Whither Springfield?

I find myself in Springfield, Ohio quite a lot. Regular readers (you know who you are) understand that's because the company I sell for (Electric Eel: for all you drain and sewer cleaning needs) is based there. But it's struck me lately that dear old Springfield just doesn't get enough love.

It occurred to me while driving there awhile back that you rarely see the mileage to Springfield when tooling along the Interstate. Dayton, Columbus, Cincinnati, they all receive their due. At intervals you will see signs letting you know that Dayton is in 57 miles or Cinci 131. In fact just south of Toledo in Ohio on Interstate 75 there is a sign which proclaims that Tampa, Florida is a mere 1100 miles down the road. But how far to Springfield?

Even coming back from Indiana on Interstate 70, which goes directly to Springfield, you will get no help about the distance there. Yet you will be told how far it is to Dayton, despite the fact that it is not on 70. Indeed I-70 runs about twenty miles above it. Why can't we know about Springfield? 

Or am I asking the wrong question? Is there some dark secret to which I am not privy? Perhaps the question isn't, Whither Springfield? Maybe it's, okay, Springfield, what did you do?

Just so far

I noticed this morning they've put new mileage signs on Interstate 75 south of Toledo, Ohio. You know, those markers which tell us Detroit is 89 miles away and the like? Well, the first new sign I saw had the distances to Dayton and then Cincinnati. That makes sense of course, their being in Ohio. But the third city listed was Tampa, Florida. It was from there 1,103 miles further south on I-75.
That was good for a chuckle. Then the next sign listed a couple Ohio towns again...and Atlanta, Georgia. It was a scant 852 miles along the way.
Methinks someone at the Ohio Department of Transportation has a sense of humor. Or an extreme case of wishful thinking. Or just too much time on their hands, who knows?

You want Tolerance? Tolerate Me

We have pointed out many times the number of empty words, words often used without real meaning such as peace, freedom, and education. There are also words used with very definite intentions even though they appear to be innocuous. Perhaps first and foremost among them are 'diversity' and tolerance'.

We are told that we ought to embrace diversity and that we ought to be tolerant. Interestingly enough, the very first problem with these terms is no different than testing the use of calls for education or peace or freedom. When someone asks us to accept diversity and become tolerant, we must ask: tolerate what? Tolerate it why? Accept what type diversity? All of it, or only parts of it? For of course all that diversity really means is that A is different from B, and all tolerance means is allowing something to happen or be. It is only through the answers to these and other necessary follow up questions about diversity and tolerance that we can really know what the person is talking about or what they want us to do. And, of course, whether we should do it.

So you see, to actually understand what the preachers of tolerance and diversity want we find ourselves in the same boat as our friends who preach freedom: once we begin the discussion in detail, we aren't talking about toleration or diversity. We're talking about, at the least, acceptable personal and social behavior, and, at the most, good old right and wrong. For surely in asking those necessary questions we aim to draw conclusions about propriety or morals. Indeed, even the person asking for diversity must mean that they want you to accept what they support as right and true. If your compliance didn't matter to them, they wouldn't make any demands upon you. Indeed, if actually right and wrong didn't matter to them, they wouldn't ask for your deference because it wouldn't matter. Either that, or they are supremely stupid and selfish. We used to call those people boors, didn't we?

Another and better question to ask is, if all it's really about is accepting people as they are (which, you may notice, in itself only begs the same questions which pleas for tolerance and diversity and freedom and peace and education left to themselves do) then why don't you tolerate me? I'm diverse. All right, so maybe I am intolerant of your creed. Well, then. Put that in your pipe and smoke it too, if it's all about tolerance.

But, as we all know, it isn't about tolerance and diversity. It's about making the more conservative among us accept what we cannot. The fact of the matter is they surely do not appreciate our diverse opinions; they most certainly do not wish to tolerate us. And why? Simply because we disagree with them, and have the audacity to say so.

That leaves us with one final question. Who between us is truly audacious?