Thursday, January 14, 2010

“Home Spirituality Philosophy Our Near Miss - Aish” plus 4 more

“Home Spirituality Philosophy Our Near Miss - Aish” plus 4 more

Home Spirituality Philosophy Our Near Miss - Aish

Posted: 14 Jan 2010 06:15 AM PST

I surveyed the wreckage of what had been her bedroom. If it had happened five minutes later, my three-year-old daughter Sara would have been in the bed. Five minutes.

We had recently moved into our home and decided that the room closest to the bathroom would be Sara's. We decorated it with pink curtains and a matching bedspread, making the room sweet and little-girlish. We didn't know that the hot-water boiler was built into the ceiling directly over her bed.

It must have been in the morning that the seal on the boiler had burst, allowing hot water to begin slowly dripping out onto the thick plasterboard ceiling below. Throughout the course of the day the ceiling quietly became saturated, softening little by little. By the evening it was like soggy cardboard.

Sara was already in pyjamas and brushing her teeth when I heard the crash.

Sara was already in pyjamas and brushing her teeth when I heard the crash. As I entered her room, the sight that greeted me was one of contained devastation. The soggy ceiling, unable to support its own weight any longer, had collapsed. The pretty pink bed -- the same bed that in just a few moments would have held my daughter cuddled up with her dolly -- was saturated with scalding water and covered in huge chunks of plaster. The carpet was ruined, soaking wet and smeared with pieces of pulverized plaster. In the ceiling was a gaping hole with small streams of water leaking out from all sides. Tongues of pink insulation hung down from the opening, grotesquely matching the now-soiled pink curtains.

After calling in to our insurance company's 24-hour emergency hotline, I hung up the phone and went to inspect the damage. As I thought about what had happened and, even worse, what could have happened, I experienced something entirely unexpected: a strong sense of tranquillity.

The Calm during the Storm

Suffice it to say, I am not known for my tranquillity. I am a type-A personality, naturally organized and efficient. I plan things carefully and expect them to run smoothly. What do you mean you lost my pizza order? I phoned 30 minutes ago and I have hungry kids in the car! How could my file be erased? I backed up my computer twice!

When things don't go according to plan, the feeling I experience is not what I'd describe as calm acceptance. Annoyance yes, irritation for sure, aggravation definitely. But serenity? Never.

During the following hectic days there were many opportunities for aggravation. I dealt with an incessant stream of assessors, building contractors, plumbers and carpet installers. Yet all of this was accomplished, surprisingly, with that same feeling of focused serenity.

Maybe it was simply a matter of perspective, a sudden re-alignment of my priorities. My awareness of the disaster that could have happened enabled me to clearly see certain truths. A bedroom, no matter how pretty the curtains are, is just a place to sleep. Possessions can be replaced and money can always be made. But how much would you pay to have a healthy child?

Was God responsible for my boiler but completely uninvolved in my pizza?

All this was certainly true, but the sense of calm that I was feeling came from something deeper. Somehow I knew, with complete certainty, that this was straight from God. He, in His infinite wisdom, had decreed that my ceiling would collapse. And He, in His great mercy, had ensured that my child would be safely brushing her teeth at the time. It was all part of The Plan, an experience that I needed to grow from.

One morning, as I was waiting for the carpet men to arrive, a thought occurred to me. What was so special about a near miss with a collapsed ceiling? How was it any different from my pizza order getting lost? Was God responsible for my boiler but completely uninvolved in my pizza?

Creation and the Light Bulb

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the world is like a wind-up toy. Sure God created it, but it's been going on its own ever since. Now He's busy with important matters and surely he has bigger things to worry about than my pizza.

Fundamental to the Jewish worldview is the understanding that creation is not at all like a wind-up toy. It's like a light bulb. As long as electricity continues to flow, the bulb remains lit. Should the electricity be cut or the circuit broken for even an instant, the light is extinguished. Creation is powered by a continual flow of Divine energy. When it comes to existence there is no such thing as momentum. My existence at this moment in time has no bearing on my continued existence one second from now.

Creation is not a one time event; it's a continual happening. With each breath I draw I am simply because the Infinite Source of existence is willing me to be. God is here, He is present, He is intimately involved and He is second by second keeping every aspect of the universe running, from the massive to the microscopic. Since He is infinite, nothing exists without His continuous sustenance.

My perspective on God's involvement in saving my daughter from harm enabled me to remain serene. But that was an event so obviously out of the ordinary that I could see in it the unmistakable Hand of Providence. It's apparent that the Almighty is running the show when it comes to the big things. But it's not only through the major events of our lives that God is speaking to us; He is whispering in our ear through each lost pizza order and every erased file.

Living as a Jew means focusing on God as a presence in our daily lives, recognizing that He is responsible for everything that happens from the seemingly insignificant to the obviously momentous. God runs the world. He loves me. He is taking care of me. He is always with me, gently pushing me to grow. Understanding these ideas and working to integrate them is the key to developing a trusting relationship with God and the beginning of meeting all of life's challenges, big and small, with serenity.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Transportation blog: Shift in Obama's philosophy on transit spending ... - Dallas Morning News

Posted: 14 Jan 2010 07:34 AM PST

Editor's note: This item is reprinted from dallasnews.com's Transportation blog.

The Obama Administration announced Wednesday the federal government will put less emphasis on cost-effectiveness -- roughly, the cost of the project versus how many cars it takes off the road -- when evaluating major funding applications for transit projects.

Instead, in a move that should benefit DART's application for federal funds to build its downtown Dallas rail line, will emphasize other factors, including environmental benefits, 'livability', and economic development. ( Click here for an overview of that.)

No longer will a project be rejected solely because it costs too much or attracts too few passengers, so long as it helps attract business or other investment. It could give a leg up to applications for street cars, trolleys and other proposals that have traditionally had a hard time surviving the cost-effectiveness evaluation.

The change was announced by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Wednesday, and immediately applauded by Congressional Democrats , pro-transit groups and others.

"Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it," said Secretary LaHood said. "We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live."

Critics of transit have ofter argued that the transportation benefits provided are too small given the high cost of building rail lines. For instance, DART has spent billions of tax dollars building its system, but its impact on daily commuting decisions for all of North Texas is relatively small. About 2 percent of commuters use the trains.

The actual rules for the new criteria for so-called New Starts grants will be published over the next several months, but when they are they could benefit DART's application for federal funding to help build the second rail line in downtown Dallas.

The city has pressed for a more expensive option, one that DART has said would be less likely to qualify for federal funding under the current system. Now that the rules are changing, that prediction could change.

The following are statements of a variety of pro-transit groups who like the change.

Statement by American Public Transportation Association President William Millar

"APTA applauds the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood for his announcement today at the Transportation Research Board's annual meeting that DOT is making important and much needed changes to the New Starts project selection process. This new policy will rescind budget restrictions issued by the previous administration that focused primarily on "cost effectiveness" (i.e. how much a project shortened commute times in comparison to cost) and now recognizes the wide-range of benefits that public transportation provides. We are very pleased that the DOT will now give consideration to the multiple benefits of new transit projects such as economic development, environmental impact, and land use improvements. This is a change that APTA has long championed for, and it will allow for a more efficient approval process, so projects can move forward more quickly.

"As a part of our recommendations to Congress and the Administration, APTA advocated that the Federal Transit Administration must consider transit supportive land use and economic development in a way that simplifies the New Starts rating process.

"This policy change is a tremendous step forward as we look to create more livable communities in the United States. We are very pleased the Administration recognizes local public transit systems, which provide over 10 billion trips per year, as an integral part of the solution in reducing our carbon emissions while encouraging local economic development. We look forward to working with the Administration on this new policy direction."

Obama Administration Proposes Major Public Transportation Policy Shift to Highlight Livability Changes Include Economic Development and Environmental Benefits

In a dramatic change from existing policy, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today proposed that new funding guidelines for major transit projects be based on livability issues such as economic development opportunities and environmental benefits, in addition to cost and time saved, which are currently the primary criteria.

In remarks at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting, the Secretary announced the Obama Administration's plans to change how projects are selected to receive federal financial assistance in the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) New Starts and Small Starts programs. As part of this initiative, the FTA will immediately rescind budget restrictions issued by the Bush Administration in March of 2005 that focused primarily on how much a project shortened commute times in comparison to its cost.

"Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it," said Secretary LaHood. "We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live."

The change will apply to how the Federal Transit Administration evaluates major transit projects going forward. In making funding decisions, the FTA will now evaluate the environmental, community and economic development benefits provided by transit projects, as well as the congestion relief benefits from such projects.

"This new approach will help us do a much better job of aligning our priorities and values with our transit investments" said FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff. "No longer will we ignore the many benefits that accrue to our environment and our communities when we build or expand rail and bus rapid transit systems."

FTA will soon initiate a separate rulemaking process, inviting public comment on ways to appropriately measure all the benefits that result from such investments.

Oberstar, DeFazio Applaud Transit Move
DOT drops Cost-Effectiveness Index rule for New Starts

WASHINGTON--The Department of Transportation announced today that it is dropping a Bush-era practice that emphasizes cost-effectiveness over all other criteria when evaluating a proposal for a new transit project. Under the law, projects under the New Starts program should be judged on a broad range of factors, including the economic development benefits of the project, the environmental benefits, land use factors, and the strength of local funding support, as well as cost-effectiveness. However, the Bush Administration chose to weigh cost-effectiveness as 50 percent of the project's overall score, making it, in effect, the sole criterion for approving a New Starts project.

"This is great news. It will free up energy and enthusiasm for transit all across the country. It will also speed the delivery of transit projects," said Rep. James L. Oberstar (Minn.), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. "Americans have been voting for transit with their feet, increasing transit ridership by the millions every year. Last year, Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, the highest level in 52 years. Transit agencies are strained to the limits increasing capacity for these new riders and responding to the demand."

"This is tremendous news. After the Bush Administration ignored the law for years, the Obama Administration is going to evaluate transit projects according to the law," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (Ore.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. "This means streetcar projects will finally be given a fair shake when it comes to securing federal funds. This will create well paying, American jobs building streetcars and will give people in urban areas more transportation options. I thank Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff for the work they did to make this happen. Today is a great day for streetcars."

Today's announcement does not mean that costs will no longer be evaluated in the New Starts approval process. It means that there will be more balance among the benefits of transit projects as compared to the costs.

"Now we need increased investment dollars to follow this reform, so that we can move forward with transit projects that relieve congestion, reduce emissions, increase our energy independence, and promote more livable communities across the country," Oberstar said. "We must all continue to work together toward a long-term authorization bill that makes transit options available to more people and increases transit's role in our surface transportation network."

The Federal Transit Administration's discretionary New Starts program is the federal government's primary financial resource for supporting major transit capital investments.

The New Starts program funds new and extensions to existing fixed guideway transit systems in every area of the country. These projects include commuter rail, light rail, subways, bus rapid transit, streetcars, and ferries.

New Starts projects must undergo evaluation by the FTA in order to be recommended in the President's Budget and to receive funding. Local sources must provide at least 20 percent of the project's funds, but it is common for projects to carry a 40 or 50 percent local share.

For more information on the New Starts program, go to the FTA Web site at http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_2607.htm.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Honda’s design philosophy stresses function - KTVZ.com

Posted: 14 Jan 2010 06:00 AM PST

Honda isn't typically singled out for its design expertise. Instead, it is the fun-to-drive and rock-solid aspects of Honda vehicles that usually get top billing. But quietly, Honda has been capturing more and more international kudos for its leading-edge design work, and we were pleased to have the opportunity to meet with Nobuki Ebisawa, the corporate managing director and general manager of styling and design development, to talk about it.

Ebisawa stressed two simple and overarching themes for Honda design: dynamism and functionality. He said the company's designers still draw inspiration from the functional designs of the first-generation Civic and first-generation Accord that were drawn in the same nondescript design studio in which Ebisawa and his crew work today. And at the same time, they look back all the way to the 1963 S500 sports car to channel the dynamism that helps set the brand apart. 

Ebisawa is proud of what he calls "an unbroken chain of dynamism and functionality" that stretches from those earliest models through the legendary Acura NSX sports coupe of the '90s to the Honda Odyssey minivan that transformed its segment. He expects that the upcoming hybrid Honda CR-Z, which was shown in concept form at the recent Tokyo Motor Show, will draw on both aspects of the Honda personality. Functionality will be characterized by the fuel-efficient hybrid drivetrain, and dynamism will be expressed by the car's style and fun-to-drive nature.

While the exterior design of Honda vehicles has not always been highly praised, the interior of its vehicles -- and especially their instruments and controls -- have routinely been lauded around the globe. Ebisawa cites his group's intense study of the "man-machine interface" for this, noting that Honda has long relied on the philosophy "Man maximum, machine minimum" in its designs. This means that Honda's controls are intended to be intuitive, not intrusive: to help the driver, not to challenge the driver or to make a design statement for design's sake.

An example of this effort is the bi-level instrument panel seen on the current Honda Civic. Intuitive operation and instant recognition were keys in the design, and Ebisawa said that in the "layered construction," perceived space is enhanced and line of sight movement minimized to prioritize information. Special effort goes into achieving natural hand position and create buttons that are easily understood. Ebisawa believes that voice support is the next frontier in making things simpler and more functional.

Since 2000, said Ebisawa, Honda design execs made the conscious decision to add emotional appeal to the company's vehicles without compromising functionality. In keeping with the "man maximum, machine minimum" philosophy, space has been intentionally reduced for mechanical components, and interior space with long rooflines has been increased to maximize usable roominess.

The Honda CR-Z, which will be launched next year, will encapsulate all these ideas in a vehicle that is functional and emotional, dynamic yet pragmatic. It draws on Honda's long heritage while at the same time presenting a new face and a new heart. The CR-Z will also be the harbinger of even more fascinating products from the carmaker that was once best known for its motorcycles.

Tom Ripley Driving Today Contributing Editor Tom Ripley writes frequently about the auto industry and the human condition from his home in Villeperce, France. He is a big fan of the art world. 

Copyright (c) 2009 Studio One Networks. All rights reserved.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Lindsay Beyerstein - In These Times

Posted: 14 Jan 2010 01:53 PM PST

I'm not trying to negate your point. Of course the class struggle is won or lost on the job. That said, railway workers in the U.S. face unique obstacles to workplace democracy--like not being allowed to strike. So, if they're going to democratize their workplaces, they need to carve out a legal space to do so. Or, at least their leadership thinks they do, hence the lawsuit. It makes tactical sense. It's harder to have a democratic workplace when the boss can drag you into an unaccountable kangaroo court.

Posted to Supreme Court Hands Major Victory to Rail Workers—and Labor Lawyer Geoghegan

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Can we bridge the great farm philosophy divide? - Farm and Dairy

Posted: 14 Jan 2010 06:22 AM PST

I read a sentence last week that all of us need to memorize: "Farming without a financial motive is gardening."

the sentence was part of a Los Angeles Times column written by Russ Parsons that should be required reading of everyone who farms, complains about farmers, makes policies about farming or eats.

Parsons rejoices that "food" — not just the eating of it, but the producing of it — has been elevated in our national awareness, but is saddened that differing philosophies are now camped on opposite sides of the fence.

On one side, you have the farmers and traditional aggies; on the other side, you have the ag reformers who say the majority of farms are ruining the world.

Is there a common ground?

Parsons, and I, say yes.

But the dialogue has to involve everyone, and Parsons suggests a list of 12 things we all can agree upon before we start.

I can't list them all, but will start with his first point, which triggered the "gardening" reference above: Agriculture is a business.

Farmers have expenses and farmers need to make a profit to stay in business. Since we need farmers, Parsons writes, "Any plan that places further demands on farmers without an offsetting profit incentive is doomed to fail."

No farm is an island. I've written those words myself, but many independent-minded producers don't want to hear them. Everything you do on your farm affects people off your farm, too. Farmers can't act in a vacuum, and have to understand they have a social contract to uphold regarding environmental care and animal welfare.

The world is not black and white. Again, longtime readers of this column know they've read that here before. "Small" does not always mean "sustainable" and "large" does not always mean "factory."

As Parsons puts it: "The issues facing agriculture today are much more complicated than lining up behind labels such as 'local' and 'organic.'"

What's past is past. Yes, the productivity gains in U.S. agriculture in the last 50 years have been nothing short of spectacular, but today's demands, Parsons writes, require a "system that delivers flavor as well as quantity and does it in an environmentally friendly way."

It's no longer business — and it's no longer farming — as usual.

Beware of the law of unintended consequences. There's usually an unforeseen result of any effort that's counterproductive to the main goal, and if we were wise enough to predict these consequences, we probably wouldn't be human.

You can say "the school lunch program should serve only organic products," but at what expense? We can plant new forests where there once were cornfields, but with what long-term side effects?

I'm an optimist. I'm convinced that agriculture will continue to thrive and be a profitable industry, as well as a revered way of life. But now is the time for agriculture to communicate its advantages, as well as re-evaluate its traditions.

Adds Parsons: "… the issues we're facing are not going to go away, and they are too important to be left to the ideologues."

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.
Posted by at

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)