Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Windiest City

Jolyn recently posted on her blog about how much she enjoyed Logan weather. I agreed with her but it got me to thinking... What is the average wind in Logan compared to other cities. Well, after doing some climate research I concluded that Logan does have less wind in the winter than Idaho and other areas, but it has much more than average wind in the summer. Take a look at these graphs and compare them to your own city by going to Citi-data and entering your city.

Logan, Utah (Where I will be living and working in the near future)

Aberdeen, Idaho (Where I work today)

Burley, Idaho (Where Nikkala grew up)

Rigby, Idaho (Where I grew up)

Rexburg, Idaho (BYU-Idaho -- the students would swear on the Bible that this is the windiest city in the US)

Chicago, Illinois (The Windy City -- for good reason)

Laramie, Wyoming (Just for comparison -- and to count your blessings)

Monday, December 10, 2007

May I suggest a "Free" Spell Checker

Today I went to lunch with Harold, Chad, and Shane. We traveled south to Am. Falls and ate at a Chinese place called Chinese City (I Think). Anyway, I asked for some chopsticks and this is the packaging the sticks came in:

If you click on the image it will become legible... well, legible doesn't mean readable. A quick read through shows no fewer than 7 spelling and/or grammar mistakes. I'm not even counting the lack of punctuation. Seriously people... how hard is it to run something through an online spell checker? I would hate to think it was on purpose to make me believe it was truly from China (I mean, it's pretty exotic to see Chinese goods in this country--"OMH, this is really from China"). So if that was the point to all the errors, it worked. I don't think anyone from this country could have made it look any worse than they did.

So here is my point:

  • 1: Always use a spell checker on commercial (or anything for that matter) product with instructions

  • 3: Stick to fortunes from nasty cookies that don't make sense... don't try and confuse us with chopstick instructions that leave us all scratching our heads... the foods getting cold.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

mmmmmm.....gamma lasers.......

An article at NewScientist talks about the possibility of creating a powerful gamma ray laser using exotic molecules made up of electrons and the antimatter particle positron.  These form an "atom" similar to hydrogen called positronium (Ps). Two of these can combine to form a molecule (Ps2).


These molecules could theoretically be merged together in a "super-atom" condensate and would thereby decay in short bursts releasing gamma rays. I think it is a bit of a stretch to see this as the next super-weapon anytime soon, but the idea of creating a gamma-ray laser makes my mind explode (pun intended - thanks for laughing). There would be so much energy in a gamma-ray laser! The article says there would be a MILLION times more energy in a gamma-ray laser than a conventional laser. A MILLION times!!! Holy obliterating power batman. 

Seriously, whoever is doing this research has some major fascination with dying (because one wrong push of the button would pretty much destroy the lab and surrounding area instantly).  Now, how can I get a job working with  a gamma-ray laser?!?

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

It's Harvest time

So it is once again harvest time ... this photo reminds me why I love it so much! 

Thursday, July 19, 2007

A glass a day keeps the doctor away?!?

So it has been a little while since I've had a real post. It isn't that I don't have things on my mind to write about, but nothing seems worthy of your precious time. But I was talking with my previous supervisor at work the other day and he brought something to my attention that I had to share with you. 

Now, be warned, this isn't going to be easy on those of you with weak stomachs. But I have to share and give a little (objective and well informed) advice as well. So here goes nothing.

My previous supervisor, who shall remain anonymous (we will just call him Bryan for this article), worked for a time at a laboratory where certain things were analyzed. He said there was a certain older gentleman who always came in and had private conversations with Bryan's boss. One day, this gentleman came up to Bryan and started talking to him about the benefits of drinking reagent grade peroxide and other chemicals that are very dangerous and should never be ingested for any reason (seriously, never drink hydrogen peroxide... it can kill you). Bryan acted surprised, but didn't say much about it. Then, the gentleman came close to him and in a whispering voice said, "Do you know what the secret to a healthy life is?" 

Now Bryan didn't know what to say after being blown away by the unsolicited advice that he had already received, but he asked "What?"

The Gentleman replied, "Every morning when I wake up, I go to the bathroom and collect about five to ten drops of urine and place it under my tongue. The body makes the perfect elixir to cure all disease and eliminate toxins from the body."

Well, that gentleman isn't alone in his thinking, there is an old practice called Shivambu Shastra (meaning water of Shiva). It is the practice of drinking your own urine to heal your body.

People who are into this sort of things say it can help with chemical imbalances and massaging with it will ease tension and make your skin "glow".

The article linked to above states:

"The vibratory patterns of the body, both in the bones (solid crystals) and in the tissues and fluids (liquid crystals), play an important role in the process of transmutation. The resonance field of a crystal can make a protein, for example, change its form into one that is more useful for the body or more easily adaptable by it. This can be described as "modern alchemy", and it resonates with the principles of homoeopathy."

If you can post a comment letting me know what that means, I'll be happy to hear from you.

Seriously, don't drink your urine. There is no real benefit from it. It may not kill you like drinking other chemicals, but it isn't going to cure you of a disease or keep you from getting one. It will only give you really bad breath.

So the saying that "A glass a day keeps the doctor away" may be true, but only because they don't want to be around you.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

I've been Tagged by Chartie

4 Jobs I've held:

1. Bus Boy @ Frontier Pies
2. Research Intern for Monsanto
3. Office Manager @ Dermatology of
Eastern Idaho
4. Morning Custodial @ Ricks College

Movies I Can Watch Over & Over:
1. The Elegant Universe
2. Condorman
3. Napoleon Dynamite
4. Dick Tracy

Places I Have Lived:
1. Rigby, ID
2. Logan, UT
3. Newton, IA
4. Eri
e, PA

T.V. Shows I Enjoy:
2. The Office
3. McLaughlin Group
4. Battlestar Galactica

Places I have Been on Vacation:
1. NYC
2. Victoria, BC
3. Florida
4. Honolulu
5. Nauvoo

Favorite Foods
1. Cadbury Mini Eggs - (or Christmas Balls)
2. Those big and fat pink fr
osted sugar cookies that taste so good
3. Oscar Meyer Cheese Hot Dogs
4. Potato Soup

Websites I visit (almost daily)
1. Slashdot
2. Ars Technica
3. The Inquirer
4. OS News

Places I'd Rather Be Right Now
1. West Coast
2. San Diego
3. Anywhere with Nikkala (almost)
4. Alaska -- Fishing

Now I get to pick 4 other blog buddies to do this!
1. WEP
2. Jolyn
3. Devon
4. Shane

Now its their turn! Answer these questions and then tag 4 people.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Icy Hot really DOES feel cold...

How many of us have used IcyHot (or some other topical analgesic with similar ingredients) and felt that rush of cold come over the area we applied it to. How is it that our brains tell us that it is cold when we can feel it and the temperature is not different. Conversely, when we eat chili peppers (capsaicin) it is sensed as hot.

The receptors in our bodies that detect these things have been understood for many stimuli, but only recently have the ones for hot and cold been discovered... and when you feel hot after eating a jalapeƱo, you may not be that crazy after all.

A paper was published not too long ago that tied the "hot" food receptor (TRPV1) with its close relative TRPV2... the ion channel/receptor that gives us the sensation of heat, or warmth.

And now, a recent paper published in Nature shows the same is true with the cold receptors and menthol, the main ingredient in wintergreen and other mints, and a product of methyl salicylate (found in Bengay and IcyHot...).

The receptor, TRPM8, is activated by both temperatures below 26˚ C and menthol. They tested mice and found that those with the TRPM8 receptor gene knocked out had much less sensitivity to cold (maybe my Mom needs this gene knocked out). However, it appears to not be the only receptor, as theses mice could still detect cold when it got below 15˚ C.

Friday, May 04, 2007

DST- Take 3

I saw this on another blog recently, and I had to share.

It reminds me of the Jefferson Star...

Post Number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Can you believe this is my 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0
post... that is incredible.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Consumer Report - Ant Bait

The other day I went into the kitchen to get a drink and saw what looked like dirt race across the floor. After analyzing the floor closely I realized what was happening, we have a little ant problem. Now the word "little" refers to the ants, not the problem. You see, they were all over the floor. They loved the food Bentley left for them on the floor. It was like manna from heaven (for the ants, of course).

Anyway, we had some ants last year and I purchased a couple different ant bait/trap gizmos. They seemed to work moderately well, but they never disappeared until I sprayed all the floor edges with Ortho Max insecticide and then we never saw another ant until just a couple days ago. So, I thought I would test a different trap/bait thingy and see how they compared.


This experiment was conducted in my kitchen using the 3 ant trap/bait solutions I had on hand. These were the Raid® Ant Baits PLUS™(active ingredient: N-ethyl Perfluorooctanesulfonamide 0.5%), Grants Kills Ants®(active ingredient: arsenic trioxide 0.46%), and Terro® Ant Killer II™(active ingredient: sodium tetraborae decahydrate (Borax)).
All three were placed side by side in the ant trails that were adjacent to a cabinet and refrigerator. Ant preference to the bait was measured by counting the number of ants that left a bait/trap with 'food' and headed back to the colony. The bait was left in place for over an hour so the number of ants and their preference would equilibrate.

--I'm glad this is not a peer-reviewed blog journal... this experiment would be thrown out so fast...--

Anyway, the number of ants was counted by myself over the course of a minute, and replicated twice. The number was averaged and rounded to the nearest integer for reporting purposes. Results were graphed using Excel, and if the following photos show up, you will see a graph of the data. No statistical analysis was run at all.


The bait that appeared to have the highest ant attraction was the Raid® Ant Baits PLUS™ that had a mean ant visitation of 22 ants/min. The next highest was the Terro® Ant Killer II™ with a mean ant visitation of 18 ants/min. These two highest baits had ants crawling all over them during the test and it was difficult to decide when an ant was done eating or if it was just going halfway back to the colony, and then realized it was still hungry and headed back.

The lowest ant yield in this trial was Grants Kills Ants®. It had an average ant visitation of 6 ants/minute. No ant was actually seen taking this bait back to the colony, unlike the other two. It may have been because this bait is more suited for the larger ants, and the ants we had were very small and loved the sticky sugar of the Terro and bait and also the easy access of the Raid ant bait.

I'm not sure what the implications of this highly non-scientific test are, but I know that as of this writing, the number of ants in my kitchen have decreased significantly. I hope this will help any of you who may find ants in your homes.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

DST Part II - The truth comes out.

After posting the last tirade about the lies of DST and how it will not save any energy, I've received a lot of comments (only 3 posted comments, however). Some were in complete agreement, and other were not. One person even told Nikkala that my posts were boring and that she fell asleep reading them. Well, I'm sorry that I put any of you to sleep. At least you don't read my posts while you are driving. That could be really dangerous.

But now to the point... and especially to those of you who think I got it wrong with DST. Read this and then post how sorry you were to ever doubt me!

This morning Ars Technica had a short article on the early results of the changed DST. Here is a quick quote from the article (although I hope you all read the whole thing):

As it turns out, the US Department of Energy was correct when they predicted that there would be little energy savings. This echoed concerns voiced after a similar experiment was attempted in Australia. Critics pointed out a basic fact: the gains in the morning will be offset by the losses at night. That appears to be exactly what happened. Reuters spoke with Jason Cuevas, spokesman for Southern Co. power, who said it plainly: "We haven't seen any measurable impact." New Jersey's Public Service Enterprise Group said the same thing: "no impact" on their business. So while the US government pats itself on the back for at least looking busy, know that the main goal—energy conservation—has not been met.

The Reuters article mentioned above is where the story broke. It mentions some of the same things that my last post mentions... including the fact that less than 10% of electricity is used for lighting. The story fails to mention the increased use of other energy sources because of the change. The Australian study mentioned in the earlier post (found here) mentions this about energy saving models and reality:

Moreover, the lessons from Australia may carry over to the U.S. and to California—Victoria’s latitude and climate are similar to those of central California. In 2007 DST will be observed in March—a month that is analogous to September in Australia, when our point estimates suggest that DST will increase rather than decrease electricity consumption. Further,when we re-estimate the simulation model that supported a DST extension in California, using Australian data, we find that it over-estimates energy savings. This casts suspicion on its previous policy applications in the U.S., and provides further evidence that current plans to extend DST may be misguided. It should be noted that our estimates of energy use likely represent a lower bound, as we account for electricity consumption only. Including gasoline demand in the analysis may increase the estimate of DST’s effect on energy consumption, as longer and warmer evening hours drive an increase in evening leisure travel.

This is the real problem, dependence on foreign oil. Saving electricity generated from hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and other sources is not going to "save the world". What we need now is that 300 mpg carburetor...or this little gem!

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Daylight Saving Time (DST) - The biggest lie passed by (the recent) congress

Every once in a while a law is passed that really upsets me. Usually these are laws that try and fix imaginary problems or laws that have the direct opposite effect than they were anticipated to have. Some examples in recent history would be anti-logging legislation that killed the one industry that kept forests from becoming engulfed in flames annually(of course some environmentalist seem to enjoy the smoke), the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that turned the recording industry mafia (RIAA) into its own police force, and then the recent Energy Bill that had a small section changing Daylight Saving Time (DST) to begin about a month earlier and end about a week or so later than previous years.

The purpose of that last bill was to save energy. Whatever arguments people have for it, the only one mentioned in the law was to save energy. That's it!

Without me getting too far off topic, read the history of DST from the California Energy Dept. In that piece there is a paragraph that states why DST saves energy. It states

"...the biggest reasons we change our clocks to Daylight Saving Time (DST) is that it saves energy. Energy use and the demand for electricity for lighting our homes is directly connected to when we go to bed and when we get up. Bedtime for most of us is late evening through the year. When we go to bed, we turn off the lights and TV.

In the average home, 25 percent of all the electricity we use is for lighting and small appliances, such as TVs, VCRs and stereos. A good percentage of energy consumed by lighting and appliances occurs in the evening when families are home. By moving the clock ahead one hour, we can cut the amount of electricity we consume each day."

Do you believe it?

How can you say that shifting time (not really a saving) will save energy when people watch TV, listen to stereos, watch movies, and run their appliances regardless of the position of the sun at the current time. And how is it that by shifting the time these appliances will no longer be used... or magically stop using as much power. They state that people will spend more time outside during the summer evenings because there is more sun time.... well, guess what, it's summer and people spend more time outside anyway, regardless of what the clock says.

Ben Franklin thought it was a good idea back when businesses used oil lamps to light their establishments when there was not enough sunlight to light everything. But now, lights are on ALL THE TIME in every place of business that I've been in. From McDonalds to High Schools, lights are on regardless of the sun. It's just normal to show up in the morning when it is dark, turn the lights on, and then turn them off when you go home.

Well, there was a study reported here that states that DST does not save energy at all.

The study compared electric demand in the state of Victoria, which extended DST, with its next-door neighbor, South Australia, which did not. "Our results show that the extension failed to conserve electricity. If it's dark enough in the morning that pretty much everyone has to turn on the lights. What that means is that that increase in morning electricity consumption is going to be so big that it offsets any benefits we get from the extra light in the evening. In fact shifting Australians' clocks led to a tiny increase in power use."

Well, I don't believe every study, even ones that I agree with. However, it is interesting that we are establishing a policy based on a DOE study that was done 30 years ago compared to recent studies that show it doesn't change anything.

What do I think would save more energy???? I'm glad you asked! How about educating people to not only turn off the television, stereo, DVD player, Satellite/Cable receiver, and computer... but also use a power strip and "unplug" them from the wall. On average, these appliances use 10% of their power rating just sitting there. That would save a lot. How about installing energy efficient light bulbs. I really feel like these things would save so much more energy than turning your clock forward, but they aren't fun to argue about in Congress. And it seems congress wants to do things to appear to save energy instead of telling people to take matters into their own hands and freak'n save energy themselves! No matter what conservation law passes through the halls of Capitol Hill, the only people that can save energy is you and I... but it makes us feel better when we can see daylight at 10:00pm instead of 5am.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Satellite Imagery - The propagated myths

Recently I was asked to speak at BYU-I about remote sensing in agriculture and some of the new technologies that are available for farmers and ranchers. It was a good opportunity for me to do some research and see what has happened in satellite imagery and other technologies over the past couple of years. I learned a lot, and hopefully there is something here that you may not have known either.

Most of us have seen satellite imagery and been amazed at the amount of detail that can be gathered from a photo taken hundreds of kilometers above the earth. In fact, if you are like me, you have probably thought to yourself... "wow, that is pretty neat. But I bet it is nothing compared to the stuff the CIA/NSA or Russia military can get." I would even bet that you have some idea in your mind how advanced 'their' stuff is compared to the average stuff that you and I can see on Google Earth.

Well, I think there is some technology in the modern surveillance satellite that might just blow your mind. But a lot of the people that I talk with have a false sense as to what a satellite is capable of doing. This misconception can probably be placed right at the feet of Hollywood writers and production teams.

Take a look at this movie file if you want to get an idea of what Hollywood would have us all believe the NSA is doing to us today.

A quick objective look at that movie clip shows some common misconceptions about satellite technology and what is possible with surveillance. The first misconception I want to get rid of is the obvious: Full motion/real-time video feed from an orbiting satellite. This is simply not possible now... and may never be realized to the level that we see in that movie. There are some serious limitation brought upon us by the laws of physics.
  1. Imaging satellites are (for a very good reason) in sun synchronous orbits. They are moving across the sky very quickly and they could only view an area briefly during a single orbit.
  2. The bandwidth required to take high-resolution full motion (~15-30 fps) images is prohibitive.
  3. The processing/data storage/and sheer mass of force required to pull that off is not really realistic now. It may be in the future, but it is not now. To get an idea of how modern (this includes most military) satellites work, watch this quick movie clip (sorry that it is a .wmv).

The second problem I saw on the movie was the clouds. Anyone who has worked with imagery knows that visible (and infrared) light does not travel through clouds, smoke, haze, fog, or any other type of obstruction.

The last problem with that great movie clip was the satellite they were controlling. My thoughts tell me that the special effects crew looked at this satellite and tried to copy it. But that satellite uses Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). And it is a really cool technology, but that is not the purpose of this post. You can read about it here, and here (small spoiler to make you want to read about it... you can take "pictures" of things in the dark with SAR and even see through smoke and clouds). But that satellite is anything BUT an imaging satellite that will give you pretty color photos.

Because of movies like that one, it isn't hard to imagine a public that has crazy ideas about the ability of satellites. Here are a couple other satellite myths I want to put an end to:
  1. Satellites can see faces and recognize people. They can even read the newspaper print off your newspaper. Truth is, there is a limit to the resolution of images taken from space. It is limited by the wavelength of the light, the height of the satellite, and the size of the objective (diameter) of the telescope. The shortest wavelength of light that penetrates the atmosphere is blue/ultraviolet. The lowest that a satellite usually operates is around 200 km. And the largest telescope is probably around 250cm. The formula for the best resolution of a telescope is the " Rayleigh resolution limit here
    (arc sec) = 140 / Aperture Diameter (mm). You put all that information into the equation and you get roughly 5cm resolution. It can only resolve things that are 5cm in size... there is no way a face could be resolved with that resolution. Don't even think it will ever come close to reading the typeface off your newspaper. No wonder Osama is still running around, they can't see him.
  2. Satellites can read your license plate on your car and track you. OK, this is sort of a continuation of the last one, but this one really gets me. In order for a satellite to "read" a license plate, it would have to be looking perpendicular to it (just like we look at them). This would require the satellite to look either way in front of it, way behind it, or way to the side of it, and through all sorts of atmosphere to get a good look at a license plate. Not realistic at all.

Now a look at what a satellite can really do. It can really take nice photos with a large field of view. It can look at areas that aerial operations can not get into. These 2 capabilities make them invaluable for wartime operations because those commanding operations must know what the whole field looks like, not just little pieces available through aerial imagery. It also makes them ideal for dangerous reconnaissance where an airplane will be shot down (like Russia did to the U-2 during the cold war). Look at some specifications of these satellites below.

Here is a list of some non-spy satellites and their known resolution:

  1. Landsat (Thematic Mapper) 60 m
  2. Landsat (Multispectral Scanner) 120 m
  3. SPOT 1-2 m
  4. NOAA IR System 900 m
  5. NASA/AVHRR1 1-14 km
  6. NASA ER2/AVIRIS Airborne System 11 m

Here are the known resolutions on some spy satellites:

  1. Air force and CIA Discoverer 13 Series Spy Satellites 12 Inch (30 cm)
  2. KH-11 -1984-88 (CCD imager) 4 inch (10 cm)
  3. KH-7 -1966 (film based) 2 inch (5 cm)
Here is a list of satellites and their orbit heights (approximately) and the time it takes to orbit:

  1. Space Station : 217-226 miles (350-364 km) -- 91mins

  2. Imaging Satellites : 350-600 miles (600-1000 km) – 96-110mins

  3. GPS : 12,550 miles (20,200 km) – 11hrs 58mins

  4. Geosynchronous (GEO) (weather/communication/radio surveillance): 22,240 miles (35,786 km) -- 23hrs 56mins

A list of US spy satellites and their capabilities can be found here. So next time you see a movie that shows amazing satellite footage, just remember that you are just watching a movie. You may be able to sleep better at nights.

This is a photo of Landsat...

Sunday, February 11, 2007

"New" Cameras

So my grandfather died on October 9th, and ever since then the family has been trying to get the estate settled and sell the house. My grandparents had lived in that house for over 50 years, and they accumulated a lot of "stuff" ovet those 50 years. A couple weeks ago Nikkala and I helped clean out the house... well, a few of us were trying to clean, and the rest were just picking up stuff they wanted and leaving. It was really interesting to see who got busy and worked and who sat upstairs and had story time with the little trinkets and doilies. Anyway, that isn't the purpose of this post.

So I was cleaning and found this box of old camera stuff. I asked who was getting the cameras (so I could get it out of the house) and they said no one had asked for it yet, so I walked it out to my car and went back to work. When I got home, I pulled the cameras out and found 8 cameras and 1 movie camera. Well, there were two poloroid cameras and I didn't think they would be of much use since I don't have any film for them. But I'm excited about a few of them.

The first camera that I'm excited about is the F. Deckel Munchen - Compur bellow (accordian) style camera.

This camera is fun to play with and even comes with film. I don't know if you can read it in the photo, but it says something about develping before July 1961. Yeah, I hope it is still good. Anyway, I looked on ebay to see if it was worth anything, and it's not really worth a lot other than a good old camera to use for the fun of it. It has 6 film holders, and I think they are all good, so if anyone wants to use it for some photo class and can find 2-1/4 X 3-1/4 film, come and borrow it.

The other camera I'm excited about is the Viscount rangefinder camera. It is the only one that takes 35mm film, and it is in good shape. It is completely manual and has a good lens. It is fun because you can hear the shutter wind down when you press the release.

The Viscount is the one on the right. The other two are a Kodak Brownie and an Ansco Cadet -- both take 127 film and would be fun to use if I was into photo art and had access to 127 film.

The last 2 cameras are Kodak Instamatics, and they came with boxes of flash cubes...that's right, FLASH CUBES!!! (I'm excited for these) And the one on the right still has film in it (partially used).. so I've been trying to finish using it up and take it over to Rite-Aid and see if they will develope it. I may need to take it to a real photo place... but we'll see. Hopefully some of the photos that were taken before will be good (probably not.. but who knows... my parents develpoed some film a couple years ago that was like 20 years old, and only the colors were messed up).

There was also an old movie camera. I don't know anything about it, but I think there is still film in it, so I want to run it out and get it developed as well. But where do you take old 8mm film in to get developed? Any suggestions?

It's a Keystone.. and it is the K8 model. I can't find any other info on it, but I think it looks cool.

Well, it wasn't much, but I'm excited. I guess it is worth the trouble of cleaning out the house. And It is something that I can remember my Grandpa by, because he really did like taking photos and developing the film himself... luckily, the old photo chemicals were already taken away so I didn't have to find a home for them.

Praise Jesus!

Monday, January 29, 2007

Suprise at Maverick

So I was in Maverick filling up my large 44oz cup with some root beer (no more Diet Coke unless it is caffeine free) and Shane Clayson, a great person I share an office with, looked down at the paper stand and saw this on the front page:

It was a double take because neither he nor I knew we were going to be in any paper. Is there something that says you have to give a paper permission to post your face all over Aberdeen? Anyway, with a circulation of 450, I'm starting to worry that this could get out of hand.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Take this - chrishartwell.com

Nikkala made the best cinnamon rolls tonight... but she did it with the understanding that we would take them to the neighbors after FHE. Well, I didn't really want to take them to the neighbors, but I decided that if that meant I could have a cinnamon roll, it would be ok.

Well, after FHE we started out by taking some to the Davis family. They let us in and we talked for a few minutes, then they informed us that we had to leave because they were going to miss "24" and since they had no TiVo, we had to go. So off to the Turners we went.

We arrived at the Turners and fortunately they weren't tied to any particular television series, so they let us in. Aaron had to get stitches on his finger Sunday because VaNae sent him home during church to put the roast in the oven and he sliced his finger open (let that be a lesson to you all). So we told them that we brought cinnamon rolls over because of the finger (although it was beacuse I had to think of someone to take rolls to). Anyway, while we visited, Aaron took me back to the office and started to show me job openings at the INL. They all pay better than the Univ. of Idaho... tempting...

Anyway, to make a point to this post, while we were talking, we heard a scream coming from the other two parents who were watching Bentley and Violet (his girlfriend). Both Bentley and Violet had crawled over to the cat food bowl and were filling their faces with cat food as fast as they could.

Ok, so I thought cat food was made up of unmentionable animal pieces and undesirable meat that they wouldn't put in dog food. But it turns out that most cat foods are grain based and have animal ingredients added for nutrition. But for the most part it is either corn, rice, or soy. So I guess I'm not such a bad parent after all... I just didn't know at the time that he was just getting some needed nutrition (like taurine). So next time your kid eats cat or dog food, just let them. It is probably better for them than the stuff they eat off your floor!