People tell me my brisket recipe is excellent. I've even been told it's restaurant quality, which I suppose is a compliment, at least if the restuarant is better than Denny's. Anyhow, there's no secret to what I do, so here's the recipe for anyone who wants it. Basically, lots and lots and lots of cooking at low temperatures = tender, tasty brisket. My recipe has two steps: 1) oven cooking the brisket in its own juices and 2) smoking it to firm it up and dry it out a bit.
We buy brisket from Costomoco (that's 'shorthand' for Costco), in the vacuum sealed packages, usually ~10 lbs each brisket. After trimming and cooking, each brisket reduces to maybe 5-6 lbs, so it'll feed 10 or so people 1/2 lb of beef each.
Once you have the brisket, dump one brisket in the sink, and hose it down to get a lot of the blood off. Fill the sink with cold water to soak the brisket.
While in the cold water soaking, I cut off a LOT of the fat. Since there's so much fat, I do my best to trim all of the hard/muscle fat, and then trim the edges of the soft/subdermal fat. Basically, when looking at the meaty side, you should see almost no fat, and from the fatty side, you should see meat around all of the edges.
Repeat the soaking & fat cutting for any remaining brisket.
Preheat your oven to 200F.
Put the brisket in a roasting pan and cover it with a rub of your choosing. We like the Kirkland mesquite rub from Costco; about 1/2 cup(ish) of rub per brisket is good. If you're cooking two briskets, just cram them both in the one roasting pan. However, be sure that the brisket all fits inside the pan.
Toss the brisket in the oven and go to bed. The time in the oven doesn't really matter much. 10+ hours in 200F heat and you'll have brisket soup (I was surprised how much juice and fat is rendered off the brisket. If your roasting pan was too small, it'll overflow! Remember, though, that if the brisket and juice both fit in the roasting pan when the were combined to start, they'll fit when they're separated at the end).
Fire up your smoker and get a good bed of coals going. Briquettes are fine for this part, but so is hardwood. It doesn't take a whole lot of smoke, so a small bed of white-hot coals is all you need. If you have a wood-burning grill instead of a smoker, that's fine too, just build your bed of coals on one far side of the grill and have your beef on the opposite end.
When the coals are almost white-hot, get the roasting pan out of the oven. CAREFULLY lift the brisket out of the roasting pan and set it on a large cutting board. Remember, the brisket has been cooking forever, so it will want to FALL APART! Don't let it! It might take three spatulas and a pair of tongs, but do everything you can do keep the brisket together for smoking it.
After all the brisket is out of the roasting pan, set the roasting pan aside to let the juice and fat settle. We'll come back to that in a bit.
When the coals are ready, set a medium-small piece of hardwood (I like mesquite and/or oak) on top of the coals. If you have hardwood chunks for smoking, that's fine too, but only put a couple on. Close all vents to about half-open(ish) to keep the fire down a bit.
Carefully slide the brisket, fatty side up, from the cutting board into the smoker at the end farthest from the coals. Make sure the hardwood is indeed starting to smoke, and then close the smoker and walk away for about an hour. Let's go take care of that juice!
By now the juice and fat in the roasting pan should be settled. Let's separate them! You have two options. 1) use a ladel to carefully skim the fat off the top or 2) use a turkey baster to carfully suck up the juice from below the bottom (I prefer the turkey baster option. It gives me a chance to use it for something other than Thanksgiving turkey). Pitch the fat, keep the juice.
After the brisket has been smoking for 1 hour, ladel some juice on it, flip it, and ladel some more juice on the meaty side. Add some more hardwood if needed. Walk away for another hour.
After the brisket has been smoking for another hour, ladel some juice on it, flip it, and ladel some more juice on the fatty side. Add some more hardwood if needed. Walk away for another hour.
After the brisket has been smoking for another hour, open the smoker, marvel at your handiwork, and pull the brisket off the smoker. I like 3 hours of smoking, and the brisket should be much drier and firmer than when you put it on. If you like your brisket drier, then just leave it on for another hour (if you dare to challenge this ultimate, secret recipe)!
Cover the brisket with a loose foil tent and let it rest for 15 to 30 minutes. The longer it rests, the better the slicing will go. Too short of a rest = shredded brisket. However, too long of a rest = cold brisket. Your call.
Slice the brisket at about 3/16-inch per slice. For you non-carpenters out there, that's less than 1/4-nch and more than 1/8-inch. Always slice AGAINST the grain, perpendicular to the grain if you can.
Enjoy the brisket with boracho beans, potato salad and cream corn. And please, please, please use a good, tangy (not sweet) BBQ sauce!
31 August 2009
01 July 2009
Cosmic Jewish Zombie
I just stumbled across this this picture/rant on the interwebs:
Interesting. So instead we're to believe science, which says that billions of years ago some random super-bolt of lightning smacked some perfect mixture of primordial ooze to create the very first amino acid, the building block of cells.
Except that first amino acid wasn't enough; no, more super-bolts of lightning randomly smacked more primordial ooze patches to create the twenty or so amino acids necessary to form even one protein molecule.
Exept that first protein molecule wasn't enough; no, thousands more super-bolts of lightning randomly struck thousands more globs of primordial ooze to create the thousands of amino acids necessary to form the thousands of proteins necessary to form even one single-celled organism.
Except a bunch of amino acids wasn't enough; no, the right combination of thosuands of amino acids randomly formed a committe and decided to self-organize into a tremendously complex single-celled organism. Ok, so now we at least have an organism.
Except a single-celled organism wasn't enough; no, science then tells us that an organism somehow survived and reproduced itself (because it was the fittest primordial single-celled organism, of course). Yet that reproducing/fittest organism randomly screwed up the reproduction process somewhere along the way and mutated into a slightly different organism. Ok, now we have at least two different organisms.
Except two organisms wasn't enough; no, those organisms had to continue to randomly mutate and mutate and mutate over millions of years until the right combination of cells randomly incorporated as a organization in the State of California to form the first multi-celled organism. Ok, now we have at least one multi-celled organism.
Except one multi-celled organism wasn't enough; no, this entirely random process went on and on and on for millions and millions of years until we arrive at the world we live in today.
Makes perfect sense.
Conclusions?
1. Somehow I think a cosmic Jewish zombie seems more plausible than science's admittedly conjured and tremendously improable story (science admits they don't know how it all started).
2. Somehow a cosmic Jewish zombie gives more meaning to my life than tremendously improbable randomness.
Interesting. So instead we're to believe science, which says that billions of years ago some random super-bolt of lightning smacked some perfect mixture of primordial ooze to create the very first amino acid, the building block of cells.
Except that first amino acid wasn't enough; no, more super-bolts of lightning randomly smacked more primordial ooze patches to create the twenty or so amino acids necessary to form even one protein molecule.
Exept that first protein molecule wasn't enough; no, thousands more super-bolts of lightning randomly struck thousands more globs of primordial ooze to create the thousands of amino acids necessary to form the thousands of proteins necessary to form even one single-celled organism.
Except a bunch of amino acids wasn't enough; no, the right combination of thosuands of amino acids randomly formed a committe and decided to self-organize into a tremendously complex single-celled organism. Ok, so now we at least have an organism.
Except a single-celled organism wasn't enough; no, science then tells us that an organism somehow survived and reproduced itself (because it was the fittest primordial single-celled organism, of course). Yet that reproducing/fittest organism randomly screwed up the reproduction process somewhere along the way and mutated into a slightly different organism. Ok, now we have at least two different organisms.
Except two organisms wasn't enough; no, those organisms had to continue to randomly mutate and mutate and mutate over millions of years until the right combination of cells randomly incorporated as a organization in the State of California to form the first multi-celled organism. Ok, now we have at least one multi-celled organism.
Except one multi-celled organism wasn't enough; no, this entirely random process went on and on and on for millions and millions of years until we arrive at the world we live in today.
Makes perfect sense.
Conclusions?
1. Somehow I think a cosmic Jewish zombie seems more plausible than science's admittedly conjured and tremendously improable story (science admits they don't know how it all started).
2. Somehow a cosmic Jewish zombie gives more meaning to my life than tremendously improbable randomness.
06 May 2009
Easily Get Text Out of a PowerPoint Presentation
A buddy of mine (Greg) figured this out, so kuddos to Greg for this post.
(I'm not sure of this process in older versions of PowerPoint, but I believe "Outline" appears on the View menu of 2003)
In PowerPoint 2007:
1. Open the presentation from which you're interested in copying the text
2. Click the round button with the Office logo at the top left of the window (aka the Office Button)
3. Click "Powerpoint Options" at the bottom of the Office Button menu
3a. The Powerpoint Options window will appear
4. Click "Customize"
4a. The Customize the Quick Access toolbar window will appear
5. In the "Choose Commands from" drop-down menu, choose "Commands Not in the Ribbon"
6. Click "Outline View" in the list that appears below the drop-down menu
You should see a square white icon appear in the quick access area of the PowerPoint ribbon (at the top right of the screen, to the right of The Office Button)
Click that button and the slide text will appear as a text outline. Copy & paste and you are off to the races.
To get back to the normal slide view, click the View menu in the ribbon, then "Normal".
Cheers!
(I'm not sure of this process in older versions of PowerPoint, but I believe "Outline" appears on the View menu of 2003)
In PowerPoint 2007:
1. Open the presentation from which you're interested in copying the text
2. Click the round button with the Office logo at the top left of the window (aka the Office Button)
3. Click "Powerpoint Options" at the bottom of the Office Button menu
3a. The Powerpoint Options window will appear
4. Click "Customize"
4a. The Customize the Quick Access toolbar window will appear
5. In the "Choose Commands from" drop-down menu, choose "Commands Not in the Ribbon"
6. Click "Outline View" in the list that appears below the drop-down menu
You should see a square white icon appear in the quick access area of the PowerPoint ribbon (at the top right of the screen, to the right of The Office Button)
Click that button and the slide text will appear as a text outline. Copy & paste and you are off to the races.
To get back to the normal slide view, click the View menu in the ribbon, then "Normal".
Cheers!
29 September 2008
Bailout Schmailout
This is a copy of the email message I just sent my Congressman, Ciro Rodriguez of Texas.
Congressman Rodriguez,
First, thank you for representing me. Though I'm disappointed you voted against the 'bailout', I still appreciate your efforts in Congress.
I don’t usually do this, but I’m sending this because it’s important to know what’s really happening today. The ‘bailout’ package just failed to pass Congress, which is bad news for America and for our paychecks in particular. The problem is that most Americans don’t understand that the ‘bailout’ shouldn’t be called a ‘bailout’ – it’s really a shrewd investment that Congress should make. I’m against rich bank executives getting a bailout as much as anyone, but that’s not what the ‘bailout’ would do and the stakes here are just too high. If you don't vote for this ‘bailout’, things could just become worse!
The article by John Mauldin entitled "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bailout?" (http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/article.asp?id=mwo092608) does a really good job of describing why. Before I read this, no one had adequately described exactly what the ‘bailout’ is and why it should help protect us from a depression (yes, depression with a ‘d’, as in the Great Depression). There’s a lot of techno-financial terms in the article, so I summarized it this way …
1. Banks can only lend to consumers and investors at about 12 times their capital base (value of their assets).
2. Mortgage securities on the bank’s books are now worth much less, so banks have to mark down the value of their capital base, which means they can’t lend as much as they are currently.
3. In order for banks to meet lending regulations, they have to raise capital (get cash) by selling bonds so that their lending to capital ratios will balance. The other option is for banks to call in loans, and I sure don’t want my bank calling in my mortgage, do you?
4. No one in the market wants to buy bank bonds right now because the market is in a panic.
5. Bank bonds are now selling for something ridiculous like 53 cents on the dollar (read ‘ON SALE!’).
6. The ‘bailout’ would simply buy truckloads of these bonds, giving banks cash and stabilizing the market.
7. BANKS ARE STILL HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Banks would still need to pay back the bonds (the ones the government wants to buy at 53 cents on the dollar). The government could also turnaround and later sell these bonds for a profit!
8. Even if half the banks go on to fail, the government would still get a sizable return on the bonds. Remember that if a company (bank) fails, lenders (bond holders – the government) gets the remaining assets first, and stockholders (bank owners) last. This broad portfolio of bank bonds is a pretty safe investment for the government to take.
9. If the government doesn’t buy these bonds, the credit market will likely freeze and the company I work for may not be able to get the funds it needs to cut my next paycheck. No one wants that, right?
10. Tell Congress to think like shrewd investors for once!
Thank you for representing me.
Best regards,
Nate Barber
Congressman Rodriguez,
First, thank you for representing me. Though I'm disappointed you voted against the 'bailout', I still appreciate your efforts in Congress.
I don’t usually do this, but I’m sending this because it’s important to know what’s really happening today. The ‘bailout’ package just failed to pass Congress, which is bad news for America and for our paychecks in particular. The problem is that most Americans don’t understand that the ‘bailout’ shouldn’t be called a ‘bailout’ – it’s really a shrewd investment that Congress should make. I’m against rich bank executives getting a bailout as much as anyone, but that’s not what the ‘bailout’ would do and the stakes here are just too high. If you don't vote for this ‘bailout’, things could just become worse!
The article by John Mauldin entitled "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bailout?" (http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/article.asp?id=mwo092608) does a really good job of describing why. Before I read this, no one had adequately described exactly what the ‘bailout’ is and why it should help protect us from a depression (yes, depression with a ‘d’, as in the Great Depression). There’s a lot of techno-financial terms in the article, so I summarized it this way …
1. Banks can only lend to consumers and investors at about 12 times their capital base (value of their assets).
2. Mortgage securities on the bank’s books are now worth much less, so banks have to mark down the value of their capital base, which means they can’t lend as much as they are currently.
3. In order for banks to meet lending regulations, they have to raise capital (get cash) by selling bonds so that their lending to capital ratios will balance. The other option is for banks to call in loans, and I sure don’t want my bank calling in my mortgage, do you?
4. No one in the market wants to buy bank bonds right now because the market is in a panic.
5. Bank bonds are now selling for something ridiculous like 53 cents on the dollar (read ‘ON SALE!’).
6. The ‘bailout’ would simply buy truckloads of these bonds, giving banks cash and stabilizing the market.
7. BANKS ARE STILL HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Banks would still need to pay back the bonds (the ones the government wants to buy at 53 cents on the dollar). The government could also turnaround and later sell these bonds for a profit!
8. Even if half the banks go on to fail, the government would still get a sizable return on the bonds. Remember that if a company (bank) fails, lenders (bond holders – the government) gets the remaining assets first, and stockholders (bank owners) last. This broad portfolio of bank bonds is a pretty safe investment for the government to take.
9. If the government doesn’t buy these bonds, the credit market will likely freeze and the company I work for may not be able to get the funds it needs to cut my next paycheck. No one wants that, right?
10. Tell Congress to think like shrewd investors for once!
Thank you for representing me.
Best regards,
Nate Barber
25 August 2008
Government of the People?
Why does it seem that government defines people? Whatever happened to people defining their government? Today's political parties have helped define a generation of insecure weasels.
These days it seems like we Americans define ourselves as reflections of our government. We say 'I am a Democrat' or 'I am a Republican' likely because belonging to a political party somehow affirms our beliefs and connects us to something bigger than ourselves. Yet the problem with this is how easy it becomes to let others decide what we believe. If, for example, I've decided I'm a Republican because of one particular issue, it almost becomes a license to not have to think about the other issues. I can say, 'I'm a Republican, and Republicans believe X, so by proxy I must believe X too.'
This is why I don't like politcal parties; people stop thinking and deciding for themselves what they actually believe and hitch themselves to something bigger. I understand why this happens, really I do. It's easier. It's reaffirming. We get to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. For these reasons alone, politcal parties will never go away. Not to mention the power in numbers achieved with politcal parties. Anyone looking for an edge decides they must have the backing of a 'powerful' party. Just look at McCain. The Republicans he once shunned are now his 'biggest supporters'. That's why I say politcal parties are for insecure weasels - insecure because they don't believe they can win without a party and weasels because they're looking for an edge and end up betraying their own beliefs.
Another problem with politcal parties in America is that there are effectively only two to choose from. A or B. Right or Left. If you lean toward the right, you get stuck with the rest of the Republican baggage. If you lean toward the left, you get stuck with the rest of the Democratic baggage. And if you haven't noticed, both sides carry a whole lot of baggage.
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we say, 'This is what I believe, so this is how I vote' instead of 'This is how I vote, so this is what I believe'? What if we actually decided on individual issues ourselves? What if we only elected our representatives based on their personal positions on issues? What if politcal parties didn't exist? Could we actually again have government of the people, by the people? Could we actually again have faith in our leadership? Why not try for yourself?
These days it seems like we Americans define ourselves as reflections of our government. We say 'I am a Democrat' or 'I am a Republican' likely because belonging to a political party somehow affirms our beliefs and connects us to something bigger than ourselves. Yet the problem with this is how easy it becomes to let others decide what we believe. If, for example, I've decided I'm a Republican because of one particular issue, it almost becomes a license to not have to think about the other issues. I can say, 'I'm a Republican, and Republicans believe X, so by proxy I must believe X too.'
This is why I don't like politcal parties; people stop thinking and deciding for themselves what they actually believe and hitch themselves to something bigger. I understand why this happens, really I do. It's easier. It's reaffirming. We get to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. For these reasons alone, politcal parties will never go away. Not to mention the power in numbers achieved with politcal parties. Anyone looking for an edge decides they must have the backing of a 'powerful' party. Just look at McCain. The Republicans he once shunned are now his 'biggest supporters'. That's why I say politcal parties are for insecure weasels - insecure because they don't believe they can win without a party and weasels because they're looking for an edge and end up betraying their own beliefs.
Another problem with politcal parties in America is that there are effectively only two to choose from. A or B. Right or Left. If you lean toward the right, you get stuck with the rest of the Republican baggage. If you lean toward the left, you get stuck with the rest of the Democratic baggage. And if you haven't noticed, both sides carry a whole lot of baggage.
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we say, 'This is what I believe, so this is how I vote' instead of 'This is how I vote, so this is what I believe'? What if we actually decided on individual issues ourselves? What if we only elected our representatives based on their personal positions on issues? What if politcal parties didn't exist? Could we actually again have government of the people, by the people? Could we actually again have faith in our leadership? Why not try for yourself?
04 October 2007
TweakUI Vista HACK!
Craig at </CodeJacked> does a good job of describing what TweakUI is, so if you're unfamiliar with TweakUI go read about it there, or at Microsoft's XP PowerToys website.
So, since Tweak UI was made for XP, and doesn't natively work in Vista, what's a TweakUI user to do? Well, there is a way to get the Tweak UI for XP to work in Vista. I don’t know how wise it is to force it to work this way, because you’re effectively changing the Vista registry with an XP registry editing program, but it does work. Here’s how:
FIRST
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU’RE FOLLOWING THESE INSTRUCTIONS AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!
SECOND
Get the tweakui.exe file.
a. You might already have it if you upgraded from XP and used Tweak UI in the good old days. If so, just move the file to anywhere but the C:\Windows\System32 directory … Vista really doesn’t like tweakui there. I put it in C:\Program Files\Microsoft.
b. If you don’t have the tweakui.exe file already, you have two options:
i. Get it from a computer that has it. Simply copy the file (i.e. to a thumb drive or over a network) and slap it anywhere on your Vista machine (except the C:\Windows\System32 directory).
ii. There’s a rumor that you can extract tweakui.exe from the installation file available at the XP PowerToys site using WinRAR or some other such archiving program. I haven’t tried this, though, but it might be worth trying?
THIRD
Set the tweakui.exe file to run with XP compatability.
a. Right-click the file -> Properties -> Compatability tab -> check the CheckBox next to “Run this program in compatability mode for:” [Windows XP (Service Pack 2)] -> Click OK.
FOURTH
Run tweakui.exe as an Administrator.
a. Right-click the file -> Run as administrator -> Continue -> Run programb. TweakUI might popup behind other windows (it always does for me!)
b. If you don’t run as administrator, UAC will thwart your every change!
c. If you have UAC turned off, you don’t need to run as administrator. You also won’t have to click “Continue” in step (a) above.
FIFTH
Don’t break your computer! I created AutoPlay handlers, I changed the places bar, and I changed the Templates successfully using this method. However, I can’t guarantee the safety of these or any other changes you make with TweakUI!
So, since Tweak UI was made for XP, and doesn't natively work in Vista, what's a TweakUI user to do? Well, there is a way to get the Tweak UI for XP to work in Vista. I don’t know how wise it is to force it to work this way, because you’re effectively changing the Vista registry with an XP registry editing program, but it does work. Here’s how:
FIRST
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU’RE FOLLOWING THESE INSTRUCTIONS AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!
SECOND
Get the tweakui.exe file.
a. You might already have it if you upgraded from XP and used Tweak UI in the good old days. If so, just move the file to anywhere but the C:\Windows\System32 directory … Vista really doesn’t like tweakui there. I put it in C:\Program Files\Microsoft.
b. If you don’t have the tweakui.exe file already, you have two options:
i. Get it from a computer that has it. Simply copy the file (i.e. to a thumb drive or over a network) and slap it anywhere on your Vista machine (except the C:\Windows\System32 directory).
ii. There’s a rumor that you can extract tweakui.exe from the installation file available at the XP PowerToys site using WinRAR or some other such archiving program. I haven’t tried this, though, but it might be worth trying?
THIRD
Set the tweakui.exe file to run with XP compatability.
a. Right-click the file -> Properties -> Compatability tab -> check the CheckBox next to “Run this program in compatability mode for:” [Windows XP (Service Pack 2)] -> Click OK.
FOURTH
Run tweakui.exe as an Administrator.
a. Right-click the file -> Run as administrator -> Continue -> Run programb. TweakUI might popup behind other windows (it always does for me!)
b. If you don’t run as administrator, UAC will thwart your every change!
c. If you have UAC turned off, you don’t need to run as administrator. You also won’t have to click “Continue” in step (a) above.
FIFTH
Don’t break your computer! I created AutoPlay handlers, I changed the places bar, and I changed the Templates successfully using this method. However, I can’t guarantee the safety of these or any other changes you make with TweakUI!
05 March 2007
Winter Wonderland
Last month we took a trip to Michigan to visit Marisa's family in Lansing and many of our friends from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.Typically we make this trip over either Thanksgiving weekend or Christmas week, but this year was different. Why? Well, first of all, Tommy was only 2 weeks old at Thanksgiving and 6 weeks old at Christmas. Not only was he young, but everyone and their brother travels during those times, which means they probably weren't the best times to travel with a new baby. Secondly, we wanted Tommy to be able to spend his first Christmas at his own home. Of course, we're sure he didn't remember anything, but that's what we wanted. Lastly, there usually isn't much snow on the ground in November, or even late December for that matter. Oh, but February, that's a different matter. Michigan has always had plenty of snow in February. Lots of snow makes for a nice patriotic picture of Marisa and Tommy, don't you think?
Also, in the spirit of "Where's Waldo?" can you spot Grandpa Campbell somewhere in the picture?
Anyhow, we started off the trip Thrusday morning at the shuttle pick-up station of San Antonio's International Airport's remote parking lot, shivering in the balmy 35 degree morning. A short shuttle ride and a long hike with 8 bags later, we were jetting our way to Houston on a 737. Once in Houston, the crammed us into a cigar tube of an airplane for the 3 hour flight to Grand Rapids, Michigan. I know what you're thinking, or at least what you should be thinking ... 3 hours in a regional jet with a 3-month old baby? What fun! Actually, it wasn't bad at all. Marisa nursed Tommy on the way up and coming down, which seemed to do the trick to equilabrate Tommy's ears. Other than that, he just slept like a champ in Marisa's arms for the rest of the flight.
Once in Michigan, we picked up a rental car and drove to Lansing to stay with Marisa's parents. This would also be the longest car ride Tommy had ever endured, so we weren't sure how that would go either. He's always liked car rides, so fortunately this one went great too. Except for the fact that Enterprise Rental Car Company passed off a Suzuki Forenza for an intermediate size car. If you own a Suzuki Forenza, skip the next sentance and go on to the next paragraph ... Suzuki Forenzas STINK; they're uncomfortable, shaky and chinsy; way to go, Enterprise!
We chose this weekend in February to visit Michigan because Friday was also Emily's birthday (Marisa's sister). She drove over from New York to spend the weekend at home with family, and also to see Tommy. Thing is, there was a big snow storm in Pennsylvania that week, and a big-rig jack-knifed a few miles ahead of Emily. She's fine, but she had to still in her car for over 4 hours, and she still had 9 more hours of driving ahead of her. Oi!
It was good to spend time with Marisa's family. Tommy got to see his Grandpa and Grandma Campbell's house, and also met his Great Grandparents Campbell and Great Grandparents Thelen. Many of Marisa's Aunts and Uncles also came to visit and meet Tommy. It was great fun to watch him smile as he was held by almost everyone that came by. His Great Aunt Nancy almost didn't seem to want to let him go! In her defense, however, Tommy did indeed look pretty comfortable as he slept in her lap.Sunday we drove to Ann Arbor to attend New Life Church, the church Marisa and I met at while at the University of Michigan. NLC had been campaigning for over 6 years to build the first evangelical church on U of M's Campus, and lo and behold, the dedication service happened to be the weekend we were in town. Suffice it to say, we were very excited to see NLC in a physical church building of their own, and to see how much the church has grown. Many of our college friends still live in the area and attend the church and it was great to see each of them too.
The flights home on Monday were almost as uneventful as the flights were on Thursday, except that Tommy decided that he liked to make all sorts of noises that, obviously, we thought were awesome, but maybe everyone around us weren't as enthusiastic. Regardless, we're proud of our little man. At three months of age he's already got four flights under his belt. Maybe he's destined to be a world traveller!
21 November 2006
I Dream of Baby
Do babies dream? If so, what, exactly, do babies dream about? After doing extensive research (none, actually), I have developed the following educated conjecture:
Yes, babies dream. Someone with a baby-brain-scanner thing-a-ma-jig may be able to prove me wrong, but my guess is that only evil mad scientists have baby-brain-scanner thing-a-ma-jigs anyway, so I pretty much rule their opinions out. Unless, of course, the mad scientists with the baby-brain-scanner thing-a-ma-jig happens to agree with me. Then perhaps the title 'mad' scientist doesn't apply. Maybe something more like 'somewhat-irked' scientist, or 'looney-tunes' scientist, is more applicable.
Back to baby dreams ...
A sleeping baby appears to exhibit the same signs of dreaming and REM (Random Eye Movement) sleep that we adults do. Their eyes twitch. They make hilarious and adorable facial expressions while asleep. Sometimes even 'Zoolander-esque' poses; you know, with the lips puckered and the eyebrows raised? Great movie, by the way. Except you may not find it particularly funny until the second viewing. Unless your first viewing is with a crowd that's memorized the funniest lines, and then you may find the first viewing to be funnier than I thought it was. My second viewing ... stellar.
Back to baby dreams ...
So then, given that babies dream, what can they possibly dream about? All my dreams have to do with jumbled up things in my memory, like vampire vacuums, or me as Michael Knight in an Embassy Suites hotel with KITT driving down the hallway on two wheels only ... those kind of dreams. But babies don't have memories of vacuums, or cheesy 1980's television shows starring David Hasselhoff. Their only memories are of floating in a salty balloon, getting shoved through a tunnel, sucking down milk and pooping it out. Not a whole lot to jumble up to make entertaining dreams, is there? I sure hope my boy isn't dreaming about being propelled by poop through a tunnel filled with salty milk. That's just nasty.
Maybe there's another option. Maybe God uses our dreams to talk to us, and maybe the only thing about dreams we remember are the parts that somehow relate to our previous wacky memories. Thus, when God speaks to us adults in dreams, we remember talking cars or how we're afraid of heights, as we plummet off a cliff. But when babies dream, they don't have memories to foul things up, and maybe they simply hear what God is saying. Maybe. Or maybe I just dreamt this up.
Yes, babies dream. Someone with a baby-brain-scanner thing-a-ma-jig may be able to prove me wrong, but my guess is that only evil mad scientists have baby-brain-scanner thing-a-ma-jigs anyway, so I pretty much rule their opinions out. Unless, of course, the mad scientists with the baby-brain-scanner thing-a-ma-jig happens to agree with me. Then perhaps the title 'mad' scientist doesn't apply. Maybe something more like 'somewhat-irked' scientist, or 'looney-tunes' scientist, is more applicable.
Back to baby dreams ...
A sleeping baby appears to exhibit the same signs of dreaming and REM (Random Eye Movement) sleep that we adults do. Their eyes twitch. They make hilarious and adorable facial expressions while asleep. Sometimes even 'Zoolander-esque' poses; you know, with the lips puckered and the eyebrows raised? Great movie, by the way. Except you may not find it particularly funny until the second viewing. Unless your first viewing is with a crowd that's memorized the funniest lines, and then you may find the first viewing to be funnier than I thought it was. My second viewing ... stellar.
Back to baby dreams ...
So then, given that babies dream, what can they possibly dream about? All my dreams have to do with jumbled up things in my memory, like vampire vacuums, or me as Michael Knight in an Embassy Suites hotel with KITT driving down the hallway on two wheels only ... those kind of dreams. But babies don't have memories of vacuums, or cheesy 1980's television shows starring David Hasselhoff. Their only memories are of floating in a salty balloon, getting shoved through a tunnel, sucking down milk and pooping it out. Not a whole lot to jumble up to make entertaining dreams, is there? I sure hope my boy isn't dreaming about being propelled by poop through a tunnel filled with salty milk. That's just nasty.
Maybe there's another option. Maybe God uses our dreams to talk to us, and maybe the only thing about dreams we remember are the parts that somehow relate to our previous wacky memories. Thus, when God speaks to us adults in dreams, we remember talking cars or how we're afraid of heights, as we plummet off a cliff. But when babies dream, they don't have memories to foul things up, and maybe they simply hear what God is saying. Maybe. Or maybe I just dreamt this up.
20 November 2006
Thanksgiving Tradition
The Back-Story Behind the Michigan-OSU Game:
Thanksgiving Day, 1978. Birthday to this little sack of potatoes. Yep, it's me, fuzzy hair and all. First-born child to my parents. So what does any of this have to do with the Michigan-OSU game? Well, back in 1978, the big game was the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Also, back then it was customary for new mothers to stay in the hospital for 3 or more days. Consequently, I sat in the palm of my dad's hand (as he tells the story) in the Hospital room and together we watched Michigan beat OSU, in Columbus, 14-3. I remember hearing that story told and retold throughout my childhood. And you wonder why I went to Michigan?
Fast-forward 28 years. It is now 2006, and my 9-day old first-born child is in the palm of my hand as together we watch #2 Michigan travel to Columbus to take on #1 Ohio State University. Guess which story I'd love to tell my son throughout his childhood? What an awesome tradition that would have been: 'Son, just days after you were born you sat in my hands and watched Michigan beat OSU, just as I sat your Grandpa's hands and watched Michigan beat OSU just days after I was born!'
Well, God must be trying to show me what I should really be thankful for, or perhaps He's trying to teach me something about humility, because Michigan didn't win this time around. As Robert Burns said, 'the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.' The game was just a game, and a entertaining game at that. Granted, Michigan football is a big deal in our home (well, a huge deal, really), but the loss to OSU and the squelching of a would-be perfect season really aren't the reasons I'm bummin'. I'm bummin' because I don't get to tell the story. The thrill of victory is fleeting; the story of the victory is forever.
Well, as I said last tiem, maybe Michigan will play OSU in Glendale, AZ in the BCS Championship Game. And maybe Michigan will win. Then the story I'll tell Tommy will be, 'I held you in the palm of my hand and watched Michigan beat OSU for the National Title!' If not, I still know what I'm really thankful for this Thanksgiving.
P.S. Happy Birthday shout-outs to Tommy's Grandma Campbell and Great-Grandma Koons!
Thanksgiving Day, 1978. Birthday to this little sack of potatoes. Yep, it's me, fuzzy hair and all. First-born child to my parents. So what does any of this have to do with the Michigan-OSU game? Well, back in 1978, the big game was the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Also, back then it was customary for new mothers to stay in the hospital for 3 or more days. Consequently, I sat in the palm of my dad's hand (as he tells the story) in the Hospital room and together we watched Michigan beat OSU, in Columbus, 14-3. I remember hearing that story told and retold throughout my childhood. And you wonder why I went to Michigan? Fast-forward 28 years. It is now 2006, and my 9-day old first-born child is in the palm of my hand as together we watch #2 Michigan travel to Columbus to take on #1 Ohio State University. Guess which story I'd love to tell my son throughout his childhood? What an awesome tradition that would have been: 'Son, just days after you were born you sat in my hands and watched Michigan beat OSU, just as I sat your Grandpa's hands and watched Michigan beat OSU just days after I was born!'
Well, God must be trying to show me what I should really be thankful for, or perhaps He's trying to teach me something about humility, because Michigan didn't win this time around. As Robert Burns said, 'the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.' The game was just a game, and a entertaining game at that. Granted, Michigan football is a big deal in our home (well, a huge deal, really), but the loss to OSU and the squelching of a would-be perfect season really aren't the reasons I'm bummin'. I'm bummin' because I don't get to tell the story. The thrill of victory is fleeting; the story of the victory is forever.
Well, as I said last tiem, maybe Michigan will play OSU in Glendale, AZ in the BCS Championship Game. And maybe Michigan will win. Then the story I'll tell Tommy will be, 'I held you in the palm of my hand and watched Michigan beat OSU for the National Title!' If not, I still know what I'm really thankful for this Thanksgiving.
P.S. Happy Birthday shout-outs to Tommy's Grandma Campbell and Great-Grandma Koons!
19 November 2006
They Say 'Use Your Head,' but Oh, What a Headache!
I'm major bummin', but at least they made it close ...
Well, yesterday's 'Game of the Millennium' turned out to be a heart-breaker, and OSU walked away with a 42-39 victory over The Victors. Michigan certainly played well, but not well enough to win. OSU certainly showed why they're #1, but in my humble opinion, here's the real reasons why the Michigan Wolverine's lost to those OSU Buckeyes.
1. Michigan lost 5th-year Senior Strong Safety #19 Willis Barringer to an injury. Consequently, and not once, but TWICE, when Ohio State running backs were able bust through a blitz-packed Michigan Defensive Line, Barringer wasn't in center-field to help prevent both 60-yard touchdowns. 14 easy points for OSU. Also, perhaps Barringer would have helped slow Troy Smith's 5-wide onslaught.
2. Crable's helmet crushing hit in the 4th quarter. On a 3rd and 15 scramble (outside of fieldgoal range, btw, and with Michigan only behind by 4), OSU's Troy Smith was flushed out of the pocket and forced to lob an incompletion. Well, the play would have been a incompletion if Shawn Crable hadn't used his own helmet to come crashing into Troy Smith's helmet as Smith was forced out-of-bounds. The result? A personal foul, 15-yard penalty, automatic 1st down for OSU, and a subsequent OSU touchdown, put OSU two scores and 11 points ahead of Michigan. Michigan was able to recover 8 of those points, but without any time-outs and a failed on-side kick, all the Wolverine's could do was watch. I can't blame Crable too much; he was simply playing tough football and had noplace else to go. Still, it may have been the event that cost Michigan the game.
3. On Michigan's 2nd possession, early in the game Chad Henne over-threw Mario Manningham for what would have been a touchdown. The first possessions for both teams resulted in touchdowns. Michigan had a fantastic opportunity to score 7 on it's second when Mario Manningham BLEW past the defending OSU Corner. Henne's pass sailed 5-10 yards past Manningham, and the great opportunity to put another early nail into OSU was lost.
4. OSU's lousy turf. In some way or another, I'm sure I can blame the above three reasons on OSU's loose turf. Barringer's injury, Crable's bone-headed foul and Manningham not running as fast as Henne expected. I'm not the usual conspiracy theorist type, but if there were to be a conspiracy theory this year, I might predict people will point to the turf. It seems almost too convenient that Michigan slipped and slid much more than OSU appeared to.
I'm not happy with the outcome, but none-the-less, it was a great game. OSU's offense certainly trounced Michigan's supposed impenetrable defense. The BCS rankings show Michigan still at #2 today, so maybe they'll play again in Glendale, AZ for all the marbles. Wouldn't that be a riot if they were to play again ... and Michigan were to win. Sure, OSU can have the Big Ten title. We'll take the National Title.
Go BLUE!
Well, yesterday's 'Game of the Millennium' turned out to be a heart-breaker, and OSU walked away with a 42-39 victory over The Victors. Michigan certainly played well, but not well enough to win. OSU certainly showed why they're #1, but in my humble opinion, here's the real reasons why the Michigan Wolverine's lost to those OSU Buckeyes.
1. Michigan lost 5th-year Senior Strong Safety #19 Willis Barringer to an injury. Consequently, and not once, but TWICE, when Ohio State running backs were able bust through a blitz-packed Michigan Defensive Line, Barringer wasn't in center-field to help prevent both 60-yard touchdowns. 14 easy points for OSU. Also, perhaps Barringer would have helped slow Troy Smith's 5-wide onslaught.
2. Crable's helmet crushing hit in the 4th quarter. On a 3rd and 15 scramble (outside of fieldgoal range, btw, and with Michigan only behind by 4), OSU's Troy Smith was flushed out of the pocket and forced to lob an incompletion. Well, the play would have been a incompletion if Shawn Crable hadn't used his own helmet to come crashing into Troy Smith's helmet as Smith was forced out-of-bounds. The result? A personal foul, 15-yard penalty, automatic 1st down for OSU, and a subsequent OSU touchdown, put OSU two scores and 11 points ahead of Michigan. Michigan was able to recover 8 of those points, but without any time-outs and a failed on-side kick, all the Wolverine's could do was watch. I can't blame Crable too much; he was simply playing tough football and had noplace else to go. Still, it may have been the event that cost Michigan the game.
3. On Michigan's 2nd possession, early in the game Chad Henne over-threw Mario Manningham for what would have been a touchdown. The first possessions for both teams resulted in touchdowns. Michigan had a fantastic opportunity to score 7 on it's second when Mario Manningham BLEW past the defending OSU Corner. Henne's pass sailed 5-10 yards past Manningham, and the great opportunity to put another early nail into OSU was lost.
4. OSU's lousy turf. In some way or another, I'm sure I can blame the above three reasons on OSU's loose turf. Barringer's injury, Crable's bone-headed foul and Manningham not running as fast as Henne expected. I'm not the usual conspiracy theorist type, but if there were to be a conspiracy theory this year, I might predict people will point to the turf. It seems almost too convenient that Michigan slipped and slid much more than OSU appeared to.
I'm not happy with the outcome, but none-the-less, it was a great game. OSU's offense certainly trounced Michigan's supposed impenetrable defense. The BCS rankings show Michigan still at #2 today, so maybe they'll play again in Glendale, AZ for all the marbles. Wouldn't that be a riot if they were to play again ... and Michigan were to win. Sure, OSU can have the Big Ten title. We'll take the National Title.
Go BLUE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
