What is the point of holding cars for so long when crossing back into our own country? I realize that I have complained about this before but really, we know the border guards know everything about us when they punch our information into their computers at their stations. When they see we're clean, we should be allowed to proceed. I will even allow for the occasional random checks of vehicles. But by and large, when we've done nothing to raise suspicions we should released.
All that we are doing with all these extra and nonsensical delays are punishing folks who are in virtually all ways good citizens. And yes, it is a little personal. I maintain that I have the right to travel to Canada and see my friends there and consequently the right to expect easy entry back into my country. I haven't had so much as a parking ticket in the last 15 years. Why should I have to feel as though I have to justify my return? Why should I have to justify it?
We're treating people like criminals when we act this way. It needs to stop.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Bread and Circuses?
This is a fine time to live in the City of Detroit, Michigan, let me tell you. What a fine crop of political leaders we have here.
I suppose that it isn't enough to be the laughingstock of the nation with the Kwame Kilpatrick/Cristine Beatty, ahem, affair. Rather than getting beyond that and improving our City and the outlook with which the country views us, we get stuck with Detroit Common Council President Monica Conyers raising the spectre of that old devil racism and fellow Councilwoman Barbara Rose Collins bellowing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' at meetings called to an illegal purpose. As my Army son would ask, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?"
What brings this on is the issue of putting Detroit's Cobo Hall exhibition center under a regional authority, a move aimed at helping the City (which cannot afford even the maintenance fees at this point) while making the center a more viable convention hotspot so that we can keep things like the North American Auto Show. You know, Madame Councilwoman, make it so that we can keep bringing major events and the cash which comes along with them into Detroit and, yes, the entire region of Southeast Michigan. Cash which we sorely need, much more than your pompous grandstanding.
You want to know who's racist, Ms. Conyers? You are. Telling a white Teamster that there are too many faces like his and not enough like your own fabulous mug at construction sites. What would happen if that Teamster had said that to you? He'd be the worst soul on Earth, that's what.
How dare you. You demand respect but won't respect others.
Why were you calling the meeting anyway? Oh, right: to override what you think an illegal veto by Mayor Ken Cockrell approving the move to the regional authority. Along the way I guess it doesn't matter that your own move clearly violates the City Charter: vetoes must be addressed at regular, not special, Council meetings. Are you so special that you're above the law?
What we have here, my friends, is something akin to the old Roman Empire: bread and circuses. Yet we have no bread. We're only just stuck with the three rings.
I suppose that it isn't enough to be the laughingstock of the nation with the Kwame Kilpatrick/Cristine Beatty, ahem, affair. Rather than getting beyond that and improving our City and the outlook with which the country views us, we get stuck with Detroit Common Council President Monica Conyers raising the spectre of that old devil racism and fellow Councilwoman Barbara Rose Collins bellowing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' at meetings called to an illegal purpose. As my Army son would ask, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?"
What brings this on is the issue of putting Detroit's Cobo Hall exhibition center under a regional authority, a move aimed at helping the City (which cannot afford even the maintenance fees at this point) while making the center a more viable convention hotspot so that we can keep things like the North American Auto Show. You know, Madame Councilwoman, make it so that we can keep bringing major events and the cash which comes along with them into Detroit and, yes, the entire region of Southeast Michigan. Cash which we sorely need, much more than your pompous grandstanding.
You want to know who's racist, Ms. Conyers? You are. Telling a white Teamster that there are too many faces like his and not enough like your own fabulous mug at construction sites. What would happen if that Teamster had said that to you? He'd be the worst soul on Earth, that's what.
How dare you. You demand respect but won't respect others.
Why were you calling the meeting anyway? Oh, right: to override what you think an illegal veto by Mayor Ken Cockrell approving the move to the regional authority. Along the way I guess it doesn't matter that your own move clearly violates the City Charter: vetoes must be addressed at regular, not special, Council meetings. Are you so special that you're above the law?
What we have here, my friends, is something akin to the old Roman Empire: bread and circuses. Yet we have no bread. We're only just stuck with the three rings.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
A Further Word on Yesterday's Blog
All democracy ultimately means is that fifty percent plus one can make everyone else do whatever they want them to do.
-Abraham Lincoln
I spoke yesterday about God being willing to let us play God: He will grant us what we want in the end, and how it is thereby important to want the right thing. But there is another point which may be inferred from that blog.
At one time I participated in many online discussion boards about the nature of many things, not the least of which involved several long threads about morality. Where they all almost invariably bogged down was on the question of who knew what right and wrong really meant. In short, who was God on the question.
I took the position, of course, that God was God. It was He who made Reason reasonable and His will that mattered. Many others who took interest in the issue argued, as we could not know who God was, or whether there was a God at all, that consensus should guide us as to how we should act.
The problems with this approach are myriad. The most obvious were that, where the popular will determined right and wrong, then it followed that the most heinous acts must be viewed as right if the majority wanted it so. Child pornography, rape and murder must become morally acceptable if only slightly more than half the population desired it. The approach begged other questions as well, notably this: why should I listen to the majority? Because they said so?
That sounds very much like the lament the purveyors of that argument had about listening to me: why should I listen to you, Marty? Because your God says so? They ignored the very possibility that I may be right, not on my word (Heavens, no!), but on the word of an actual God who knew more than I possibly could.
You see, any proposition about morality which does not concede that morality is something beyond individual interpretation is supremely problematic, even if that 'person' is in the guise of the general society via consensus. Why should any given individual listen to any other given individual simply on that person's say so? Unless there is something beyond the individual, something objective which any reasonable person should be able to see (and I mean able to see, because being unwilling or unable to see is a different issue) we can make no useful advances in the cause of human morals.
The bottom line is this: either God is God or I am God. If I am God, then I do not have any obligation to listen to the opinion of you or any overblown measure of consensus because, by the very definition of the issue, it cannot matter. What I say is right. Yet if God is God, then I ignore Him (and you, if you are trying to help me in that light) at my own great peril. There really isn't any other way to frame the question.
-Abraham Lincoln
I spoke yesterday about God being willing to let us play God: He will grant us what we want in the end, and how it is thereby important to want the right thing. But there is another point which may be inferred from that blog.
At one time I participated in many online discussion boards about the nature of many things, not the least of which involved several long threads about morality. Where they all almost invariably bogged down was on the question of who knew what right and wrong really meant. In short, who was God on the question.
I took the position, of course, that God was God. It was He who made Reason reasonable and His will that mattered. Many others who took interest in the issue argued, as we could not know who God was, or whether there was a God at all, that consensus should guide us as to how we should act.
The problems with this approach are myriad. The most obvious were that, where the popular will determined right and wrong, then it followed that the most heinous acts must be viewed as right if the majority wanted it so. Child pornography, rape and murder must become morally acceptable if only slightly more than half the population desired it. The approach begged other questions as well, notably this: why should I listen to the majority? Because they said so?
That sounds very much like the lament the purveyors of that argument had about listening to me: why should I listen to you, Marty? Because your God says so? They ignored the very possibility that I may be right, not on my word (Heavens, no!), but on the word of an actual God who knew more than I possibly could.
You see, any proposition about morality which does not concede that morality is something beyond individual interpretation is supremely problematic, even if that 'person' is in the guise of the general society via consensus. Why should any given individual listen to any other given individual simply on that person's say so? Unless there is something beyond the individual, something objective which any reasonable person should be able to see (and I mean able to see, because being unwilling or unable to see is a different issue) we can make no useful advances in the cause of human morals.
The bottom line is this: either God is God or I am God. If I am God, then I do not have any obligation to listen to the opinion of you or any overblown measure of consensus because, by the very definition of the issue, it cannot matter. What I say is right. Yet if God is God, then I ignore Him (and you, if you are trying to help me in that light) at my own great peril. There really isn't any other way to frame the question.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Who is God?
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
- C. S. Lewis
I have long believed that there is only one God. There can only be One; Plato eons ago rightly pointed out that perfection implies singularity, as multiplicity must infer defect. To wit, complexity must allow for great error because there are so many parts of it. There's more to go wrong. Conversely, One Whole Something must be essentially simple so that nothing can be wrong with it.
Ignore for the moment any pleas within your mind which may ask, so which God is God? I am merely establishing that there can only be one. Christ, Yahweh, Allah; Animism and Mother Earth: we can deal with all that another time. What I am concerned with here is how this truth affects us in our day to day actions.
When we discuss morality it often seems to devolve into an us against them rant. "Who made you God?", we may often be asked. The reply, "Who made you?", generally is left unasked, yet is just as fair. Be that as it may, the overall implication is that that other person doesn't have to listen to you because you aren't the final arbiter of right and wrong and, further, that maybe there isn't actually a God for us to bother about anyway.
That is dangerous on two fronts. The first is that you never, ever want to even broach the idea that you are God. The second is that it begs that question of who is. To the former, what kind of God would you be if you did in fact call the shots? Could you stay good with all the power that implies at your control? To the latter, if there is a God who can make those calls, hadn't we best find out who He is and what He wants? For surely our poor opinions and actions would pale next to His.
Still, God allows us some share of that power. He will, as Lewis says above, tell you 'thy will be done', and cast you off. He will allow you your choice on the ultimate matter: to be with Him or not. You can be the god of your own destiny.
But ask yourself whether you would like where the trail must lead.
- C. S. Lewis
I have long believed that there is only one God. There can only be One; Plato eons ago rightly pointed out that perfection implies singularity, as multiplicity must infer defect. To wit, complexity must allow for great error because there are so many parts of it. There's more to go wrong. Conversely, One Whole Something must be essentially simple so that nothing can be wrong with it.
Ignore for the moment any pleas within your mind which may ask, so which God is God? I am merely establishing that there can only be one. Christ, Yahweh, Allah; Animism and Mother Earth: we can deal with all that another time. What I am concerned with here is how this truth affects us in our day to day actions.
When we discuss morality it often seems to devolve into an us against them rant. "Who made you God?", we may often be asked. The reply, "Who made you?", generally is left unasked, yet is just as fair. Be that as it may, the overall implication is that that other person doesn't have to listen to you because you aren't the final arbiter of right and wrong and, further, that maybe there isn't actually a God for us to bother about anyway.
That is dangerous on two fronts. The first is that you never, ever want to even broach the idea that you are God. The second is that it begs that question of who is. To the former, what kind of God would you be if you did in fact call the shots? Could you stay good with all the power that implies at your control? To the latter, if there is a God who can make those calls, hadn't we best find out who He is and what He wants? For surely our poor opinions and actions would pale next to His.
Still, God allows us some share of that power. He will, as Lewis says above, tell you 'thy will be done', and cast you off. He will allow you your choice on the ultimate matter: to be with Him or not. You can be the god of your own destiny.
But ask yourself whether you would like where the trail must lead.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Pop Science
I just saw a special on the Discovery Channel where the subject was global warming. Yet this one wasn't warning us of impending doom. Somewhat surprisingly to me, it was taking the stance that perhaps the whole idea of worldwide environmental catastrophe maybe isn't all that certain.
So much for the doomsayers. The show went about its business by pointing out that, despite the trends we have seen which may indicate a general and steady warming, we really haven't observed enough to make anything more than guesses, and not particularly educated ones at that. You see, explained one scientist, science is ultimately based on observation over time, and we simply haven't been able to observe all time.
But perhaps the truly important point was the concession that much of the hysteria about global warming has been produced by what can be called pop science: science based on little useful data yet proclaimed as hard fact. It is science for the instant gratification crowd, the folks who want everything now. Including tragedy.
Shocking. Still, I think many of us have suspected as much all along. When society grows shallow, so too will every aspect of civilization. Our intellect will atrophy, and we will lose ourselves to the popular will.
So much for the doomsayers. The show went about its business by pointing out that, despite the trends we have seen which may indicate a general and steady warming, we really haven't observed enough to make anything more than guesses, and not particularly educated ones at that. You see, explained one scientist, science is ultimately based on observation over time, and we simply haven't been able to observe all time.
But perhaps the truly important point was the concession that much of the hysteria about global warming has been produced by what can be called pop science: science based on little useful data yet proclaimed as hard fact. It is science for the instant gratification crowd, the folks who want everything now. Including tragedy.
Shocking. Still, I think many of us have suspected as much all along. When society grows shallow, so too will every aspect of civilization. Our intellect will atrophy, and we will lose ourselves to the popular will.
Monday, March 2, 2009
A Word on Consumerism
Our economy is in trouble; that news is so old it has whiskers. But what worries me is that so many of the plans to improve it are based on encouraging folks to buy things. That, too, isn't exactly rocket science. I long ago taught my students that we all worry about keeping at least some of our money, yet the fact is the economy, both for our own personal world as well as the world in general, is worse off when the money isn't moving. I still hold to that. Nevertheless, I think we ought to consider the value in buying things simply to buy them too.
How much junk do we accumulate just because we can? How often do we buy things on impulse which we never really use? How many times have we indulged ourselves out of nothing more than mere selfishness? These are the kinds of questions which come to my mind when I think about our economy. Am I the only one who believes that such attitudes, while not necessarily immoral, still manage to have a certain bad odor about them?
True, when we buy we invariably help our fellow citizens whose jobs rely on our willingness to purchase what can only be, in many instances, unneeded items. That itself is probably the main reason for which I cannot call such otherwise wantonness wrong. Yet it too begs a few pertinent questions, not the least of which is whether we as a society ought to encourage businesses which cater to trivialities. Isn't there more that we all could be doing with our time and efforts than acquiring stuff just to acquire it?
The Church has a word for for that kind of system: consumerism. Consumerism is essentially selfish, and again, that does not make it bad. A bit of me first is what ensures that necessary things get done, important things like seeing to the clothing and the feeding and all for ourselves and our families. Still, that cannot mean that merely because something can be made and marketed that it ought to be made and marketed. And it cannot mean that we have an obligation to buy it simply to help others out.
We're all in this together, yes, so I should do what I can even for the general economy. The rest of society, which the word economy often represents, should, however, work with me on that. Don't tell me I need a new car when my old one works perfectly fine, or that I need to remodel a kitchen which I just fixed up five years ago. Give me something worth buying and we'll take it from there. Otherwise, we're only feeding our egos. That cannot, in the long run, be healthy.
How much junk do we accumulate just because we can? How often do we buy things on impulse which we never really use? How many times have we indulged ourselves out of nothing more than mere selfishness? These are the kinds of questions which come to my mind when I think about our economy. Am I the only one who believes that such attitudes, while not necessarily immoral, still manage to have a certain bad odor about them?
True, when we buy we invariably help our fellow citizens whose jobs rely on our willingness to purchase what can only be, in many instances, unneeded items. That itself is probably the main reason for which I cannot call such otherwise wantonness wrong. Yet it too begs a few pertinent questions, not the least of which is whether we as a society ought to encourage businesses which cater to trivialities. Isn't there more that we all could be doing with our time and efforts than acquiring stuff just to acquire it?
The Church has a word for for that kind of system: consumerism. Consumerism is essentially selfish, and again, that does not make it bad. A bit of me first is what ensures that necessary things get done, important things like seeing to the clothing and the feeding and all for ourselves and our families. Still, that cannot mean that merely because something can be made and marketed that it ought to be made and marketed. And it cannot mean that we have an obligation to buy it simply to help others out.
We're all in this together, yes, so I should do what I can even for the general economy. The rest of society, which the word economy often represents, should, however, work with me on that. Don't tell me I need a new car when my old one works perfectly fine, or that I need to remodel a kitchen which I just fixed up five years ago. Give me something worth buying and we'll take it from there. Otherwise, we're only feeding our egos. That cannot, in the long run, be healthy.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Back in Town
For those of you wondering why I had no new blogs for the last few days, it was because I was Louisville, Kentucky for the International Pumpers Environmental Expo. It used to be called the Pumpers and Wastehaulers Show, but they've changed it. I guess they're trying to clean up their act.
That's a waste industry joke. Just so you know.
You see, I sell drain cleaning and diagnostic equipment. Consequently, I sell to people who pump waste out of systems (septic tanks and grease trap companies) and haul it off, as well as to plumbers who open clogged drains. If you ever have a clogged drain and your plumber doesn't have genuine Electric Eel equipment, get another plumber.
That's a shameless plug for my products. Just so you know.
It was not a good weekend economically; I don't think we quite broke even on our sales against our costs. But sometimes you have to do things like trade shows simply to network. We never really know how many long range sales we may earn from contacts made back in the day. A little glad handing can't hurt. Besides, sometimes we've made money way beyond our costs. I suppose it balances out over time.
I think the best thing about the show was the company dinner Friday night. It was great to see the other sales staff from around the country. Several of us went out for a couple drinks after the dinner and had a great time. It was just like being with my curling friends in Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
That's a compliment to my great friends at the Roseland Curling Club. Just so you know.
That's a waste industry joke. Just so you know.
You see, I sell drain cleaning and diagnostic equipment. Consequently, I sell to people who pump waste out of systems (septic tanks and grease trap companies) and haul it off, as well as to plumbers who open clogged drains. If you ever have a clogged drain and your plumber doesn't have genuine Electric Eel equipment, get another plumber.
That's a shameless plug for my products. Just so you know.
It was not a good weekend economically; I don't think we quite broke even on our sales against our costs. But sometimes you have to do things like trade shows simply to network. We never really know how many long range sales we may earn from contacts made back in the day. A little glad handing can't hurt. Besides, sometimes we've made money way beyond our costs. I suppose it balances out over time.
I think the best thing about the show was the company dinner Friday night. It was great to see the other sales staff from around the country. Several of us went out for a couple drinks after the dinner and had a great time. It was just like being with my curling friends in Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
That's a compliment to my great friends at the Roseland Curling Club. Just so you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
