Tasha 9 May 2001 - 21 February 2012


Tasha in a topknotI knew it was coming, but when it happened it was very sudden. Today I lost a family member. My little dog.

Our dog Leena was 7 years old, and starting to show her age.  We had lost another dog just before we got Leena, and we wanted to have a younger dog to help comfort us when Leena finally passed away.

The "pocket dog" craze was sweeping through Korea, and Won was in love with all things "pocket dog".  She wanted something tiny, 3-4 pounds when full grown.

I resisted.  

I wanted a dog that was tough, easy to care for, and something that was big enough that it could get out of the way of my feet - I did NOT want to step on a micro-dog.  I'm of the firm belief that something that small should live in a cage with a hamster wheel attached to the side.  So after some research, I suggested that we get a Yorkshire Terrier.  

Won wasn't sure, so I found a Yorkshire Terrier show that was going on in Orange County.  We took a weekend to drive down and catch the show.  We saw hundreds of Yorkies in a range of sizes from "Teacup" to 8-10 pounds.  I knew I could live with an 8 pound dog.

And the Yorkies we saw were gorgeous! Beautiful silky hair ("No, they don't shed" we were told. I had my doubts - but they turned out to be unfounded.) They wore bows and ribbons, and little top-knots. They were happy, and calm, and eager to play. We watched one woman put her dog through a sort of obedience course, where she had the Yorkie off-leash, and commanded the obviously intelligent little fellow to perform a series of exercises. He jumped hurdles, climbed ramps, fetched, carried, put down and then picked up again a variety of toys.

I was enchanted. And as soon as we got home Won started scouring the local newspapers for Yorkie puppies.

Here's the thing, a "Teacup" sized Yorkie easily cost $2,500 to $3,000. A "Pocket" sized Yorkie ran about $2,000. "Small" Yorkies were
Tasha asleep as a puppyeasily $1,500. Tasha cost us $600. At her maximum 'fat' weight she weighed 10.2 pounds. Her healthy weight was right at 8 pounds.

We found a family in Fresno that had a litter. We went over and picked Tasha from the litter using our usual method, by disqualifying puppies that tried to chew on our hands.

From the very beginning, Tasha was amazing.  She was absolutly fearless.  She treated Leena like her own personal plush pillow, and would follow Leena around like a tugboat snugged against a cruiser.  Leena, used to being the only fur child on the premises, took it with quiet exasperation. 

When Tasha was a small puppy, I would worry that she might miss her litter mates.  I got her a small stuffed bear to sleep with so she wouldn't feel alone.  But Tasha was fearless, and she soon found out that the stuffed bear could be played with.  She would pounce on it with all the ferciousness of a 12 week old puppy and shake it so hard and so viciously that she would get dizzy and fall over.

Tasha was so fearless that she would take flying leaps from the back of the couch or the back of the recliner as a shortcut to get to her bear.  And when she found out that we could throw the bear for her... well!  The game was on!  I would toss the bear, and she would race to catch it before it even hit the ground, then shake it until it came apart at the seams before racing back to give it to me to throw it again.  How many times would she do this?  I don't know - easily over 200 times before I got tired and had to call it quits!

Won was returning to school that fall, and we didn't want Tasha to have the run of the apartment while we were out, so I purchased a 4-foot high cage fence to go across the kitchen door.  By this time Tasha was about 5 months old.  

The first day that Won went to school, Tasha stayed in the Kitchen, unhappy, behind the fence.  The second day I came home, opened the apartment front door, and found Tasha there at the door, outside of the Kitchen, waiting for me.  She had apparently climbed up 4 feet of cage fencing, and then down the opposite side.  And in doing so, she had somehow broken the first bone in big toe on her right front foot.  It didn't seem to bother her too much to have a broken toe.  She limped a little, and curious, I felt her foot until she winced, then felt her toe flop in my hand.

Tasha in laundry basket... notice the stuffed "bear" behind her?We took her to the vet.  It cost about $200 and a cast that she wore for several weeks.  The cast didn't slow her down one bit... she still wanted us to throw that bear!

This became a "thing" with Tasha - her fearlessness caused me to gasp in worry many times.  She would tumble off the couch and land on her head, and yip in pain while I was sure that this was it - that she had finally brained herself.  But she was tough!  After a moment she'd shake it off, and off she would go again, running at high speed.

She once ran through a park so fast that she didn't see a drainage grate, fell into it and flipped head over heels in a multiple summer salt, the stood up and seemed to shake as she whined.  I went running to her, sure she would be in convulsions any moment, but she shook it off and ran around me, thinking I was playing.

Another time, she was walking quickly ahead of me on her leash in a park, over a little bridge.   But Tasha didn't realize she was on a bridge.  There was a concrete curb on each side of the walk, and she had jumped up over the curb earlier to explore the grass.  So when she was in the middle of the bridge, she must have thought this would be a great time to jump the curb again.  She jumped off the bridge and dropped 2 feet into a little ditch filled with several inches of water!  We were all very surprised!  I still laugh thinking of this.

When Leena died, Tasha was so confused.  We came home without Leena, and Tasha spent a long time searching for her.  Sometimes she would go to the door and just whine for her friend.

Won and I had aquired a cat - Samuel Francisco, aka "Cisco".  Cisco was one of a litter of 7 kittens, from a stray cat that we had brought into our apartment.  After the kittens had grown a little, I let them roam around the living room.  Each kitten was a little smaller than Tasha's "bear", and so I watched Tasha closely, waiting for the moment that she decided these fuzzy kittens were "toys".  Yes, I was worried!  By this time she had literally distroyed several "bears", with most of them requiring minor surgery with a thread and needle.  

But it went much better than I thought.  Tasha's mother instinct kicked in, and she started hearding the kittens like a sheepdog, keeping them from running out of sight.  Tasha was a small dog, but these kittens could walk completely under her like a bridge, and she would freeze there and let the kitten pass.

We kept Cisco and he and Tasha would play.  They would chase each other around, or Cisco would sneak up on and pounce on Tasha suddenly.  Tasha would push Cisco down and sort of sit on him, until he squirmed away and went somewhere safe.  I used to tease Tasha that Cisco wouldn't always be so small - but even when he outweighed her by 4 pounds, they would wrestle and play like puppy and kitten.

Won spoiled Tasha rotten. She would feed Tasha fruit, or tidbits from her plate, until I started calling Tasha a "little sausage dog", and the vet started warning us about the dangers of being overweight.  Still Tasha had Won figured out, and would beg for more.

 

Tasha asleep on a pillowWhen Won died, Tasha was my comfort.  She had always slept on the bed, and after Won died Tasha started sleeping curled up close to me.  We cuddled, she gave me something to take care of on those nights where all I could do was watch Stargate and grieve.  Over the months I went from numb to interested in life again, and I credit Tasha a great deal for that transition.  In return, I put Tasha on a diet, and worked to get her down to a healthy weight.

And then I met Wendy.

Over the last year Wendy and I have grown close. I proposed to Wendy on Christmas eve, and we will be married in April - just two months from now.

Tasha and Wendy adopted each other. And Wendy learned to accept that there was a little dog that insisted on the privilege of sleeping between us.  Tasha doted on Wendy and Wendy would take her on walks around the block.  Wendy's two dogs were jealous of Tasha at first, but they later worked things out.  Tasha again started acting like a little tug boat up against Wendy's big dogs, steering them in whatever direction that Tasha pleased.

And then something scary happened.  

Last October Tasha started breathing weird, like she was gasping for air.  You could hear her little lungs make "gurgling" noises when she breathed.  I took her to see the Veterinarian, who diagnosed Tasha with Congestive Heart Failure.  This was the same disease that Won had, the same disease that ultimately killed Won.  I feared the worst.

The Vet said that she didn't know why Tasha's heart was failing, but that she could put Tasha on medications that would allow her heart to function better.  I immediately started comparing Tasha's treatments to Won's treatments.  Won had CHF due to a blown Mitral Valve, that was later replaced with an artificial valve.  In order to find out that Won's mitral valve was bad required a lot of equipment and testing, including an echocardiogram and a PET scan.

The vet had an x-ray machine.  If I wanted anything else, it would have bankrupt me.

The initial medication, a diuretic, helped.  But Tasha's symptoms got worse, and the worried vet added additional medications to support her heart.

Tasha, being fearless, soon got used to having to pant heavily when she ran and attacked her bear (by this time her "bear" was only a distant relation, replaced numerous times).  She would run and pant, and once she actually fainted - only to wake up surprised.  She shook it off and again ran after her bear.

We learned that she was water loading, that her heart couldn't always clear her lungs of fluid.  Tasha would start coughing, deep chesty coughs, which was an indication of too much fluid buildup.  Wendy or I would then take Tasha outside to pee, to clear some of the fluid loading.

Tasha on the bedThis behavior increased.  Over the last month, Tasha started needing frequent pee breaks outside, even several times in the middle of the night.  

Yesterday, Tasha ran around the back yard with the big dogs.  She fell asleep in my lap as I read a book.  She chased her bear.  Last night she slept between us again.  I got up four times during the night to take her outside to pee.

This morning, she took her morning medications, and went outside with me to pee and do other doggie things in the front yard.  As I left, she settled onto the couch to await the coming of the mailman (that mail slot HAD to be guarded!).

When Wendy came home at 3pm, she noticed that Tasha was breathing strange, that she seemed to be in pain, that her stomach was distended a little.  She called me, and we met at the Vet.

Tasha didn't make it.  Her heart gave out.  The Vet gave her something for the pain, and Tasha passed away.

I caressed her one last time, and cried my eyes out as I held her lifeless body to me.  I took her collar, and it is here with me now as I write this.

I hate loss.  Hate is too tame a word for what I'm feeling - rage like you wouldn't believe at the unfairness of it all, and sorrow, and sadness.  I'll never see my little dog again.  

Tasha was fearless, incredibly happy, full of a joy for life literally until her last day.

I miss her terribly.

Read More...

Same Sex Marriage - Where I agree with Santorum

So perhaps you've seen this on the blog of the Friendly Atheist, the video clip of Rick Santorum comparing gay marriage to plural marriage?

First, I'll point out that polyamorous marriage is not legally the same as a "binary" marriage. The law in most societies is set up already to easily handle marriage between a couple - no matter the sex. There are no legal complexities in a marriage of two people.  While the legal complexity of a union of three or more people can get complicated very quickly.

But I still find that I'm in agreement with Rick Santorum in that I see no ethical reason to restrict a legal union to an arbitrary number of two people.

Don't get me wrong, Santorum is being pretty smug in this video where he thinks he's cornered the questioner with a foolproof "gotcha".  But even a stopped (analog) clock can be right twice a day.  And Santorum is right here, when it comes to ethics.

If it is ethically okay for two people to get married, no matter their gender, then it is okay for three or more to get married.  This is an argument that works even without considering same-sex marriage.  Bringing gender into this argument is unnecessary, and may be a Red Herring fallacy.

In the Supreme Court decision of Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Stevens concluded that:

(1) the fact that a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,

(2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process.

...

This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.

...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. 

If two adults, "with full and mutual consent" can engage in "private conduct" without government intervention - then why can't three, or four?

A reading of Polyamory in Wikipedia showed me that the law is still pretty tangled up, even though Lawrence v. Texas has resulted in some state legislators reviewing their laws on marriage.  According to the Wikipedia article:

Bigamy is the act of marrying one person while already being married to another, and is legally prohibited in most countries where monogamy is the cultural norm. Some bigamy statutes are broad enough to potentially encompass polyamorous relationships involving cohabitation, even if none of the participants claim marriage to more than one partner. For instance, under Utah Code 76-7-101, "A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."

Having multiple non-marital partners, even if married to one, is legal in most U.S. jurisdictions; at most it constitutes grounds for divorce if the spouse is non-consenting, or feels that the interest in a further partner has destabilized the marriage. In jurisdictions where civil unions or registered partnerships are recognized, the same principle applies to divorce in those contexts. There are exceptions to this: in North Carolina, a spouse can sue a third party for causing "loss of affection" in or "criminal conversation" (adultery) with their spouse, and more than twenty states in the US have laws against adultery although they are infrequently enforced.

So, the law seems to be all over the place, and some conservatives believe that the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas opens the floodgates to polyamorous marriage.  And there are several forms that a poly marriage can take, which further complicates any possible future changes to marriage law.

But as someone who bases my decisions on reason and rationality, I cannot see any ethical reason to condemn a relationship between "n" number of people, as long as everyone in that relationship gives their informed consent.  I can see a legal reason to prohibit such a union - in that today's laws are not constructed to be fair to such a marriage.  But I can see a way to counter that objection by learning from and perhaps adapting laws of incorporation to marriage.  Why not?  A couple is often legally treated as a union, a single entity; and so is a corporation.

Santorm smugly thinks he has found a counter to same sex marriage, but I think he is one of many who (unknowingly) are working for the legality of plural marriage.

Read More...

Internet insanity

While reading about the plight of one of my friends, I came across a little bit of Internet Insanity.  (Yea, I know, how unusual, right?)

Sue Basko, "Lawyer for Music and Film", is one of those "colorful" personalities who makes a living off of Hollywood.  She also has a blog.  I'm not interested in her blog, not at all.  But I am interested in the warning she placed on her blog.  It says:

COPYRIGHT: ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT 2010-11 Susan Basko. You may not copy or use or link to or quote or cite ANY material herein without explicit written permission from the Owner. No "Fair Use" applicable. Permission easily granted to good people/uses. Don't be shy to ask.

You see what I did there?  By copying her text, and linking to it, I've done what Ms. Basko says I cannot do.

I especially like how she says that Fair Use is not applicable!  It's like she gets to make up the law as it applies to her own website!

EFF logoThis is why I like and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  They offer a legal guide to bloggers that helps bloggers know when someone like Sue Basko is full of it.  For instance, several court cases in America have ruled that I CAN link to Sue Basko's website, with or without her permission.  I can even "deep link" to a place on a website where normal users of that site would have to go through several layers first.  This has been ruled to be legal.

I'm also allowed to copy and paste "short quotes" from anyone else's blog just so that I can comment from it.  This is lawful for me to do.  Let me give you an example from Ms. Basko's blog:

EDUCATION: I have a Juris Doctorate magna cum laude from Southern Illinois University School of Law; have completed all coursework for a Master of Arts in Mass Communication Media Arts in the department of Cinema-Photography/ Radio-TV at Southern Illinois University; have a Bachelor of Arts in Film and Video from Columbia College Chicago.

This seems to be a pretty impressive education, until you realize that Ms. Basko really doesn't understand copyright in America - you would think that someone working in the entertainment industry would know copyright law inside and out!  She has a JD degree from Southern Illinoise University School of Law and still says that I am not allowed to link to her blog, or use parts of it as "fair use"?

This is incredibly hilarious.

Taken with her other blog postings, Ms. Basko comes off as another one of the (all too common) tinfoil-hat wearing brigade, who try to force the world to be what they want it to be, instead of taking it for what it really is.  

If you are seeking legal advice from Ms. Basko, I would advise you look long and hard at this first.

Also, if you have the time, money, or legal expertise, and you want to donate to an excellent cause, then support the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  I do, and you should too!

Lastly, because I've been warned that Ms. Basko has a habit of deleting her own writing and claiming to have never written it, I've taken a screen shot of the offending page, which I will post here if it ever disappears or changes.


Update 24 Dec 2011:

Before and After screen captureWow, it was predicted, and so it came to pass!  Quietly, and without fanfare, Ms. Basko has updated her copyright warning.  Since I saved her page, I can give you a before and after screenshot of it to the right here.  (Click on the image to see it bigger).

The top shows her orginal text with the silly copyright warning that prevents you from copying or linking to her text.  
She's almost got everything set here.  But there is still a little bit of sillyness.  The text now reads:

COPYRIGHT: ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT Sue Basko 2010. Materials on this site may be used and shared only for the purposes of learning. They may not be used for any form of cyberstalking, bullying, or harassing. Legal action will be taken against any cyberstalker or harasser. If that's you, get off this page.

I'm glad she's made this clear.  Right now, I'm using her text to demonstrate that she still doesn't understand copyright - so I guess technically I'm teaching someone reading this blog something.

But still, she's completely wrong here.  According to the US Copyright Office, I'm allowed to copy and reproduce a fair amount of Ms. Basko's work, "... for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."

For the record, I'm criticizing Ms. Basko's words, her "so-called" proficiency with Internet Law.  I'm doing so because she purports to be an entertainment lawyer who I would think is supposed to KNOW something about the law and the Internet, while also understanding basic facts about the Internet - namely "The Streisand Effect".

For a great example of what you can do with Fair Use and Copyright, I suggest you watch the movie "A Fair(y) Use Tail" by Eric Faden.  (I would guess that there is very little chance that Mr. Faden is represented by Ms. Basko).

 

Another aspect of Fair Use is parody.  If I wished, I could modify the image of Ms. Basko in Photoshop to make her look like a Klingon, and then translate part of her web site into Klingon words (called "tlhIngan Hol" in English).  I could then put a word bubble above her head showing the Klingon Ms. Basko shouting her own words in Klingon.

I could, if I wished, use Photoshop to redraw the photo of Ms. Basko as a clown.  This would be a neat parody because it would hook into the whole entertainment industry (better than a Klingon) while at the same time making a statement about Ms. Basko's abilities.

I could do this, but I won't.  Not out of fear, but because it is Christmas eve and I've got other things to do with my time.  Call it laziness if you wish.  

One other thing I would like to point out is the Copyright Date on the updated text.  Copyright is good for a long time, so a Copyright of 2010 is not going to run out any time soon.  However, according to the Copyright Office, Copyright happens automatically when you write something.  Using a date or the (c) symbol is merely a formality.  But back-dating your copyright by a year doesn't make sense, it makes it seem older than it really is, and would allow it to fall into public domain one year sooner than necessary.

The only reason why Ms. Basko would have a 2010 Copyright on this material is if she is trying to make it seem like she didn't REALLY change her website - or if she merely forgot.  

Personally, I think she just forgot.  We will see it updated correctly soon.  Especially after I tell her about it.

Read More...

A little bit of fun with a heavy subject!

Kepler-22b diagram

What is life REALLY like on Kepler-22b?

A story about the newly discovered Kepler-22b appeared in my Google science news feed.  Kepler-22b, as described by Wikipedia, "... is the first confirmed extrasolar planet found by NASA's Kepler Space Telescope to orbit within the habitable zone of a Sun-like star."

The story was a guest essay by Wade Sarkis, to the online magazine MPNnow.com.  I clicked over to this story thinking I'd read some real science about what it would be like to live on Kepler-22b. What I found instead was an orgasmic Utopian political fantasy by a writer with stars in his eyes. The only fact quoted was the distance to Kepler - 600 Light Years.  Needless to say, I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.

So let me tell you what little I know about Kepler-22b.

We know, approximately, what the diameter of Kepler-22b is because of how much light is occluded when it passes in front of its star. It is about 2.4 times the radius of Earth.

From that small bit of information, we can calculate Kepler-22b's probable gravity, depending on it's probable makeup.  We would do so by noting that the gravity of a planet (g) is found with this formula: g=G(m/(r^2)).  

For instance, if the planet consists of the same sorts of materials that make up the Earth, (rocky metals and water) then a person who weighs 200 pounds on Earth would weigh 485 pounds on Kepler-22b. Not a nice place to vacation for us humans!

But maybe we would luck out, and Kepler-22b would be less dense. This is possible if it were made of water. If Kepler-22b were made entirely of water it would only be 2.5 times as massive as Earth, but the gravity would be a pittance. A 200 pound person would weight only 86 pounds on a watery Kepler-22b - from the deck of his ship, since there would be no land. But it would be a strange ship, since there would also be very little if any atmosphere. The gravity of this water world would be too low to keep most of the atmosphere from escaping!  And without atmosphere, even the water vapor would try to escape the bounds of the planet.  Perhaps it would hang around if frozen solid, sort of like Jupiter's moon Ganymede.

So what would be comfortable to a human? If Kepler-22b were only 6 times as massive as Earth the gravity would be similar to Earth. You would weight just about the same. But this density would suggest a planet poor in metals, made mostly of silica and water. Granite and sandstone would exist, but heavier minerals would not. The term "Bronze Age" would be a complete mystery to the inhabitants of Kepler-22b, to whom the fused glass spear point would be the height of their technology.

Is there life on Kepler-22b? Who knows? But if they are able to develop human-like technology, if they can mine the metals to make a radio, and if we ever detect a signal, then we will know that theirs is a much heavier world than ours.

For those who are curious, I made a spreadsheet that calculates the gravity of planets found by the Kepler space observatory.  Click on that link to calculate the the possible gravity on the surface of the planets found by the NASA's Discovery Program.

Read More...

Contemptuous conceited chutzpah - the inherent hubris of Christianity

Rick Warren Tweet

I really don't know why I'm angry.  I really did expect Christians to race to the front to see who could say something stupid about the death of Christopher Hitchens first.

Really, I expected smug self-rightiousness from the likes of Ray Comfort, and he didn't fail to live down to my expectations by posting a blog entry titled, "Christopher Hitchens is no longer an atheist.  Richard Dawkins now believes in God"  (No, I won't link to him.)  Comfort made hay from Hitchens' corpse, while taking the time to quote-mine Dawkins.

And of course Rick Warren played "Concern Troll" by taking the time to say something hateful about Hitchens.

Twitter has been in an uproar too.  Lots of good Christians have been threatening the person who started the trending topic #GodIsNotGreat

Over the next few days, expect to see a lot of "Good" Christians sadly lamenting that Hitchens "is no longer an atheist" or that he "knows the truth now".  This false piety, this false sympathy is the curdling of human kindness into a sludge of religious evil.

Let me make this very simple for the followers of a god.  You think you know what Christopher Hitchens is thinking right now.  But you are wrong.  He is not thinking anything.  He's dead.  His brain is no longer functioning, and therefore his mind has... ceased.  The words he wrote, the words he spoke, the friends he made, the enemies he impressed, the people he touched are all that remains of his rapier-sharp intellect.

But Hitchens is gone, and does not exist anywhere.

This is a thought that terrifies many religious people.  And this abject fear, this panic, is one of the most powerful tools of religion.  Hitchens knew this, and overcame it.

He no longer cares about the religious buzzards that pick over his corpse.  But I'm angry about it.  Even though I knew it was coming.

Read More...

We lost a good man today

Image of Christopher Hitchens before Chemo

A good man is dead today.

I am so glad that I had a chance to email Mr. Hitchens and tell him that he assisted me in my deconversion.  I was always impressed by his quick mind and verbal talent in debate.  I just started reading his books this year, but I've watched hours of him on Youtube and have always been impressed.

I can't say I agree with his lifestyle, but we are very different people.  I'm not that interested in being a part of a large social circle, and I can take or leave alcohol - I certainly don't need it to have a good time.  Still, I'm glad he mostly got to do as he wished.

I've seen two different stories online where cowardly people have claimed that he turned to God in his last days.  I'm sure everyone of any intelligence knows better than this.  And I know that Christians will gloat over his death and exclaim that he is "no longer an atheist" or some such drivel....  Such people deserve the contempt they will receive.

I've said it before:

We are all living together here in the same pond. Our actions and words make ripples that are felt by, and influence those around us, who in turn cause ripples that are felt by and influence others. People who never know us directly will feel this influence.

It is not that important to make a big ripple, or wave, while we are here. What is important is the joy of splashing around.

Mr. Hitchens did both. He made a pretty big, influential wave. And he did it with an offhanded effortlessness, with a great deal of refined pleasure, quiet joy, and a rapier-sharp quip.

Goodbye sir.  I'll miss you.

Read More...

A wonderful atheist Christmas - the reprise

My Christmas Tree

I've said it before... I love Christmas.

It has been a long time, 5 years, since I've had a wonderful Christmas.  In 2006 I spent Christmas at the hospital with Won.  In 2007 and 2008 our holidays were severely scaled back due to Won's health and our finances.   And then things got worse.

I spent 2010 recovering.  And now... well, I've found someone special.  Yea, I'm just as surprised as anyone!  And we're planning Christmas together.

So for the first time in 5 years, I've been able to pull out my decorations.  And Wendy and I decorated our tree.  See the Bumble front and center?  Did I mention that I have a Bumble ornament?   Unfortunately, my Star Trek "Catspaw" ornament didn't survive the move.  It, along with the Christmas tree skirt, and some other bits and pieces has disappeared or been thrown away.  

I've had the chance to do a little baking this year. (Chocolate pecan pie!)  But mostly I've spent the weekends enjoying the warm weather by working in my back yard wearing jeans and a T-shirt.  After building a fence in my backyard, I'm working on building an insulated doghouse.  I'm still working on aquaponics and gardening too - I plan to do a lot of that over my vacation.  Yea, I'm taking 2 weeks off - the first time I've done that since before Won's health got bad.

"Wonderful Life" / "Meaning of Life" mashup

So, I said before that I enjoy the holiday season.  This week I plan to walk down Fresno's "Christmas Tree Lane" - something that I've never done before.  I'm looking forward to seeing the "controversial" Christmas display that doesn't mention Jesus.

 

I understand that some people believe it is "hypocritical" for an atheist to celebrate and enjoy Christmas.  But I don't get that.  Yea, I have a tree, I have lights, I have snowmen in the front yard (well, on a flag, and made of wood and metal - no snow here!)

There are no overt Christian symbols in my decorations - and haven't been since I became an atheist and retired the tree-top angel almost two decades ago.  The tree and decorations are certainly not a Christian symbol, as stated in the Bible.

This going to be a good Christmas.  I'll celebrate the Winter Solstice with my friends, and then Wendy and I will celebrate Christmas.  There will be good food, good company, some treats, some time around a nice fire, and even some presents.  

I'll sing a few of my favorite Christmas Songs, enjoy some brandy and egg nog, and finally get to see what's inside of that red present under the tree.

 

I hope you will also have a great Christmas.  And if you would like to share some Christmas spirit with others may I recommend Doctors without Borders, KIVA, and Scouting for All?

Read More...