Here's a slightly more recent one from Easter.
She is going to be an absolutely beautiful woman someday. Take a guess which parent she gets her beauty from. I'll give you a hint.
You didn't really need the hint, though, did you?
Walkenhorst Family
Friday, June 29, 2012
My Sleepy Angel
I just posted about my little angel. Well, here's my other - more sleepy - angel. She gets prettier and prettier all the time. Looking at this picture from last year and looking at her now ... she is so much more grown up.
Here's a slightly more recent one from Easter.
She is going to be an absolutely beautiful woman someday. Take a guess which parent she gets her beauty from. I'll give you a hint.
You didn't really need the hint, though, did you?
Here's a slightly more recent one from Easter.
She is going to be an absolutely beautiful woman someday. Take a guess which parent she gets her beauty from. I'll give you a hint.
You didn't really need the hint, though, did you?
Little Angel
This picture of my youngest was taken over a year ago. I think she's so beautiful.
Here's another one.
A couple months ago, she drew a couple of pictures for me on my white board at work.
The first one melted me, of course. The second ... yeah, those are angels flying over the Nativity scene. And this was in March. Cute, huh?
Here's another one.
A couple months ago, she drew a couple of pictures for me on my white board at work.
The first one melted me, of course. The second ... yeah, those are angels flying over the Nativity scene. And this was in March. Cute, huh?
Forks over Knives
Emily has been trying to get me to watch a documentary called 'Forks over Knives' for several months. I guess I never understood what it was about because it took me a while to find the motivation to watch it. It's REALLY interesting!
It attempts to make the case that many of the chronic illnesses we enjoy in our western societies are directly linked to our western diet. That wasn't a new idea for me, but it was fascinating to see several pieces of evidence that pointed to a specific diet for halting and even reversing the progression of certain diseases. The "cure" is a plant-based diet.
I've always felt that limiting meat intake was a good idea, but this video suggested that eliminating meat and ALL animal-based products was the way to go. And I found it hard to argue with their data. One point was made that I had heard before, but that really sunk in this time because it was given in the context of so much supporting evidence. Cows' milk, which is supposed to be so healthy for us, is really a food that nature has produced for calves. Taking milk from one species and giving it to another does seem a bit ... unnatural. The video asserts that milk products, like all other animal products, produce some unwanted side effects in our bodies.
If you've read this far, you might be interested in watching the video. Check it out. If you have Netflix, you can stream it online. And let me know what you think.
It attempts to make the case that many of the chronic illnesses we enjoy in our western societies are directly linked to our western diet. That wasn't a new idea for me, but it was fascinating to see several pieces of evidence that pointed to a specific diet for halting and even reversing the progression of certain diseases. The "cure" is a plant-based diet.
I've always felt that limiting meat intake was a good idea, but this video suggested that eliminating meat and ALL animal-based products was the way to go. And I found it hard to argue with their data. One point was made that I had heard before, but that really sunk in this time because it was given in the context of so much supporting evidence. Cows' milk, which is supposed to be so healthy for us, is really a food that nature has produced for calves. Taking milk from one species and giving it to another does seem a bit ... unnatural. The video asserts that milk products, like all other animal products, produce some unwanted side effects in our bodies.
If you've read this far, you might be interested in watching the video. Check it out. If you have Netflix, you can stream it online. And let me know what you think.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Club Unicorn
About a year ago, I posted some thoughts about homosexuality. For the sake of blog integrity, I don't want to change what I posted then, but I came across something today that makes me want to amend it slightly in a separate post.
In a blog a couple of weeks ago, a man with homosexual inclinations named Josh Weed "came out" and described his experiences coming to love a woman and create a family with her. His post is extremely well written and identifies a nuance I didn't capture in my previous post. There is a difference between 'homosexuality' and the act of same-gender sex. My post above identifies a difference between inclination and action, but I used the term 'homosexuality' differently than he did and I think my language becomes confusing. His is very well thought out - homosexuality is something he has dealt with for most of his life. If you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend you read his post here. His comments about love and intimacy are worth reading all by themselves. I'll reproduce part of it here:
For those who thought that a gay man happily married to a woman was a mythical creature, he offers himself as evidence that such creatures exist and calls them unicorns. Having observed a unicorn firsthand through his blog, I am now a member of the illustrious Club Unicorn. Membership is free; if you're interested in joining, just read his post. And welcome to the club.
I appreciated reading his thoughts. He has given me some things to think about. I have never had homosexual inclinations myself, but I have my own set of weaknesses. I was inspired to read about his life and how he dealt with the decisions he faced as he came to see that his natural inclinations were very different than most of the people around him. It sounds like he had the strength and courage to make the choices he made in large part because of the love, support, and freedom he was given by his parents and others. I hope I can be that supportive and non-judgmental of others when they face challenges.
In a blog a couple of weeks ago, a man with homosexual inclinations named Josh Weed "came out" and described his experiences coming to love a woman and create a family with her. His post is extremely well written and identifies a nuance I didn't capture in my previous post. There is a difference between 'homosexuality' and the act of same-gender sex. My post above identifies a difference between inclination and action, but I used the term 'homosexuality' differently than he did and I think my language becomes confusing. His is very well thought out - homosexuality is something he has dealt with for most of his life. If you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend you read his post here. His comments about love and intimacy are worth reading all by themselves. I'll reproduce part of it here:
... sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation.... when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection.He draws a distinction between love and attraction that I think is helpful for anyone regardless of their sexual orientation. He has purposefully chosen to love and nurture a woman even though he has no natural sexual attraction toward women. His point, though, is that truly fulfilling love and sex have little to do with attraction and a lot to do with choices, communication, connection, etc.
For those who thought that a gay man happily married to a woman was a mythical creature, he offers himself as evidence that such creatures exist and calls them unicorns. Having observed a unicorn firsthand through his blog, I am now a member of the illustrious Club Unicorn. Membership is free; if you're interested in joining, just read his post. And welcome to the club.
I appreciated reading his thoughts. He has given me some things to think about. I have never had homosexual inclinations myself, but I have my own set of weaknesses. I was inspired to read about his life and how he dealt with the decisions he faced as he came to see that his natural inclinations were very different than most of the people around him. It sounds like he had the strength and courage to make the choices he made in large part because of the love, support, and freedom he was given by his parents and others. I hope I can be that supportive and non-judgmental of others when they face challenges.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Cool Cake
I'm catching up on some old items here. My wife made this cake several months ago for a baby shower. I was pretty stunned. Not that I'm surprised at her supernatural abilities in general; I've known for many years that I am married to Wonder Woman. But she had never made a cake like this before, so it was pretty cool to see what a great cake decorator she could be.
We talked about her future career, but she reminded me that her passions are photography and making jewelry. I didn't push it. But I'm still amazed.
We talked about her future career, but she reminded me that her passions are photography and making jewelry. I didn't push it. But I'm still amazed.
The Federal Reserve
I recently read a book called "The Creature of Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. It offered a really interesting analysis of the history of banking and the effects of fractional reserve banking and central banking's monetary policies. The title refers to a secret meeting that took place on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia with several bankers and politicians to craft a plan for creating a central bank in the US patterned after European central banking. The ultimate result of this was the creation of the current central bank of the US, the Federal Reserve. The meeting was later documented by participants, but it was kept secret at the time because public knowledge of the banking industry's involvement in the creation of the draft plan would have killed the political possibility of it being passed as legislation.
I've dabbled in economic theory, but as any economist can attest, I'm no economist. It was helpful to have some economic background going into that book, but I found my understanding of money was dramatically improved by reading it. Griffin gives historical examples of governments that enforced a policy of money backed by precious metals and the resulting stability of the money supply and value.
If Griffin is to be believed - and I think his research is pretty thorough, though I may not be in the best position to critique his analysis - the United States has had only one brief period near the beginning of its existence in which the money supply was truly tied to a precious metal - silver. In other eras, although we haven't had central banking during many of those years (we've actually had three central banks - four if you count the bank of the colonies prior to the revolution), we have allowed publicly-chartered and/or regulated private banks to employ fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to inflate the money supply by a fairly large multiplier depending on the reserve percentage.
In other words, even when we had a gold standard, fractional reserve banking allowed our money system to be inflated by the banking industry with new money generated by debt. If a fractional reserve percentage of 10% is enforced, then as much as 90% of the money supply could be based solely on debt with the other 10% based on precious metal. That's sort of a hybrid between a gold-standard and fiat money. Now, of course, we have total fiat money with no backing by anything of value.
The stability of a gold- or silver-backed money supply, Griffin argues, comes from the fact that the money is itself something with intrinsic value. This money, then, when it becomes less valuable, can be converted into other things of value and taken out of circulation, which bolsters the value of the remaining money. When it becomes too scarce (and consequently more valuable), individuals and firms will be more motivated to conduct mining operations or find some other method by which to obtain some of this more valuable money. Those activities bring the value of the money back down. Thus, traditional market forces tend to stabilize the value of the money itself just as they do with any other commodity when there is no government interference.
With a fiat system, the government indirectly dictates the value of the money through various control mechanisms. The idea that a central control mechanism would offer greater stability is a very socialistic idea. Why would a group of bankers/economists in Washington be more capable of stabilizing the vast financial system than millions of individuals operating within the framework of a free market?
According to Griffin, the brief period following the ratification of the Constitution in which the US money supply was truly tied to silver generated an incredible period of growth and prosperity. As I said, I can't really critique his analysis, but if it's true, it begs for a closer look at the virtue of a sound money supply with value controlled by a distributed market instead of centrally controlled by bureaucrats.
Call me crazy, but I'm more and more convinced that freedom is a key ingredient in the formula for prosperity. Thanks to Mr. Griffin, I have a few more ideas solidified in my mind that give me a stronger theoretical foundation for that belief.
I've dabbled in economic theory, but as any economist can attest, I'm no economist. It was helpful to have some economic background going into that book, but I found my understanding of money was dramatically improved by reading it. Griffin gives historical examples of governments that enforced a policy of money backed by precious metals and the resulting stability of the money supply and value.
If Griffin is to be believed - and I think his research is pretty thorough, though I may not be in the best position to critique his analysis - the United States has had only one brief period near the beginning of its existence in which the money supply was truly tied to a precious metal - silver. In other eras, although we haven't had central banking during many of those years (we've actually had three central banks - four if you count the bank of the colonies prior to the revolution), we have allowed publicly-chartered and/or regulated private banks to employ fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to inflate the money supply by a fairly large multiplier depending on the reserve percentage.
In other words, even when we had a gold standard, fractional reserve banking allowed our money system to be inflated by the banking industry with new money generated by debt. If a fractional reserve percentage of 10% is enforced, then as much as 90% of the money supply could be based solely on debt with the other 10% based on precious metal. That's sort of a hybrid between a gold-standard and fiat money. Now, of course, we have total fiat money with no backing by anything of value.
The stability of a gold- or silver-backed money supply, Griffin argues, comes from the fact that the money is itself something with intrinsic value. This money, then, when it becomes less valuable, can be converted into other things of value and taken out of circulation, which bolsters the value of the remaining money. When it becomes too scarce (and consequently more valuable), individuals and firms will be more motivated to conduct mining operations or find some other method by which to obtain some of this more valuable money. Those activities bring the value of the money back down. Thus, traditional market forces tend to stabilize the value of the money itself just as they do with any other commodity when there is no government interference.
With a fiat system, the government indirectly dictates the value of the money through various control mechanisms. The idea that a central control mechanism would offer greater stability is a very socialistic idea. Why would a group of bankers/economists in Washington be more capable of stabilizing the vast financial system than millions of individuals operating within the framework of a free market?
According to Griffin, the brief period following the ratification of the Constitution in which the US money supply was truly tied to silver generated an incredible period of growth and prosperity. As I said, I can't really critique his analysis, but if it's true, it begs for a closer look at the virtue of a sound money supply with value controlled by a distributed market instead of centrally controlled by bureaucrats.
Call me crazy, but I'm more and more convinced that freedom is a key ingredient in the formula for prosperity. Thanks to Mr. Griffin, I have a few more ideas solidified in my mind that give me a stronger theoretical foundation for that belief.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Running a 5K
I'm a little behind on my blog; life has been kind of busy. In early May, we went to a family 5K run and I thought I'd better report to the world how it went.
I'd love to tell you my time, but I have no idea what it was. My wife had another commitment, so I had four kids in tow and only one of them wanted to run. The rest of us didn't even finish, but we had a nice talk as we walked.
Child number three, however, has a passion for running and he gave that run 100%. He told me his time was 27:43. That's just under 9 minutes per mile. That may not be a great time for a 20 year old, but I think it's pretty darn good for a kid his age! And it's very possible he would have beaten me if I had run with him.
Ok, good. Now it's documented. I'll have to keep track of that boy's running times. I think he could be a pretty fantastic runner as he gets older.
I'd love to tell you my time, but I have no idea what it was. My wife had another commitment, so I had four kids in tow and only one of them wanted to run. The rest of us didn't even finish, but we had a nice talk as we walked.
Child number three, however, has a passion for running and he gave that run 100%. He told me his time was 27:43. That's just under 9 minutes per mile. That may not be a great time for a 20 year old, but I think it's pretty darn good for a kid his age! And it's very possible he would have beaten me if I had run with him.
Ok, good. Now it's documented. I'll have to keep track of that boy's running times. I think he could be a pretty fantastic runner as he gets older.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Allergies
I had some allergy tests done today. The doctor told me he hasn't seen someone as sensitive as I am in about six months. I thought that was good news, so I told my wife what a sensitive guy I am. The doc thought that put me in the top 1% or so among allergy sufferers. A bit of an unscientific guess, but I'm proud of the estimate.
So now I'm looking at the possibility of allergy shots and wishing there was a more natural, long-lasting solution, but I'm seeing very few options. I wish I understood my body a little better.
I think one way to look at allergies is an overreaction of the body's natural defenses. We react to something that isn't really a threat, but we do so because our body's defensive cells don't recognize certain substances as friendly or benign. There are a lot of health issues that can crop up when our body has this kind of misunderstanding. Blood type mismatches, organ type mismatches, even type I diabetes, I believe, where our defensive cells fail to recognize the markers on cells in the pancreas and they attack it, disabling its ability to produce insulin. This is the western view of the body and it works pretty well.
That got me thinking a few months ago of our body reacting to impurities. And then, as I often do, I made a leap to spiritual things. I realized that being sensitive wasn't always a bad thing and I prayed that I might be as sensitive to spiritual impurities as I am to environmental allergens. Wouldn't that be great? Still working on that. But it was a nice thought and got me focused on purity a little more.
I think there's another view of allergies that stems from an oriental view of the body. It is that allergies are a natural side effect of a body whose systems are out of balance. Bad things happen when the body's communication system breaks down, when energy (the Chinese qi or chi) doesn't flow properly, when one or more parts of the body are neglected. And while I don't know of any good treatments along those lines (the Internet has a few claims that may or may not be true), I think this is a pretty good way of viewing our bodies to ensure proper health.
And so, jumping to spiritual matters once again, I thought that maybe the negative spiritual health we experience is sometimes brought about by a spiritual imbalance. Perhaps we sometimes seek after impurities because something is out of whack. An example I've found that impacts me both physically and spiritually is exercise. When I neglect to exercise, my health deteriorates and I also feel less sensitive to spiritual connections to God. I think the body, mind, and spirit are very tightly connected and what affects one will have an effect on the others. But whatever the stimulus, taking care of ourselves by balancing the needs of every part of us seems really important.
So I'll be searching for a bit more balance in the near future ... and hoping to be a little less sensitive.
So now I'm looking at the possibility of allergy shots and wishing there was a more natural, long-lasting solution, but I'm seeing very few options. I wish I understood my body a little better.
I think one way to look at allergies is an overreaction of the body's natural defenses. We react to something that isn't really a threat, but we do so because our body's defensive cells don't recognize certain substances as friendly or benign. There are a lot of health issues that can crop up when our body has this kind of misunderstanding. Blood type mismatches, organ type mismatches, even type I diabetes, I believe, where our defensive cells fail to recognize the markers on cells in the pancreas and they attack it, disabling its ability to produce insulin. This is the western view of the body and it works pretty well.
That got me thinking a few months ago of our body reacting to impurities. And then, as I often do, I made a leap to spiritual things. I realized that being sensitive wasn't always a bad thing and I prayed that I might be as sensitive to spiritual impurities as I am to environmental allergens. Wouldn't that be great? Still working on that. But it was a nice thought and got me focused on purity a little more.
I think there's another view of allergies that stems from an oriental view of the body. It is that allergies are a natural side effect of a body whose systems are out of balance. Bad things happen when the body's communication system breaks down, when energy (the Chinese qi or chi) doesn't flow properly, when one or more parts of the body are neglected. And while I don't know of any good treatments along those lines (the Internet has a few claims that may or may not be true), I think this is a pretty good way of viewing our bodies to ensure proper health.
And so, jumping to spiritual matters once again, I thought that maybe the negative spiritual health we experience is sometimes brought about by a spiritual imbalance. Perhaps we sometimes seek after impurities because something is out of whack. An example I've found that impacts me both physically and spiritually is exercise. When I neglect to exercise, my health deteriorates and I also feel less sensitive to spiritual connections to God. I think the body, mind, and spirit are very tightly connected and what affects one will have an effect on the others. But whatever the stimulus, taking care of ourselves by balancing the needs of every part of us seems really important.
So I'll be searching for a bit more balance in the near future ... and hoping to be a little less sensitive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)