Yesterday was one truly awful day. Everything which could go wrong did. Everyone wanted everything now, this instant, without regard for what everyone else wanted or needed. The telephone rang incessantly, much to the consternation of the folks waiting at my counter for service, or those desperately wanting their repairs done before anyone else. And not a one of them wanted to be told no.
I nearly lost my temper with more than one customer; I nearly lost my patience and temper with my Dad, something I have never done, something I would mortified over if I actually ever did; most decidedly, not something I want to start doing when he's 75. It was as though getting anything accomplished required the movement of, not merely a mountain, but an entire range.
Then we went to get take out fish dinners from our Church, it being Ash Wednesday and all, only to discover when we returned home that the cod was baked, not fried. I have never been to a Church fish fry and not have the cod actually deep fried. So it tasted okay, but it wasn't what any of us wanted. In all the day was so bad, I almost didn't go to Mass as I had planned. I just wanted to stay home and have a beer; beer, like any other liquid, doesn't violate the fast we Catholics are required to observe on Ash Wednesday.
I went anyway. It's good to begin Lent at Mass, but as the rest of my family had went earlier, it wouldn't be right if I didn't go myself. So I went, admittedly reluctantly.
Good move. During the sermon, Father reminded us where the ashes he was about to put on our foreheads symbolically came from: the palms laid before Christ when He triumphantly entered Jerusalem in the days before He was crucified. Lent is about His fasting and praying for forty days before that, so that He could fulfill what He came here to do. Of course, he came here to die for us.
Then the distribution of the ashes. "Remember, man, that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return." Sobering. Soon after, for our hymn of thanksgiving, we sang Panis Angelicus (bread of Angels), one of the most beautiful and glorious songs in the Catholic tradition.
I am overwhelmed and overjoyed that I went. Here I almost lost my temper with my father over a simple question on a simple clarification of a parts order. I barked orders at my brother, my coworker, and let more than one customer know, through gritted teeth, that I was doing the best I could and that they just had to wait a minute. I pitied myself that the fish wasn't precisely what I wanted though it was very good, and a lot more than many others may have had to eat yesterday. All the while thinking how awful my day was.
Then I am reminded, in stark and certain terms and forms, of the beauty of the man who gave it all so I might have it all, despite my anger and self pity and the raw fact that I don't deserve it. It was the right amount of perspective for the start of Lent. It made the day glorious, and made me humble.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
I Was Born a Rambling Blog
A couple of NPR executives, one now a former NPR executive, have been stung on tape criticizing the GOP and the Tea Party types. They are scary and racist, it seems. If that isn't an argument to completely defund NPR, then there isn't one at all. When the left has fell to simple hate mongering, and the label racist is a sure liberal move in that regard, then they have absolutely no credibility as a journalistic organization.
We are using less gas recently due to higher prices. That's kind of a good/bad thing, isn't it? It saves, or at least holds on reserve, a bit of petrol while keeping pollutants down. Then, too, traveling less means spending less, which is also a good/bad question: it keeps us from spending money on tripe, but surely can't help the general economy. Is there a real middle ground on questions such as these? Or does it all just devolve into trusting individual decisions?
We'll go with the individual choices.
China now has the world's largest mall, with a whopping 1% occupancy. Now Beijing intends to build 45 more airports, in response to the travel boom and the presumption that airports bring prosperity to the locals. They seem to working on the "If you build it, they will come" principle. Yet the one things you cannot easily do is command people to go somewhere or spend their money. That is the entire reason why command economies cannot work. You may well build the largest shopping center anywhere (which itself is a bit odd, considering that China is supposedly still communist) but that can't ensure success. All that does is mislead the people into thinking that their government actually does provide for them.
That's all, until the morrow, friends.
We are using less gas recently due to higher prices. That's kind of a good/bad thing, isn't it? It saves, or at least holds on reserve, a bit of petrol while keeping pollutants down. Then, too, traveling less means spending less, which is also a good/bad question: it keeps us from spending money on tripe, but surely can't help the general economy. Is there a real middle ground on questions such as these? Or does it all just devolve into trusting individual decisions?
We'll go with the individual choices.
China now has the world's largest mall, with a whopping 1% occupancy. Now Beijing intends to build 45 more airports, in response to the travel boom and the presumption that airports bring prosperity to the locals. They seem to working on the "If you build it, they will come" principle. Yet the one things you cannot easily do is command people to go somewhere or spend their money. That is the entire reason why command economies cannot work. You may well build the largest shopping center anywhere (which itself is a bit odd, considering that China is supposedly still communist) but that can't ensure success. All that does is mislead the people into thinking that their government actually does provide for them.
That's all, until the morrow, friends.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Carbon Footprint: No Big Deal
I have written several times about how unimpressed I am with the recycling fad which increasingly permeates our society. Today, I feel like writing a bit more.
Many of my conservative friends have latched onto the R-Train. "Conservative means conserve, right?" one asked me the other day. Another, holding out his plastic water bottle in demonstration, remarked that he "...didn't want to see this end up in a landfill." I fought the to urge to ask, why not? We were at a party to cheer up a sick friend, and I felt that good taste recommended not pursuing what can become a highly charged topic in such a setting.
But now I ask, why not? At our current rate we will have, in about 300 years, a total landfill area only about the size of Yellowstone Park. I see no landfills producing zombies or adversely affecting the water tables or local agriculture or industry or home life. Why not keep burying the trash?
A large part of conservatism certainly involves conserving various things and ideals. But that cannot mean that there isn't a necessary prioritizing of what we do. Fighting abortion, big government (which is, let's face it, greatly responsible for forcing recycling around our necks, which I think in itself makes the policy suspect), and the myriad factors of liberalism which threaten to tear our social fabric apart. To wit, the critical part of what we conserve must be our well being as a people along traditional lines. What we do with our garbage, while important, pales beside that.
So I say, screw my carbon footprint. There are more important things to worry about than whether we incinerate our debris or put it in a hole in the ground. Unless and until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that those things are substantially harmful to the human condition, I can live with them. That's conservative environmental policy in a nutshell.
Many of my conservative friends have latched onto the R-Train. "Conservative means conserve, right?" one asked me the other day. Another, holding out his plastic water bottle in demonstration, remarked that he "...didn't want to see this end up in a landfill." I fought the to urge to ask, why not? We were at a party to cheer up a sick friend, and I felt that good taste recommended not pursuing what can become a highly charged topic in such a setting.
But now I ask, why not? At our current rate we will have, in about 300 years, a total landfill area only about the size of Yellowstone Park. I see no landfills producing zombies or adversely affecting the water tables or local agriculture or industry or home life. Why not keep burying the trash?
A large part of conservatism certainly involves conserving various things and ideals. But that cannot mean that there isn't a necessary prioritizing of what we do. Fighting abortion, big government (which is, let's face it, greatly responsible for forcing recycling around our necks, which I think in itself makes the policy suspect), and the myriad factors of liberalism which threaten to tear our social fabric apart. To wit, the critical part of what we conserve must be our well being as a people along traditional lines. What we do with our garbage, while important, pales beside that.
So I say, screw my carbon footprint. There are more important things to worry about than whether we incinerate our debris or put it in a hole in the ground. Unless and until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that those things are substantially harmful to the human condition, I can live with them. That's conservative environmental policy in a nutshell.
Friday, March 4, 2011
A Word on Education
An ongoing debate within the political sphere, one which has indeed been carried on since the dawn of the Republic, has been about the extent and nature of public education. it is time that we addressed the issue squarely, by stating unequivocally and emphatically that public education is not a right.
For starters, seeing as education is ultimately the obligation of the individual (if mature enough) or of the parents of young children, then it is up to the person or their moms and dads to see to their learning as much as to their housing, clothing, and food. Society should only step in when the individual or the family needs help, just as it does with housing, clothing, and food. This needs to be said emphatically and forcefully: if you are able to provide for your or your child's education then you should have to provide for it, not the rest of us.
Indeed, with all the blather which the purveyors of teaching at the public trough give towards such ideas as diversity, how much more diverse can you get than to leave education to parental judgment and inquiry? Imagine a world where parents send their kids to schools they like based on their ideas of right and wrong rather than having them indoctrinated by the often errant views of the general society, a society whose 'views' are all too often dictated by judicial and legislative fiat rather of by the rational analysis of the individuals who are more concerned with true education (it is their children involved, you know) than passing fancy? How much more diverse can you get?
Or is diversity not what they truly want? Is their real aim the propagation of erroneous creeds and disreputable acts? To wit, do they want diversity as diversity, which is really only different folks acting different ways with no regard to the value of those acts (something of which even traditionalists should be wary), or do they in fact want indoctrination, the acceptance and living of the acts they, the education elite, deem worthy? Do they really want diversity, or the interpretation of ideas in their own light?
But the bottom line is that education is not a right so much as a duty. When we live up to that, we live well. When we don't, we get whatever comes along. And exactly what we would deserve.
For starters, seeing as education is ultimately the obligation of the individual (if mature enough) or of the parents of young children, then it is up to the person or their moms and dads to see to their learning as much as to their housing, clothing, and food. Society should only step in when the individual or the family needs help, just as it does with housing, clothing, and food. This needs to be said emphatically and forcefully: if you are able to provide for your or your child's education then you should have to provide for it, not the rest of us.
Indeed, with all the blather which the purveyors of teaching at the public trough give towards such ideas as diversity, how much more diverse can you get than to leave education to parental judgment and inquiry? Imagine a world where parents send their kids to schools they like based on their ideas of right and wrong rather than having them indoctrinated by the often errant views of the general society, a society whose 'views' are all too often dictated by judicial and legislative fiat rather of by the rational analysis of the individuals who are more concerned with true education (it is their children involved, you know) than passing fancy? How much more diverse can you get?
Or is diversity not what they truly want? Is their real aim the propagation of erroneous creeds and disreputable acts? To wit, do they want diversity as diversity, which is really only different folks acting different ways with no regard to the value of those acts (something of which even traditionalists should be wary), or do they in fact want indoctrination, the acceptance and living of the acts they, the education elite, deem worthy? Do they really want diversity, or the interpretation of ideas in their own light?
But the bottom line is that education is not a right so much as a duty. When we live up to that, we live well. When we don't, we get whatever comes along. And exactly what we would deserve.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Libya and Domestic Drilling
The United States, as well as other nations in the world, are apparently considering military force to restore order in Libya while helping topple the long time government of Moammar Gadhafi. It will be interesting to see how such plans pan out.
Some kind of action may be necessary for humanitarian reasons. At least, that is the view of some supposed humanitarians; but would someone please say, 'Somalia?' Because as noble as it sounds, humanitarian endeavors into areas where government is failing if it exists at all are at least arguably the worst reason to enter into any semblance of war. Say what you will about Afghanistan and Iraq, in those places the US and her Allies were at least facing relatively organized governmental structures. There was and has been a certain order in those theaters of war. Does that exist in Libya anymore?
Is a merely peacekeeping role even possible within an anarchic environment? With overwhelming force, perhaps, but does the situation in Libya merit as much? To be blunt, if we need that nation's oil, yes...but we can and should do what we can to exploit our own domestic oil and wells before we could justify that. Does the Obama Administration have the guts to do that?
For let us be blunt once again: isn't the whole interest of the United States in the Middle East, no matter how justified (and under the current circumstances, we think it is) about oil? About energy? Well, why not exploit our own resources? Until the left allows us to do that (and kindly refrain from those tired calls for alternative energy, as nothing widespread and affordable of that kind will be available for at least a generation), we have little option but to keep a stake in Middle Eastern politics. As such, the blood of any US soldiers and sailors, should intervention occur, must be on the hands of American liberal environmentalists.
We say, increase domestic drilling and let Libya sort herself out. Let the Chinese and Europeans who buy a lot of Libyan oil fret over Libya's internal woes. All that will happen if we intervene at all is that whatever actions we take will be called wrong anyway, even by many within our own borders. It's time to drill our own oil, and let the rest of the world worry about their own energy needs.
Some kind of action may be necessary for humanitarian reasons. At least, that is the view of some supposed humanitarians; but would someone please say, 'Somalia?' Because as noble as it sounds, humanitarian endeavors into areas where government is failing if it exists at all are at least arguably the worst reason to enter into any semblance of war. Say what you will about Afghanistan and Iraq, in those places the US and her Allies were at least facing relatively organized governmental structures. There was and has been a certain order in those theaters of war. Does that exist in Libya anymore?
Is a merely peacekeeping role even possible within an anarchic environment? With overwhelming force, perhaps, but does the situation in Libya merit as much? To be blunt, if we need that nation's oil, yes...but we can and should do what we can to exploit our own domestic oil and wells before we could justify that. Does the Obama Administration have the guts to do that?
For let us be blunt once again: isn't the whole interest of the United States in the Middle East, no matter how justified (and under the current circumstances, we think it is) about oil? About energy? Well, why not exploit our own resources? Until the left allows us to do that (and kindly refrain from those tired calls for alternative energy, as nothing widespread and affordable of that kind will be available for at least a generation), we have little option but to keep a stake in Middle Eastern politics. As such, the blood of any US soldiers and sailors, should intervention occur, must be on the hands of American liberal environmentalists.
We say, increase domestic drilling and let Libya sort herself out. Let the Chinese and Europeans who buy a lot of Libyan oil fret over Libya's internal woes. All that will happen if we intervene at all is that whatever actions we take will be called wrong anyway, even by many within our own borders. It's time to drill our own oil, and let the rest of the world worry about their own energy needs.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Death to Save Money
There is an issue which is vaguely tied into the raging health care debate yet has not been seen as such to date. It is the question of the falsely labeled 'right' to die, and it will eventually become part of any health care plans formulated and, if you'll excuse the term, executed by the government.
The question is often dismissed as a merely religious one by those in favor or it. Yet as with a similar moral issue, abortion, it really is not a wholly religious position if it is even particularly religious at all. It is a philosophical question at heart, perhaps, yes, with religious implications, but grounded in philosophy nonetheless. Simply put, if you had no say in being born, on what grounds can you assert, outside of truly heroic situations, a right to determine when you leave?
But however true that rings it is on a bit of a tangent with regard to the politics of the issue and national health care. If the proponents of euthanasia are ever successful in securing a right to die the next step is as obvious as it is ominous: the right to die will become an obligation to die.
You don't think so? Imagine in the near future an 85 year old with severe health problems. He's 85 anyway, so how much longer may he hang on regardless? He will be asked, after that, how much of a burden do you really want to be on your family? Your friends? Society? Do you honestly believe that you should tie up limited resources when they may be used on someone who may actually be helped by them to a greater degree more than you? Should you burden everyone by making them watch you die slowly, watch you wither away despite everyone's best efforts? Save us the trouble, save you the trauma; take the shot and it will all be over quickly and peacefully.
It won't happen? When health care is rationed, and it will be rationed if the nation goes on far enough into the future, it absolutely won't happen? When bureaucrats control who gets what treatments, it cannot happen? Do you really want to take the chance that someday it won't be made to appear selfish that you simply want to live?
Mull that over, and then let me know what you think.
The question is often dismissed as a merely religious one by those in favor or it. Yet as with a similar moral issue, abortion, it really is not a wholly religious position if it is even particularly religious at all. It is a philosophical question at heart, perhaps, yes, with religious implications, but grounded in philosophy nonetheless. Simply put, if you had no say in being born, on what grounds can you assert, outside of truly heroic situations, a right to determine when you leave?
But however true that rings it is on a bit of a tangent with regard to the politics of the issue and national health care. If the proponents of euthanasia are ever successful in securing a right to die the next step is as obvious as it is ominous: the right to die will become an obligation to die.
You don't think so? Imagine in the near future an 85 year old with severe health problems. He's 85 anyway, so how much longer may he hang on regardless? He will be asked, after that, how much of a burden do you really want to be on your family? Your friends? Society? Do you honestly believe that you should tie up limited resources when they may be used on someone who may actually be helped by them to a greater degree more than you? Should you burden everyone by making them watch you die slowly, watch you wither away despite everyone's best efforts? Save us the trouble, save you the trauma; take the shot and it will all be over quickly and peacefully.
It won't happen? When health care is rationed, and it will be rationed if the nation goes on far enough into the future, it absolutely won't happen? When bureaucrats control who gets what treatments, it cannot happen? Do you really want to take the chance that someday it won't be made to appear selfish that you simply want to live?
Mull that over, and then let me know what you think.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Global Warming?
February 2011 was the third snowiest month in Detroit weather history. We all know what that means: global warming, your Grandma's blue hair.
To be sure, there's probably some pseudo-scientific explanation which will attempt to explain the fact away. Pop science is not a force which does not give up easily on its far out presumptions. This is, we might be assured, an anomaly. Global warming is really, truly happening.
Tell that your heat bill.
To be sure, there's probably some pseudo-scientific explanation which will attempt to explain the fact away. Pop science is not a force which does not give up easily on its far out presumptions. This is, we might be assured, an anomaly. Global warming is really, truly happening.
Tell that your heat bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
