Archive

Archive for the ‘Random’ Category

Cricket for Dummies

July 14th, 2019 No comments

Today much of the world witnessed one of the greatest cricket matches of all time with England winning the ICC World Cup for the first time. The game featured two well balanced teams and multiple times the fate of the game came down to a single delivery. In the end, everything hinged on the last ball thrown and culminated with the cricket equivalent of Game 7 of the World Series with the winning run being thrown out at the plate with bases loaded, a full count and two outs. It was simply amazing. My greatest regret is that so many of my American friends could not take in such an incredible sporting event.

So… I am publishing a write up I did many years ago that explains the game of cricket in simple terms. First, let me admit that I am certainly not an expert on cricket, but after seven years in Africa following the Proteas of South Africa, I am now a huge fan. It took me a couple days of watching a tournament with a friend and asking a bunch of annoying questions to be able to “get it” and much longer to appreciate the nuance, but it was well worth it. There is nothing else like it because so often the tension constantly builds and the entire affair swings and pivots on essential plays in the closing period.

So for those who are interesting, here is my crash course guide to understanding cricket in 10 easy steps:

  1. When watching, remember it is more about what the batter is doing than what the bowler (thrower) is doing. I used to think the main point was to knock down the wicket (sticks) behind the batter, but instead the main point is to pick up runs.
  2. There are two sets of wickets separated by 20 meters and at any given time, two batters that stand opposite each other. The one having the ball delivered to him is considered “on strike.” Once the ball is hit, the batters can pick up runs by both simultaneously running back and forth between the wickets (switching sides)
  3. The cricket field is usually a giant oval. If the ball is hit to the boundary is is automatic 4 runs. If it goes over the boundary in the air it is 6 runs.
  4. Game play in cricket is similar to what baseball would be like if one team batted all 9 of their innings in a row and then the opposing team batted theirs. So what happens is one team sets a score and then the other team has to chase it.
  5. The game is divided into innings and overs. An innings (ends with an “s” in the singular as well) is one team’s session at bat. An over is a set of six bowls (throws) thrown by one bowler. After each over, the bowler switches out and there is a limit to how many overs each bowler can throw so you see a lot of diversity in throwing style. The number of overs depends on the format of cricket being played. More on that later.
  6. A batter remains in the game until they are out. In cricket an out is called a wicket and can occur in a number of ways:
    • A batter’s hit is caught in the air by a fielder.
    • When running across to the other wicket, the fielders are able to knock down the wickets before the runner gets there (similar to being thrown out in baseball).
    • The bowler is able to throw around the batter and hit the wicket.
    • The batter is hit by the ball (without making contact with the bat) and it is determined that ball would have hit the wickets (called “leg before wicket.”).
    • There are a couple others, but they are rare.
  7. There are eleven men on a team. When one man gets out, the next man comes in and you bat in order until you are out of players (10 wickets) or out of overs. So you put your best batters first, and it is conceivable that one batter could play the entire innings.
  8. There are three main forms of cricket, largely distinguished by the number of overs per innings. The classic form is called Test cricket and it lasts several days because each team bats until they are all out and they also play two full innings apiece with an aggregate score (I still struggle to follow this form of the game). The most exciting form to watch is called T20 because it is limited to just 20 overs per side (120 bowls) and lasts about 3 hours. This is not only more fast paced, but it encourages more aggressive play with lots of boundaries hit. There is also a form called ODI (one day international) that is limited to 50 overs.
  9. The game is all about momentum : which batter is hot, which bowler is getting beat up on, how quick is the defense picking up wickets. Things can change very quickly. If you want to get a feel for it the game at its best, just tune in for the last quarter of a T20 match. At that point the first team would have already set the score and the best part is the tension of whether or not the chasing team is going to be able to catch them. I have seen some pretty incredible matches where it all came down to a team’s worst batter needing to pick up a boundary on the last bowl to get the win.
  10. Cricket is like baseball in the fact that they love numbers. It is nuts sometimes how many different figures they will put on the screen. The important ones are the score, the number of wickets and where you are in the match. So if you see 145 | 15.2 (5) that means there have been 145 runs scored in 15 full overs plus two balls and five wickets have been picked up. There is also always a lot of talk of run rate (runs per over) as a mid-game indicator of how the team is doing.

There are plenty of other rules and procedures, but that is enough to get you started. If you do try and take in a cricket match, be sure to start with a T20. They are the most exciting and only take 2.5-3 hours.

People often consider cricket confusing, but that is just because it is foreign to most Americans.  Hopefully with just a bit of knowledge, others can enjoy this game that captivates so much of the world.

Categories: Random Tags:

Emergency Declaration Crosses the Proverbial Line

February 14th, 2019 No comments

The partisan divide in this country has created an atmosphere where party affiliation dictates a person’s response to a situation more than their personal values or independent thought.  Our President and the political establishment, has stoked those flames so that nearly everything is seen as an “Us versus Them” debate.  The result has been automatic disdain for Trump and his actions from the Dems and unquestioning support from the GOP regardless of the issue at hand.  At a time where politics require an even more nuanced approach and understanding than ever, we have instead resorted to relying on intellectually weak political punchlines while clinging to stereotypical responses that lack grace and compassion.

Eventually things have to change or else we won’t recognize the nation we will have become.  With this president, the Left cannot live in a constant state of outrage and the Right cannot live in a constant state of denial.

Soon after Trump was elected my father wisely recognized the emotional toll and eventual callousness constant outrage will cause and made a decision:  He resolved early on to set his “lines in the sand” so that his righteous indignation didn’t get muffled by the daily disappointments and that political disagreements weren’t confused with constitutional atrocities.  In essence he was saving his protests for when they most earnestly needed to be heard.

From the opposite perspective, I have several Republican friends who generally appreciate Trump’s policies and appointments because they are conservatives, but cringe at some of what the president does and says.  For them, they are also struggling with how long they can support Trump because doing so furthers their own political views while also acknowledging that at some point enough has to be enough.

Brothers and sisters, we have reached a crossroads of our democracy.

In all of the cases of political disagreement over the last couple years, reasonable and rational people understand that despite our propensity to tribalism, there are some lines, which if crossed, demand a different kind of response.  For Dems that means moving beyond complaining and eye rolling into more active protest; for the GOP that means withdrawing support from the president even when he seems to be advancing your ideals.

We have reached the point in Donald Trump’s presidency where the fundamental principles of our democracy are being violated and we all much alter the way we respond.  In the old adage about the frog in hot water, we are at the stage where we must realize something is wrong or else we will reach the point of no return.

If the president declares a national emergency (as the media is currently speculating he will do) in order to advance a partisan objective outside the constitutional process, we will be witnessing the most significant threat to our democracy in our lifetimes.  We cannot treat this as “business as usual.”

Trump has done unprecedented things since even before he was sworn in as president – what makes this different?  The short answer is that this overstep by the executive branch will effectively render the constitutionally mandated legislative branch meaningless in stark contrast to the framers intention.

There are a few things we must acknowledge in order to be able to have a meaningful discussion about the potentially devastating situation we are about to wade into:

  • Constitutionally, Congress is mandated with passing laws as well as overseeing taxation and expenditures.
  • In particular, it is the House of Representatives that has the “power of the purse” and has been charged with setting the path forward when it comes to expenditures and taxation.
  • While the President submits his budget requests, constitutionally, it is Congress that has been tasked with determining laws and finances. Any other mechanism is outside the bounds of our founding documents.
  • The GOP had control of both houses of congress for 2 years but was unable (or unwilling) to pass legislation funding the border wall. In other words, if one wanted to claim “electoral mandate” there was a period that was valid – but the time has passed.
  • The House of Representatives best reflects the immediate will and desires of the people due to its proportional representation as well as their two year terms.
  • Emergency declarations were design for rapid response to unexpected situations that reflect an immediate risk to America and her citizens. The Executive branch is granted huge powers in order to quickly action response.  They are an example of “greater good” where we recognize the need to break from protocol in order to respond to dynamic situations.  They are not a loophole for obtaining political achievements.

Whatever your own views may be, Congress is ultimately responsible for making decisions about things like this border wall.  To ignore their will is to ignore the foundations of democracy our government has been built on.

If Trump declares a national emergency – especially around a situation that has not fundamentally changed during his presidency – he will be usurping power in a way that completely disregards the checks and balances so importantly introduced into our Constitution.

With Trump in the Oval Office and the GOP with a solid hold on the Senate, I can understand why my conservative friends may look kindly on the president going down this path to advance his political agenda.  But, if we as a nation allow this to happen, what happens next?  Where do we draw the line?  Won’t it be possible for the following to occur?

  • National Health Emergency requiring a single payer system and free universal health care.
  • National Gun Death Emergency requiring registration of all weapons and banning all semi-automatic firearms.
  • National Wrongfully Accused Emergency immediately banning the death penalty.
  • National Financial Emergency banishing the income tax.
  • National Educational Preparedness Emergency immediately allocating defense funds to allow for free college education.
  • National Fetal Death Emergency unilaterally banning any and all abortions.

Reading through the list above, there are some that may sound like really good ideas and other that absolutely make your skin crawl.  And that is the issue.  Whether we like it or not, our constitution has built a government that is incredibly slow moving and making major changes in a rapid fashion is nearly impossible.  We make an exception for real emergencies, but the founding fathers were intentional to not set up a monarchy where one person can unilaterally and rapidly change the way the country operates.

So let’s bring it to a close.  Why would an emergency declaration by Donald Trump be such a big deal?  Regardless of whether you agree with the outcome or not, it would effectively negate the entire constitutional process and open up the possibility for any president in the future to unilaterally advance political agendas.

Whether you are a constitutionalist who trusts the founders’ vision, or a libertarian who cringes at legislation being forced on people, or a conservative who is worried about what might happen when a Democrat utilizes this same process, or a liberal who finds the finds the wall itself appalling, this is the time we must speak out.

This approach to governing cannot be allowed to move forward.  We cannot allow for the check and balances of our democracy to be ignored.  Regardless of your political affiliation, this is the line that requires us to adjust how we respond to the president.

If you have made it this far, I appreciate you hanging in there – to me, this is the most important conversation we have had to have politically in the last 2+ years.  You will notice in my writing above that I have not made any mention about the cost or efficacy of the wall.  I have not commented on the impact of diverting either military funds or money dedicated to responding to wildfires or hurricanes.  I have not commented on the impact of undocumented immigrants entering our country.  That is because these are discussions that congress has been constitutionally mandated to undertake – we must trust the process and the representatives the American populous has selected to address these issues

I am still discerning how to respond if (when?) the president declares a national emergency to fund his wall.  I sincerely hope – for the good of our democracy and the future of our country – that you too are assessing how you will respond regardless of your political affiliation.

Some conservatives have never opposed this president. Perhaps it is time.

Some liberals have never done more than complain about this president.  Perhaps it is time.

Many Americans have never felt democracy was under attack.  Perhaps it is time.

Some elected officials have never taken a stand against their party.  Perhaps it is time.

A lot of people avoid talking politics.  Perhaps it is time.

If the ends justify the means, should it be questioned?  Perhaps it is time.

We often avoid difficult and unpopular stands.  Perhaps it is time.

I have never marched on Washington.  Perhaps it is time.

Categories: Random Tags:

Kickert Pancake Recipe

February 3rd, 2017 No comments

When we first moved to Swaziland, we spent many weeks investigating the best pancake recipe.  After many attempts, this is the recipe we finally decided on as the best.  It has been tried and true for years and is finally ready to be named as our official family pancake recipe:

Kickert Family Pancake Recipe

Ingredients

  • 2  2/3 Cups Sifted Flour
  • 2 TBS Baking Powder
  • 1 Cup Sugar
  • 1 tsp Salt
  • 4 Eggs, beaten
  • 2 Cups Milk
  • 1/4 Cup Cooking Oil
  • 1 tsp Vanilla (optional)

Instructions

  • Wisk dry ingredients together in a large bowl
  • Separately mix beaten eggs, milk and oil
  • Adding vanilla will give pancakes a more “cakey” flavor note, but this can be omitted
  • Add dry and wet ingredients, stir just until moistened
  • Don’t over mix, will be lumpy
  • If mixture is too runny add flour; if too thick add milk
  • Bake on the stove top with a small amount of butter in the pan.
  • Recipe makes about 16 pancakes

I wish I could give credit to the original inspiration for this recipe, but multiple web searches have failed to yeild a source and it has been slightly modified based on experiance and preference

Categories: Random Tags:

Why I am voting for Hillary

August 3rd, 2016 No comments

It has been over 2 years since I last posted on my blog.  However, given the ridiculous state of the upcoming political discourse around the 2016 election, I figure it is a good time as any to break the silence.

A very good friend of mine posted on Facebook “How can anyone vote for Hillary?”  I took that inquiry seriously and decided to take the time to fully flesh out why I am voting the way I am.  It seems (from my limited perspective) that this election has devolved into visceral reactions and soundbites.  Instead of resorting to generalizations, I wanted to actually address the validity of each candidate.  Below is my (much too long) response to the original post:

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I have actually been looking for a reason to flesh out my thoughts on this election cycle (which by the way, is fascinating to watch from an “outsider” perspective here in Africa).

In my opinion, elections are primarily about voting for someone who shares your ideals and whom you think is mostly likely to advance the causes you believe in.  Unfortunately, very little of this election cycle has focused on policies and instead has been emotional and personal.  There is a place for that, but I think it should be secondary.

With that in mind, the main reason I am supporting Hillary is because she most closely represents my political values.  I would list the following as issues I care about (in no particular order):

1.) I support gay marriage and including sexual identity among protected statuses

2.) I support the end of the “war on drugs”, the legalization of marijuana and the decriminalization of some other drugs

3.) I am never in favor of abortion, but I do think it should be a legal option for women in the first trimester (I also believe we should invest in things that decrease unwanted pregnancy like free access to sexual and reproductive services and efforts to reduce the impact of poverty on young women)

4.) I would advocate for a decrease in military spending, especially interventions in foreign matters

5.) I think our national budget should always be balanced and that national debt should be paid down

6.) I would maintain our current levels of international development support

7.) I support a path to citizenship for undocumented migrants and for loosening the immigration requirements (while still maintaining strict background and risk checks)

8.) I am for a gradual increase in the minimum wage over at least a decade to return it to the purchasing power it had when first passed

9.) We should have basic universal health care for all people while also allowing people to pay for private insurance in order to obtain higher level services

10.) I am a strong supporter of first amendment rights, particularly allowing for religious freedom and protection

11.) I would like to see the supreme court depoliticized (but have no idea how that would happen)

12.) I am in favor of term limits for congress

13.) I generally prefer federalism over state’s control

14.) I think there is a way to increase gun control without going against the second amendment

15.) Just like universal health care, I also think basic access to higher education should be universal, but that doesn’t mean everyone should have free access to everything

16.) I am opposed to the death penalty

17.) I am in favor of allowing for physician assisted suicide in some cases

18.) I am generally in favor of more government oversight, but not to the level of Europe or Australia

19.) I support stronger environmental protections (as well as things like protection of national parks and forests)

20.) If given the choice or more taxes or more services, I would generally choose more taxes

21.) I am for progressive tax brackets (and think there should be higher tax brackets)

22.) We should make the drawing of congressional districts a bi-partisan affair

23.) I think the electoral college is a dated model that should be re-evaluated (at a minimum, we should go to either proportional electors or votes based on congressional districts) in order to reduce the power of only a handful of swing states

24.) I am not a favor of affirmative action in its strictest sense, but I do think there should be safeguard to ensure equal consideration

25.) There should be more restrictions on corporate rights – the wishes of a corporation should not trump the wishes of individuals (i.e. imminent domain) and corporations should be taxed on earnings

26.) I think our international interventionism has increased the risk of terrorism instead of decreased it

27.) I think the federal reserve is too powerful in its influence, but don’t recommend disbanding it

28.) White collar crime should be dealt with more harshly

29.) I am in favor of a two state solution in the middle east and think we have not been critical enough in our support of Israel

30.) Social security should be saved, reformed, and returned to its original intent and design

So there are 30 political stances I have.  Looking at them, none of them seem to me to be too extreme.  I would imagine at least a third of American agree with me on all of them.  And more importantly, I think that reasonable people on the other side can disagree with me and we can have a civilized conversation about why we disagree. (That is to say, I don’t automatically demonize people who don’t share my views on these issues.)  In fact, I would expect a mainline republican to disagree with me on many/most and thus would expect and respect them to support a different candidate than me.

Looking at this election and my views above, it is obvious that Hillary is significantly more aligned with what I believe than Donald Trump is.  So, to answer you original question “How can anyone vote for Hillary?” the simple answer for me is that she shares more of my views than Trump does.

Now policy isn’t everything because at the end of the day you have to vote for an individual.  Personally, I would rather vote for a moderate (even a republican) whom I believe would be able to compromise and work across the political spectrum than an extremist on “my side” who causes more division.  (For what it’s worth, I would most likely have voted for Kasich over Hillary if he had won the nomination for that exact reason.) Unfortunately, as we have seen, this election has not primarily been about policy or compromise, but has been more about the candidates themselves.  There is a place for that discussion, but I never think it should be the primary content of election discussions.

That being said, given the political climate (and the particular nominees) of this election cycle, I do think there is a place to talk about issues we have with the individuals.  Let me start by addressing what I don’t like about Hillary.  Most significantly, I don’t like that she represents political dynasty – we don’t need 6 (or 7 if Hillary is two-term) of the last 8 (or 9) elections to go to only two families.  I don’t like that she voted for the Iraq war.  What she did with the email servers was just dumb (although I don’t think it was malicious).  She represents career politicians, which while not being automatically bad, I do think raises questions.  I don’t find her to be a particularly likable person and her communication style often seems disingenuous.  In my opinion, she acted like she was entitled to the nomination (and you could argue the presidency) and that doesn’t sit well with me.  I am not a fan of the connections she has with Wall Street and her reliance on such a large “war chest” of political donations.

For what it’s worth, I wasn’t a fan of Bernie either.  While his views were probably more aligned with mine, I was never convinced he had a plan for advancing his policies.  I think it would have been too big of a shift politically and it would have caused more division.  I also don’t think another old white man was the best representative of a political revolution.

Now, what do I like about Hillary as a person?  I like her international experience as Secretary of State.  People like to point to Benghazi, but her overall service record was excellent and she did more to represent the US overseas than any other SofS I know.  She visited 112 countries in her time of service and I think that international perspective will help her.  She also has experience in the Senate.  That combination of domestic and foreign experience will help her govern.  I think her faith is authentic.  She hasn’t been too vocal about it, but my impression is that it has been consistent and depoliticized.  It is shallow, but I like that she is a woman – I think we are ready for a female president (although I would never vote for a person just for that reason and I can think of several women I would rather see as our first female president).  I think she has a more positive view of the situation in America and that resonates with me more than other candidates.  The Clinton Foundation has been a force for good in the world.  I can personally attest to the strong impact their work has done in Swaziland and in Southern Africa.

Even with similarities in policy views, Hillary is far from a perfect candidate for me.  I would have preferred a different representative, but the critiques I have of her are not enough for me to dismiss her as a prime contender for my vote.

Now on to Trump…

Most importantly for me is that fact that I disagree with many of policies that Trump has put forth (although admittedly there hasn’t been a lot of formal policy outlines), but I also have to realize that there are people who politically align more with Trump, yet still have to deal with him as an individual candidate so it is important to also look at his personal character.

I think what has bothered me the most watching the rise of the Trump candidacy has been how inconsistently Republicans have judged him in comparison to the standards they have held previous Democrats.  The same people who crucified Bill Clinton over infidelity are supporting a man who has been married three times, has admitted to multiple cases of infidelity in marriage, has a wife who posed nude in his private jet, and who owns strip clubs.  The same people who criticized Kerry for flip flopping on policy are supporting a man who has been a democrat, an independent and a republican.  He has changed his view on essential party issues such as abortion.  There are also significant discrepancies in the standards Trump is held to versus what Hillary is held to.  People are okay calling Hillary a liar, but the fact checkers show that Trump has consistently been looser with the truth than Hillary. People are okay calling Hillary corrupt, but multiple examples of shady business deals have emerged with Trump that have gone unacknowledged.  People criticize Hillary for not supporting the military, but Trump has openly attacked war heroes and POWs.  I don’t want to contribute to the blanket statements against either candidate, but I do want to point out that that criticisms raised against Hillary can often be equally or more so leveled against Trump.  Many many candidates in previous cycles have been dismissed for much much less.

With Trump…

I can appreciate that he is not a career politician, but I think his absolute lack of political experience will hurt him in the long run.

I can appreciate his concern for national security, but I think his rhetoric puts the US at greater risk of attack and retribution.

I can appreciate that he speaks his mind, but I think that the commander in chief should be more nuanced

I can appreciate that he talks about issues that matter to middle America, but it rings hollow for me to hear it coming from a man who revels in the fact that he is so wealthy and privileged.

I can appreciate his business background, but it has been shown that simply investing in a market fund would have yielded greater returns.

I can appreciate his willingness to identify issues that seem to be concentrated in certain ethic / religious groups, but I think his approach is leading to a justification of stereotypes and bigotry.

I can appreciate that Trump best represents the historic republican values, but the fact that he won the nomination in the first place is concerning.

I can appreciate that Trump stands up to his critics, but his tendency to resort to broad personal attacks seems immature and reactionary.

In terms of singular issues that may disqualify a candidate, there are a few things worth talking about.  I think that Benghazi was extremely unfortunate, but I have yet to see any evidence that Hillary was personally responsible (she was cleared by a bi-partisan panel), nor that she made decisions inconsistent with any other previous Secretary of State.  I think her use of a personal email server was incredibly stupid and probably an example of her sense of entitlement, but I have yet to see any evidence that her actions were intentionally malicious, nefarious or ultimately dangerous.  Lying about the sniper fire in Bosnia was dumb, but isn’t reason to disqualify a person for office – many more have said much worse with much less criticism.

With Trump, my biggest concern is his personality and approach to governance.  He has said some very dumb stuff, but I generally chalk that up to a total lack of filter and a complete unwillingness to admit being wrong.  I have been amazed at his willingness to make such aggressive statements about groups like women, immigrants and muslims.  But at the end of the day, I don’t think he represents the best of America and that he has an approach to power that concerns me.

Looking at the major political parties, Trump is much more of the surprise.  In the democratic camp, we didn’t have great options – there was Hillary (who is not a popular choice), and Bernie who was so far left that he would have alienated the general electorate.  On the Republican side, there were significantly more options that ran the political gamut.  You had Jeb if you wanted to keep it in the family, you had Kasich as a moderate, you had Rubio if you wanted strict conservative, you had Cruz if you wanted a neo-con, you had Rand if you wanted a tea-partier, you had Carson if you wanted a representative Christian.  When people complain about Trump being the only conservative option, it doesn’t really make sense to me because the representatives of the party intentionally selected Trump over all the others.  The final candidates suck, but at least the Republicans had more options to begin with.

Given the situation we are currently in, I can see two main reasons why people would vote for Trump: he still is the most conservative candidate that has a chance to win; and, a vote for Hillary will most likely result in a more liberal supreme court – I recognize that is very significant.

As for me… why am I am voting for Hillary… mostly it is because she most represents my political ideals, but I also I think the flaws of Trump are more significant than her flaws.

Categories: Random Tags:

Catching up

January 6th, 2013 No comments

When I started blogging again several years ago, I rarely went a month without putting a post up.  Unfortunately, it looks like I got out of the habit and have gone almost 6 months with a post.  Whoops! 

Looking back at the last six months, it has been anything but uneventful.  In fact, there has been so much going on that it probably contributed to the blog-silence.  So, here is a quick run down on the big things that have gone down:

  • There has been a lot of traveling with the Cabrini crew – both coming and going
    • 3 staff members went to the states for the AIDS 2012 conference
    • Five "sisters in training" came and stayed with us for spiritual development
    • We had a fundraising trip in the states that all the Kickerts plus Sister Diane went on (more on that later).
    • The sisters have been all over the place doing "sister" work and taking some down time
    • We have had two short-term volunteer come and go
    • Joe has gone to the states for some time with Family
  • We were able to spend 6 weeks in the US and it was very busy time
    • I spent time in New York, Philadephia, St. Louis, Chicago, Nashville
    • It was great catching up with friends and family
    • I became an uncle on my side when Tim and Chel had their first baby
    • My grandmother passed away
    • We got to enjoy some down time together as a family and see the sites in NYC and London
  • We wrapped up our funding year and took some time to look at all the accomplishments happening in Swaziland
  • Simo, one of the twins we watched was killed when his house collapsed on him.
  • We found out we were pregnant!

If you really want scoop on what has gone on with the Kickerts in the last six months, be sure to go to Beth’s blog… she even does pictures!  http://beth.kickert.info

New Host

January 3rd, 2013 No comments

It has been quite a while since my last blog post and a whole lot has happened since then.  I have a couple update posts coming soon, but wanted to quickly let you know that we have recently switched our webhost so if you see anything screwing on the websites or blogs, please let me know (ben.kickert@gmail.com). 

For what its worth, after nearly 8 years with a cheap ($2/mo) fly-by-night company called www.stayhosted.com we finally had to upgrade to a "real" hosting provider.  After much research, we went with www.hostgator.com.  It costs us almost double, but we went from a 500MB limit (which we had exceeded) to an unlimited provider.  So far I have been very impressed.  They have been quick to respond to my support tickets and even took care of doing the transfers between servers for me. 

I admit, part of the reason for this post is to ferret out any complications with the transfer and subsequent DNS transfers, but I also wanted to give a shout out to HostGator because they seem to be doing a great job.

Hopefully you will hear from me again soon.

Product Naming Fail

July 17th, 2012 1 comment

I just put some Balls on my Salticrax and ate it…. it was good!

 

DSC_0035

In all honesty, both products are excellent; they just could have done a bit better with their naming.

Categories: Random Tags: ,

Swazi Incentives

April 5th, 2012 No comments

In the United States, it seems companies everywhere are offering chances to win a new iPad as incentive for using their services.  Apparently Apple technology doesn’t have the same appeal here in Swaziland, so they have tried other schemes:

2 cows 
[Advertisement found in local magazine, although billboards of this offer are also prominent in the country.]

I would love to see the logistics involved in making this promotion work.  I can just imagine the fine print:

Offer not available to employees of Standard Bank, their families or the cattle farmers involved in the raising or delivery of above mentioned cattle.

To put it in perspective, if a Swazi did win this promotion, they would already be 1/7th the way towards paying lobola (dowry) for a new bride.

No Fencing…

February 27th, 2012 1 comment

DSC_0002

…because the South Africans are mindful to the dangers of roadside sword-play.

Categories: Random Tags: , ,

Cutting the Grass the Old Fashioned Way

January 12th, 2012 1 comment

When we first came to Swaziland, I found it odd that Swazis tended to get rid of all the grass in their yards, preferring instead to have "swept dirt."  That didn’t make sense to me since people in the US spend thousands on keeping their yards neat and green.

But, the first time I cut the grass the way most Swazis do (with a machete-like tool called a "slasher") I quickly understood the appeal of dirt.

Here is a video of me giving it my best at Swazi lawn care.

 

It is a short video because as soon as Beth started filming, I had to take a break!