Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Shack - Argued

The folks over at The Kindlings Muse have a podcast up at their website discussing the pros and cons of the book "The Shack".

It's runs close to an hour but it's well worth the time. They make good points about allegory and story in modern evangelicalism or rather the re-discovery thereof...


Saturday, September 27, 2008

I Blew It...

The Jehovah's Witnesses were out today, canvasing the neighborhood. I tried to avoid them but the old lady and her very young helper hung around until I popped out into the garage. I noticed them and quickly scooted back in. Too late! She rang the bell and I got to talk to...well...she did most of the talking.


She went on and on about how the earth was once a paradise and how God was going to suck all the evil people off the earth and how governments were killing the earth and how...well...the bottom line was she was well on her way to telling me that this earth, the one we are on today, will, once again, become a paradise for all of us to live on.

I said, "This earth?"

She said, "Yes."

I said, "This earth is going to be destroyed. A new heaven and a new earth will be created. Read your Revelations."

(Revelation 21:1
[ The New Heaven and the New Earth ] Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

See also....

Isaiah 65:17
[ New Heavens and a New Earth ] "For behold, I create new heavensand a new earth,and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

2 Peter 3:13
But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.)

She said, "Oh" and then "Have a nice day." Then left.

What I really should have said was...

"We believe all life resulted from a giant sneeze by the Great Green Arkleseizure and we're waiting for the return of the Great White Handkerchief"....

That's what I should have said! ;)


Friday, September 26, 2008

$200,000 Mortgage for only $500 a Month!!!




If you fell for this you bear some of the blame. But not all. Most of that goes to...well...watch this video. It explains it better than I can.

My bank, Wamu, with whom I bank and have/had my mortgage (we refi'ed last week with another lender) is now Chase. And Wamu's current CEO is getting his $18 million in severance. I'm going to his house to piss on his plants...


Friday, September 19, 2008

I Win.

My EDD appeal that is.

My former employer claims that I "willfully violated company policy" which, in EDD-speech is, "misconduct connected with work" which is defined as "...a substantial breach by the claimant of an important duty or obligation owed the employer, wilful or wanton in character (emphasis mine), and tending to injure the employer (Maywood Glass Co. v. Stewart - 1959)."

The employer has the burden of proving misconduct. Which they didn't.

The law goes on to say, "On the other hand, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, poor performance as the result of inability or incapacity, isolated instances of ordinary negligence or inadvertence, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion ar not misconduct."

The verdict?

"It is therefore found that the claimant (me) was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with his work and he is not disqualified for benefits..."

So, I win.

Thank you God. Prayers answered. Wife relieved. We live to see Christmas!


Wednesday, September 17, 2008




Wednesday, September 03, 2008

One Man's Landing...

...is another man's non-landing.

I just got back from my EDD Appeal. My former employer, at roughly $600-$700 expense, flew my former Director of Operations, to Redding to explain the company's side of the story because, "there is no one at the Redding base who is familiar with the situation."

Pardon my French but....



The Base Manager was part of the whole firing shebang. Lying dirtbags.

So the DO and I are trying to explain to the Appeals Judge just exactly what a landing in an airplane is. I was even accused by my former boss for not knowing the FAA's definition of a landing.


What a crock!

So my former DO makes it sound like I was still "flying" when I raised the gear by saying I was not fully "landed" when the incident occurred. I, on the other hand, took what he said and refuted it. I had landed. All three wheels were on the ground. I had applied reverse thrust to slow down. I inadvertently raised the gear. I screwed up. Some have. Some will.

My former DO was chastised by the Judge for trying to bring up other issues unrelated to the firing. The Judge set him straight. The Judge also got the DO to admit he doesn't know if the pilot followed the checklist or not. (I did.)

All in all, don't want to go there again. It's a 50-50 shot now. It all depends on who the Judge believes when it comes to landing. But basically, my former employer painted a picture of me as a rule-breaking, non-conformist who willfully violated company rules and damaged a $2 million dollar aircraft on purpose.

I really wished the Judge had allowed the other issues to come up as it would have given me excellent opportunity to, once again, state that the Director of Operations, knowing and willfully, ordered me to order a pilot to violate Federal Aviation Regulations.

What really cracks me up is the company is spending money to defend themselves to save approximately $4000 in unemployment benefits. This is a company that spends 4-5 million dollars on helicopters. Then pays more to outfit them. This is a company that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in the aviation industry and makes only some of it back. This is a company that pays it's pilots damn good wages but is balking at $4 grand? Go figure.

I'm going to play some poker on the PS2 now to cool down...