Carpinteria 2013

I hope my kids know what a good mom they have!  In addition to camping in Yosemite Jamie also planned for a week at the beach house.  Of course, when all these plans were made we didn't know where or when Braiden would be leaving for his mission, but that never stops Jamie.  Nothing is more important to her than family!

 Braiden and me.



Some days were sunny and beautiful, and so clear we could see the Channel Islands and from Santa Barbara to Ventura...

... and other days we just enjoyed the "June gloom."

Tahoe and Taylor digging a big hole...



... and the younger kids playing in it.

 

Dillon, Maddie, and Jesse at the tide pools.

Grandma Christie with all the grandkids (except Jack, who wasn't feeling well).

We enjoyed movies on the beach a couple of nights.

Jamie wanted to take some "missionary photos" of Braiden around town (she's seen a lot of them on Facebook - apparently it's a popular thing in Utah).

She even rounded up some 'street urchins' for him to teach.

Only a week and a half to go.

 

Too bad vacations have to end.

Yosemite 2013

Since Braiden will be leaving us again in a month – this time for 2 years – Jamie has been trying to plan a special family vacation and we were lucky enough to get camping reservations in Yosemite on Memorial Day weekend.

Even with the carrier on the top of the car the poor kids were packed in among all the stuff we had to take.  Oh well, they made it a few hours before the complaining really started.

I think the last time we went to Yosemite was around 2006...

... and it looks like the kids have grown a little since then.  The view is a little better from the left side parking lot – that's Bridal Veil Falls above Taylor's shoulder.  (And I think the air is clearer, too.)

We planned to do a lot more hiking than we ended up doing, but Vernal Falls was strenuous enough.  Here's a picture from the hike on the way up.

And a picture from the top.

Home for the weekend: Upper Pines campground.  Breakfast always tastes better out in the woods.

 

Chillin' at the dumpster.

It turned out they had church Sunday morning.  Nearby LDS wards take turns holding Sacrament meeting.

After church we hiked up to Yosemite Falls.  Of course, the kids hiked all the way up to the falls.  Taylor needed a really close look.

Yosemite Falls.

Setting the bar high

There are a number of people I admire but right at the top of that list would have to be Jack Fitzgerald, my wife's grandfather. He was one of the nicest people I've ever met and would always greet you with a smile, and you knew he was sincere when he said it was good to see you. And he was one of those people that made a real and positive difference in the lives of others – LOTS of others! When he passed away a few years ago he was lovingly remembered by so many people who had been his students back when he was a teacher, coach, and principal, and many of those people were then in their 60s or older and had stayed in touch with him through the years.

But I can't think of Jack without also thinking of his beautiful wife, Doris. She was perhaps the classiest person I've ever known and Jack treated her like a queen. They were married on May 30th, 1942. The United States had entered World War II and I think he was in officer training with the Navy in Chicago at the time. If I remember the story correctly, she drove there by herself from California so they could be married before he was deployed.

But the reason I'm thinking of them today is that Jamie and I were married on their 50th anniversary. And as we celebrate our 21st – which would have been their 71st – I hope that I can always be as patient and kind and loving to my beautiful wife as Jack was to his. He set the bar pretty high, but that's where it should be.

Last winter's vegetable garden

Yes, I know it's nearly summer already, but I forgot to post some pictures on how my winter vegetables fared. Since our winters are pretty mild here in Southern California I planted a few seeds last November or December in some large pots.  And one really big benefit is that you don't have to deal as much with the usual pests of summer, although I still had some problems with caterpilars.

Who knew carrots came in anything but orange? They grew slowly, but grew nonetheless. I picked up a packet of seeds from Renee's Garden Seeds with orange ("Mokum"), purple ("Purple Rain"), and white ("White Satin") carrots. The longest were about 6" or 7". Unfortunately, the purple color was only in the skin, and if you peeled them they looked just like regular orange carrots, but they tasted very good. The most surprising one for me was the white carrots, which were sweeter than regular carrots. I planted another purple variety ("Purple Dragon") this spring which has the purple color almost to the center, but I really want to try some more white ones (and yellow, too).

I also tried parsnips, but they were even slower growing than the carrots. The first batch I planted didn't sprout very well so I soaked some more seeds overnight and they germinated much better.  I harvested a few of the bigger ones (above, and they really weren't very big) but left the rest in the pot and planted some more carots with them. I don't know if they'll be any good by the time I dig them out but I figured it couldn't hurt to try. (And if you've never eaten parsnips, you're missing out!)

I also planted some snap peas ("Sugar Snap" I think) on the small trellises I had left over from last summer's beans. They did better this year than the last time I tried them but still not as well as the first time. (Maybe I need to use an inoculant?)  The kids like eating them straight off the vine but I think I'll try regular garden or "shelling" peas instead next winter.

I planted some green "bunching" onions as well, and they did very well, although I forgot to take a picture. But they sure tasted good chopped up with twice-baked potatoes!  (Actually, I should have taken a picture of the twice-baked potatoes!)

This summer, in addition to the carrots I'm also trying some turnips – I don't think I've ever eaten a turnip before – as well as a different kind of green beans and zucchini.

Come Dancing

I'm not a fan of The Kinks (most of their music was before I started listening), but I love love love this song!  (Apparently, a lot of other people loved it, too, because it was their biggest US hit and reached #6 on the charts in 1983.)  Out of curiosity I looked it up on Wikipedia and it was written as a tribute to the singer's older sister.  In the song she has a happier ending than in real life – she gave him his first guitar for his 13th birthday and sadly died that night from a heart condition while dancing.  Supposedly the song is very "English" and emulates "a fairground calliope" (and I guess the video goes along with that) but I always thought it sounded Mexican, especially with the trumpets and the way he sings (maybe he's trying to sound like a child?).  So in my mind I've always pictured a Mexican family in Los Angeles back in the 1950s.  What do you think?

"Beautiful Tar, the outcome bright..."

Last Friday I posted a list of reasons why bottled water isn't a good idea. It was taken from a book about public water policy and mostly leaned on the environmental burden of plastic manufacturing and water distribution. One reason, however, was that because the bottled water industry isn't as regulated as municipal water (tap water) it isn't as reliably safe. The book gave a couple of instances of bad bottled water but said in developed nations – such as the good ol' US of A – tap water is generally safer. I probably wouldn't have thought twice about it except that I happened to be reading another book where that definitely wasn't the case.

As I said in the other post, water isn't just for drinking; it's also used in agriculture and energy production.  And manufacturing.  And the problem for manufacturing companies, especially chemical manufacturers, is what to do with the waste products. Disposing of it safely can get expensive and eat up profits, so historically companies just dumped it in a river and it was on its way to the ocean – or at least it wasn't their problem anymore. Of course, a river can only take so much before people start to notice... and complain!

Toms River was just a pretty little place near the New Jersey shore when Ciba-Geigy relocated their manufacturing there in 1949. They were moving operations from Cincinnati (and the Ohio River) where they'd been making fabric dyes from petroleum and tar products for years. Before that they'd made their products in Basel, Switzerland, along the banks of the Rhine River. They purchased a large piece of wooded property and built their factory in the middle, surrounded by trees and hidden from the outside. But they didn't dump all their wastes into the river – that would have drawn complaints. Instead they burned some of it (at night to reduce complaints from the town about the smell) and built holding ponds on the property. Unfortunately those ponds weren't lined and the wastes seeped easily into the sandy soil (the level sometimes dropping as much as five feet a day) and into the groundwater that provided the growing town's drinking water. But it wasn't just Ciba polluting the town and water. In an effort to keep disposal costs down, Union Carbide paid an unscrupulous contractor to "dispose" of their wastes and it ended up being dumped in a pit in the back corner of an old egg farm.

Toms River: A Story of Science and Salvation by Dan Fagin tells the story of how a cluster of children in Toms River (actually named Dover Township) developed cancer, and the medical sleuthing that was able to point the finger at the toxic wastes being generated nearby. And for a fairly lengthy book (460 pages) it's pretty hard to put down. Fagin covers not only Toms River but also the history of how links to cancer were uncovered along the way – and it's a fascinating story. I found his explanations of how cancers happen (there are about 150 different kinds) as well as the history of the chemical industry very interesting, not to mention disturbing – the part about "salvation" in the title is misleading, since there wasn't much of it in the story. The science gets a little technical, but not overly so. And it's plain from the beginning who the bad guys in this story are, but Fagin does a good job explaining why it's so difficult to prove blame in such cases (even if his telling doesn't always feel very balanced). And as for blame, Fagin makes it clear it wasn't just the chemical companies – plenty of people from politicians to plant workers were perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to what was going on.

(One of the more ironic twists is the story of Reich Farm where Nick Fernicola dumped Union Carbide's toxic waste.  The family wanted to sell the egg farm but allowed Fernicola to "store" the drums of waste for $40 a year to help pay the property taxes.  Instead their property became a "Superfund" site and they're still trying to sell it.  Fernicola never even paid them the $40.)

But as for me, I guess I have faith in the local water company because I'm still drinking tap water at home.  (I received an advance copy of this book from Amazon Vine.)

Why bottled water is a bad idea

Normally I write a more straightforward review, but this time I thought I'd take one small aspect from a book I recently read and highlight it. This is adapted from "The seven sins of bottled water" on page 115:

• Plastic bottles are made from petroleum and the manufacturing process creates some really nasty chemical wastes. Some 50 million barrels of oil are used to manufacture over 3 million tons of polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, each year. The process also uses lots of freshwater – 17.5 kilograms of water for each kilogram of PET – which polutes a lot of water and generates significant amounts of hazardous air pollution. Also, consumers of bottled water possibly expose themselves to chemicals such as bromate, antimony, and phthalate DEHP (which has been linked to obesity and infertility).
• Most states do not collect a 5 cent deposit on water bottles to encourage recycling and 88% are thrown away instead of being recycled. When they go to landfills significant levels of toxic chemicals eventually end up leaching into groundwater.
• The water is pumped far from where it is sold – sometimes distant places like Fiji or France. Huge amounts of energy are used to treat the water, fill and cap the bottles, and then transport it. The distribution process also creates needless pollution as trucks and barges move it around the country or world. On average, bottled water uses 2,000 times the amount of energy that goes into delivering tap water.
• Bottled water doesn't always come from places where water is plentiful. Groundwater rights and entire stretches of rivers have been sold to multinational corporations and created severe local water shortages – often in third world countries where the rights of the poor are seldom protected. Even in the U.S., corporate licenses have been granted to operate high-capacity wells, which lowers the water table for individuals dependent on personal wells. Some local communities have objected to the sale of their water but rarely with success.
• Bottled water may be a healthier alternative where public water supplies are unsafe, but in developed nations such as the United States the tap water industry is regulated and more reliably safe. Bottled water is mostly unregulated and often fails independent tests for contaminants such as arsenic.
• The bottled water fad is due in part to clever marketing which plays upon mostly irrational fears and portrays it as fashionable, convenient, and healthy. Minorities and recent immigrants in the U.S. have especially been targeted and are 3 times more likely to purchase bottled water for their children. Some experts worry this exposes children to greater dental health risks since bottled water usually does not contain flouride.
• 50% of bottled water is actually just tap water, although it can be as much as 350 times as expensive!

Actually, Water by David L. Feldman is mostly about public water policy – the part about bottled water was only a few pages. It's published by Polity (I received it from Amazon Vine), which is primarily an academic publisher of books on social sciences and politics. I wasn't even going to review this book on my blog until the other day when I was kidding my friend Neil about his ever-present bottles of water and I think he took me a little too seriously. Honestly, I recognize that it's convenient and a healthier option than soda, but I also understand that it's not without drawbacks. (But I'm not an anti-bottled water activist or anything – I'm just reviewing a book!)

And the book explains that water isn't just for drinking or uses around the house; it's also essential in agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production. And unfortunately, we don't have an unlimited supply of freshwater and many around the world don't even have reliable access to clean (potable) water. Existing sources are becoming increasingly contaminated by polution, and salinity levels (the amount of disolved minerals, not just salt) are rising due to overuse. And it brings up many interesting questions: Is access to water a basic human right? Is it ethical for corporations to exploit publicly owned natural sources of water for profit? What policies should communities and governments have toward this necessary and sometimes scarce resource?

Professor Feldman looks at these questions from a public policy standpoint. He addresses our attempts to control water, from efforts to mitigate floods to moving it to distant locations (usually for irrigation). As a textbook it is fairly straightforward and easy to read, and it's mostly dispassionate with the pros and cons of each issue evaluated. He uses examples from all over the world, although there are a number from California where I live and where water issues are more important than we usually remember. As a general reader, however, I would have liked more information about being a wiser consumer (I saw no mentions of gray-water systems). Still, it's an interesting book that made me to think more about the bigger picture.

Some two or three dozen supermen

The First World War has been mostly forgotten in America. With the Great Depression and a Second World War coming soon after maybe few wanted to remember. The monuments and plaques have faded into the landscape and few remember anymore the places and streets that were named to honor those who served. An online search of my own town turned up only Pershing Square in downtown L.A., a grimy and graffiti-covered monument near the 10 freeway, and "Clover Field" (now known as Santa Monica Municipal Airport) named after a local boy killed in the war. Few people I talked to even knew American soldiers in that war were called "doughboys." And it's a shame, really.

Richard Rubin spent the last ten years tracking down every veteran of WWI who was still living that he could find - all of whom were over 100 years old and all of whom are gone now. Some served in combat, others drove ambulances or trucks or trained for duties which they never got to perform. A few never even made it overseas before the Armistice was declared. One even fought in Siberia. (Siberia?!?) In The Last of the Doughboys: The Forgotten Generation and Their Forgotten World War Rubin recounts the experiences "over there" of those he met and interviewed, but this is not simply a collection of mini-biographies of those two or three dozen veterans. Instead he fills in the details of what it was like to live at that time, what their lives were like growing up and following the war, and why they enlisted. I found myself cringing at some of the stories and laughing at others, feeling outraged at the discrimination a few experienced, and sorrowing at the human cost. And yet I also felt a great sense of pride at the heroic deeds and the unassuming way they rebuilt their lives following the war.

Rubin also talks of his experiences interviewing the "forgotten generation" – how the interviews went, what it's like to talk to centenarians (most were hard of hearing), and the old 78 rpm records and sheet music from that era he has collected. He also tells of his own visits to those battlefields and still finding the scars of that war: the trenches and bomb craters, old shell casings in freshly plowed fields, and the multitude of monuments that show the French haven't forgotten the Great War, or the role Americans played in it. I was surprised at these "asides" at first, but soon found they not only put events into context but added a richness and color to the narrative, bringing it to life and making that time so long ago more relatable. This book probably doesn't have the kind of battlefield depth and detail a scholarly historian would be looking for, but for the rest of us amateur historians who just like a good history I can't recommend it highly enough.  (I received an advance copy of this book from Amazon Vine.)

Maybe we need less democracy

When was the last time you voted? How did you decide who and what to vote for? Do you think you were more or less informed than the average voter? How do you become "informed?" Should voting be manditory or should there be some sort of test or qualification? Do you think your vote even makes a difference?

We Americans take a great deal of pride in our form of government, many of us going so far as to proclaim it the best there is. That doesn't mean we don't complain about our leaders and the mess they've made of things. But as we look at our current problems and see nascent democracies around the world struggle and frequently fail, are we too proud to consider ways to improve? Even if it means adopting some ideas from other nations? Nations such as China?

In Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century: A Middle Way between West and East by Nicolas Berggruen and Nathan Gardels, the authors point out that the American Founding Fathers were adamant in their displeasure with Democracy, equating it with mob rule. And yet we've become more democratic and less of a Republic in the subsequent 200 years (especially in places like California, which is part of the reason we have such a big state budget problem). Whereas earlier Americans didn't vote for the President or the Senate, now we have a say in choosing those leaders even if our vote is watered down by millions of others – and that's just the ones who actually vote! Most feel disenfranchised and don't believe their vote makes a difference. And just how informed are those who are voting? Are they knowledgeable about the issues and candidates, or are they just voting for the most charismatic candidate or basing their decision on personal reasons (like race or party) or are they simply swayed by multi-million dollar advertising campaigns and catchy slogans?

But it's not just the voters who don’t understand the issues; we frequently elect leaders who are have little experience in government. The authors also point out the undue influence of special interests in politics such as unions, corporations, industries, or even just influential minority groups. We fool ourselves by thinking our voice matters when it’s actually those special interests who are funding the expensive campaigns that have become absolutely necessary today and have the ears of our leaders. As a result they say, we’ve become a “consumer democracy” and we end up with decisions being made with short-term results in mind instead of looking to the future and addressing the most important issues (like infrastructure, education, energy, environment, etc.) that would allow us to retain the place of influence in the world that we are rapidly losing.

China is discussed in the book but not as much as I had anticipated. The authors are careful to make a distinction between Communist China (which they basically say was a failure) and Confucian China (of which even most of the shorter dynasties lasted longer than our nation has so far). Confucian ideals promote a leadership class based on merit, where leaders must prove themselves at lower levels before they can move up to more responsibility – an idea which I initially balked at, but have since warmed to in some ways. They don't ignore the current challenges in China's government – corruption, repression, lack of human rights, lax environmental standards, etc. – but the focus is mostly on improving Western governments. They also suggest the power of special interests could be curbed if we utilized more committees of "experts" in making policy recommendations. Globalization and the social media revolution are also discussed extensively as a huge challenge faced by both Eastern and Western governments.

I expected to find much to criticize in this book, but instead found it a well-thought out and rational examination of the problems in America right now. In addition to the specific recommendations for the United States, they also discuss ways California, the G-20 group of nations, and the European Union could be improved. I don't necessarily agree with all their proposals (and many will be a very tough-sell) and the direction toward global government they seem to advocate, but I think there are many ideas here that would make a positive difference. I also wish they had explained more thoroughly what they meant by “consumer democracy” – I think I understood but would have liked a plainer explanation. Nonetheless, this is an excellent and relatively short book that deserves careful consideration by ALL those concerned with the direction we are going.  (I received this book from Amazon Vine.)

What's so romantic about Heathcliff?

Okay Miss Haltiner, you win. I tried to fool you by reading the Cliff's Notes back in 11th grade (or was it 12th?), but you couldn't be fooled. "Next time read the book" is what you wrote on my assignment, and I realize now how ridiculous it was to think I could get away with it. And I know I've sworn I'd never read Wuthering Heights, but I did – yes, nearly 30 years late – but better late than never, right? But now that I've read it I'm kind of at a loss for words. It was "okay," perhaps even interesting at times (less so, at others). And I'm puzzled by how many people over the years have told me they loved that book – often smart and intelligent people (and probably, oh... maybe something like 100% of them were women). Most of all, I don't get why Heathcliff has such a romantic reputation. There was a song a number of years ago that vaguely suggested as much:

"What if I were Romeo in black jeans
What if I was Heathcliff, it's no myth
Maybe she's just looking for
Someone to dance with"

Most of the story is told by the housekeeper, Ellen Dean, to Mr. Lockwood who rents Thrushcross Grange from Mr. Heathcliff, who lives a few miles away at Wuthering Heights on the Yorkshire moors. Heathcliff was taken in by Mr. Earnshaw as a boy when he found him on the streets in Liverpool, and it's suggested he might have been a "gypsy." Earnshaw's son, Hindley, is jealous of his father's affections and mistreats Heathcliff, especially after his father dies and he becomes the master of Wuthering Heights. But Catherine, Hindley's sister, befriends him and they generally lead a wild life roaming the moors and getting into trouble as they grow up. (So far I get it: Heathcliff bears a legitimate grudge toward Hindley, although the relationship with Catherine is a bit... well, indecent.)

Hindley's behavior become so intolerable that Heathcliff runs away, and a few years later Catherine marries the very respectable Edgar Linton. Soon after, Heathcliff returns (and somehow has money) and begins to plot his revenge against the people who've ruined his happiness – namely Hindley and Linton. Hindley has become a drunk after his wife died, and Heathcliff does everything he can to turn Hindley's son, Hareton, into a foul and uncouth brute. He also marries Isabella, Linton's sister, out of spite even though he detests her. And he continues to brazenly visit Catherine, driving a wedge between her and her husband to the point that her health is seriously compromised and she dies in childbirth.

At this point the story shifts, although the romance between Catherine and Heathcliff remains in the background. Now, a relationship between Catherine's daughter (called Cathy) and Heathcliff's son forms. Isabella ran away from Heathcliff, but when she dies her son – whom she named Linton – is sent to live with Edgar and Cathy. When Heathcliff finds out he insists that Linton come to live with him – but again, this is only out of malicious spite for Edgar Linton. Hindley has since died, and Heathcliff focuses on making Edgar miserable by encouraging a romance between their children. In fact, everything he does is to destroy the lives of those around him, and he is not only vile and abusive (to people and animals), but even resorts to kidnapping and detaining people on numerous occasions as well as bribing public officials, digging up graves, and you might even make the case for murder!

So, how does a creep like that end up with such a favorable public image? Even British Prime Minister Gordon Brown tried to compare himself to Heathcliff (which leads me to think that he – like me – didn't really read the book when it was assigned) for which he was justifiably mocked. Instead of becoming the poster boy for domestic abuse, Heathcliff is remembered as the tragic and tourtured romantic hero!

As for the story, yeah I'll concede it was interesting enough (in a bizarre sort of way) that I finished it. And it's stuck in my mind (in a puzzling sort of way) that days and weeks after I finished I'm still puzzling over it. Personally, I didn't find the writing style all that clever or beautiful, and the characters are borderline disgusting. So what is it about this story – and especially Heathcliff – that so many people find so appealing?

I'd really like to know.