relationships with people, in life here and now. I’m sure it is a generalization and highly biased, but I feel like there is so much stagnation when the doctrine of law becomes more important than the doctrine of spirit.

And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.

Night Watch, Terry Pratchett

I joined a group dedicated to exchanging goods for free.

Here is the basic premise: I have something which I no longer want, but is not actually garbage; I just don’t want it. Instead of throwing it away, I offer it for free. Perhaps, down the road, someone offers something else up I might I need.

Pretty neat idea. A lot of things which are thrown away could go to good use somewhere else. I whole-heartedly believe in this idea and I want to do more to support the reduction of waste and the reuse of goods, especially things like furniture.

However, I am constantly aware of the greed in the hearts of people. In this particular group, there is a third option, which, in and of itself, is not problematic. You can also put up notices of things you want. Let’s say you’re trying to put together a small children’s library in your house: hey, anyone have some kid’s books laying around anymore which you don’t need? Yeah, I support that.

But what about just blatant gimme gimmes? I have not been a member of the group long and already I have seen some absurd requests, such as a car, an air conditioner, a go-kart, a washer or dryer, a beach cruiser, a ping-pong table, a queen sized bed, bmx gear, or even a drum kit… and more.

I’m honestly torn on this. It should be okay for members of a community like this to ask for things they need, even if it is totally selfish, but reading these… it just come across as dirty. Maybe I’m reading my own biases into it, but I feel that there is a blatant disregard for the idea. I’m not making a scientific effort out of it to see if people who are asking for things are also giving them up and I’ve certainly not been a member of the group long enough to make that determination, but from the tone of some of the requests, I just cannot believe it.

And that’s what it is really about. Children’s books versus a drum kit. I suppose people have these things laying around and a little prodding never hurts, but you think that being part of a community where people give things away freely–they’d probably be giving them away already.

I guess I was just taken by surprise because I expected to find a community of sharing, of giving, not a community of taking.

I saw this idea over at Mind on Fire. Basically it’s about taking an excerpt out of a near book and sharing it.

For the record, I do not know what a meme is, I do not care what a meme is, and, in fact, I dislike the word on principle alone. That being said, let us continue.

1. Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. No cheating!
2. Find page 123
3. Find the first 5 sentences
4. Post the next 3 sentences
5. Tag 5 people

I am not going to do #5, because I refuse to send unsolicited message, chain-style letters to -anyone-. I thought this was interesting enough to do myself, but do not even think that I am going to attempt to perpetuate it to other people who are not interested.

I had two books on top of each other so I shall share both:

The first is The Electric Church, a book which I am borrowing and combines many favorites: a dystopian and sci-fi future, religion, and hired killers. Not a very interesting blurb.

The Electric Church (Paperback)
by Jeff Somers
ISBN: 0316021725

(24 reviews)

“Hover displacement!” I shouted over my shoulder. “Distant, but coming.”

She didn’t say anything.

The second is The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State, one of my many books dealing with the intersection of politics and religion. Much more interesting excerpt.

The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State (Paperback)
by Isaac Kramnick, R. Laurence Moore
ISBN: 0393328376

(4 reviews)

The battle over Sunday mail began in the small market town of Washing, Pennsylvania, in 1809, the year Jefferson’s presidency ended. Its postmaster, Hugh Wyle, followed the widespread, though unofficial, practice of sorting the mail as well as keeping his post office open on Sundays to allow churchgoers from neighboring villages to pick up mail after church. The problem was that Wylie was also an elder in Washington’s Presbyterian church, and in 1809 the Pittsburgh synod of the church ruled that for such as egregious violation of the Sabbath Wylie was to be excluded from communion.

And because I know you are dying to see what my bedside pile of books looks like, here you are:

http://www.mindonfire.com/2008/02/22/leaving-the-garden-isaacs-journey/ 

From the site:

“Leaving the Garden” is a weekly series in which we ask someone to reflect on their encounters with religion and uncertainty. Religion is filled with stories of faith; here we will collect narratives of unbelief. If you’d like to share your story of doubt, please leave a comment indicating your interest and I will contact you with guidelines.

That is all.

(Sorry about the stock photo.  I’ll wait and see if any I can get any pictures of the party.)

I do not like giving them on prescribed days.

At least, I do not like giving them on prescribed days for the sheer sake of the day. There is the obvious reason–the gross commercialism. Do I really need to rehash that obvious and tired (though not any less true) argument? There’s also something kind of dirty about the expectation. It is one thing for a person to know they are getting a gift and being excited. But it’s an entirely different thing when someone assumes, if not demands, a gift for no good reason but tradition says to do it–and it goes from dirty to disgusting if they get mad when you do not give them something.

But, now, giving a gift because you want to give a gift. That’s awesome. Or giving a gift because someone has done something and you want to tell them thanks, or how much you appreciate it, or whatever, that is cool. Or telling someone you’ve gotten them a gift and watching them squirm with anticipation… priceless.

I have talked about this before, but one of the things I do not understand is the idea that if someone gives you a gift, you must reciprocate. There is this kind of spiral of guilt that can begin with a single gift. In my EVER so humble opinion, real gifts do not require reciprocation. If the receiver wants to reciprocate, have a blast. But, again, it’s the expectation where things become problematic.

Although, I can imagine that if I wanted to create waves of havoc, I could start a gift reciprocation circle of DOOM. Here’s how it works. I give three or four people small trinkets. They respond with something better because, obviously, if you’re going to reciprocate, you must also better the person (nothing like a competition when giving gifts). Then I take the gifts I get back and give them to the other people. Maybe find three or four other people to give small gifts too. Then I just keep swapping back and forth until someone gives me a private island with a lemur and a turtle on it.

In what will be a surprise only to those who are simply not paying attention, Starbucks is losing business. Bad. Not only do they face stiff competition from upstarts like McDonalds and Dunkin’ Donuts, the economy, a bad rep on the environment (and labor, and relations with impoverished countries, and…), strong arm business tactics, or the fact most of the customers are obnoxious prats, but as far as I am concerned their products are simply awful.

I never got back to sleep yesterday, so I got breakfast at a local diner and wasted time by thumbing through a copy of the local newspaper. As I was reading a story about Starbucks caught my eye:

Starbucks Tests $2.50 Premium Coffee to Boost Sales

Here is everything you need to know about the story:

Starbucks Corp. is experimenting with a $2.50 cup of coffee that would add a new, premium product to help fight the first drop in U.S. customer visits in its 37- year history.

That’s it? That’s the grand plan? Charge more? Brilliant!

It would by silly to suggest that this is all they are trying to do, but the reality is that I do not really care what they are trying to do because I simply do not care about the company. But I cannot contain the incredulous feeling I had when I read this story. Starbucks has been on an obnoxious run, overcharging for horrid beverages and finding new ways to torture people with unwanted and probably undesirable concoctions. And when things go bad, one of the options they turn to is .. charging more?

Okay, so I lied, there is a little more to this story. Apparently, this absurdly priced “cup” of coffee is supposed to taste better. I can not tell if this is an admission that their coffee is horrid, but this quote from some random financial analyst sure makes me think so:

“If they can create a better-tasting product and if they can get people to pay more for it, then you’d have the missing ingredient, which is pricing power,” said Larry Miller…

Perhaps the missing ingredient is a decent product at a reasonable price from a company with business practices that did not make you sick to think you are supporting? Or is the sheer weight of the monolithic pseudo-monopoly simply too much to sustain or produce something of true value?

“Perhaps I am still asleep and this is some horrible dream where I think I am awake, but I’m really deeply asleep. If I am not careful, I will enter a cycle of fantasy life, endlessly confused, caught in a whirlwind of abnormality, desperately seeking an unknown goal which would, of course, be waking up to normalcy.”

Of course, as my eyes unwillingly opened, I had somewhat of a shocking epiphany–this was normalcy. Not that I have any problem with normalcy… except when it’s most present as my alarm clock glaring in the early hours, feeling as intruded upon to be gazed at by anyone at such an awful hour as I did to be doing any kind of gazing. My next thought was to be angry:

“Damn you cruel world! I nestled in twilight’s bosom for protection, comfort, and slumber, and I am tossed away like an orphaned child, crying into the night!”

Okay, perhaps that is a bit of an embellishment. I was definitely cranky, though. I rarely wake up in the middle of the night but every time I do (especially if I cannot find good cause), I feel betrayed by something between my body and my brain.

My brain, cunning creature that it is, took a long hard look at my body. This whole sleeping and waking thing, it seems so biological… that just reeks of the body being at fault.

Thoughts, my body counters, You woke up thinking.

In the end, I take the logical choice that it is a grand conspiracy between the two and I will never know the truth, but my yet-to-be-born great-grand children will once they’ve unsealed the documents and deciphered the lies within.

Here’s to a glass of something warm and yummy for my tummy and another attempt slumber.

Good night and I hope you have slept better than me tonight!

Actually, I really helped a friend of a friend move today because I have only met the person I moved once before and that was last Monday.

Between being a fairly large (6′5″), “oh, he looks like he’d like to carry my solid oak desk by himself” person (of course the irony being I sit behind a computer all day) and the fact that I drove a truck for several years, I have moved a lot of people. I am not here to complain about moving people, though that might be different if I still had a truck (Note: someone with a truck does not automagically make them an interested moving service).

One of the things that moving day always highlights for me is how people utilize tools. Typically when you move, there is always at least a dolly or some other mechanical device designed to make moving things from point A to B easier. When you use them right. There is always an adventure when someone looks at something large and ungainly and says “You know, I bet we can put that on the dolly.” It’s been my experience that those words are definitely listed under “Famous Last Words.”

Sometimes it is just easier to carry the things. Yeah, while I made the crack about sitting behind a computer, I am a pretty big guy and carrying things is easier for me. For people who are injured or some other way disabled, I am with ya. But there’s a point when using tools, in this case perhaps a dolly, it becomes not only a crutch but is actually a hindrance.

Perhaps not quite similar, but it also reminds me of a busy parking lot. What I typically see is a lot of people running around in circles trying desperately to get a spot up front. Me, I just drive towards the back, find an easy space to park in and walk to where I am going. No stress, easy parking, and I get exercise so Nyaaaah!

It is way too easy for a tool to become a crutch. Just look at calculators (I’m guilty). But it is also easy for tools to become hindrances. Hopefully you’ve noted that I am not really talking just about moving here. One of the wonderful things about the human mind is our ability to create and use tools to our advantage. Laziness, however, is also one of our claims to genetic fame. And I think it is such a shame when people hold themselves back by trying to take the “easy” way which turns out to be a dead-end.