Today we are expecting potential record high temperatures, after setting a record yesterday with a high of 94 degrees. Naturally enough, this is bringing out the precaution parade, and not without good cause. High temperatures can affect certain groups of people more seriously than others. Senior citizens and children are more likely to suffer ill effects of the heat, and we are advised to keep an eye on them, as well as to drink plenty of fluids and stay cool ourselves.
Such is all well and good. There is nothing wrong with the general community having basic concern for their fellow man. Yet what we cannot help but find just a little disconcerting is that, in today's Detroit Free Press anyway, right on the heels of cautions for human beings are the worries of animal advocacy groups that we should mind to keep our pets safe from the weather as well.
This is not to say that anyone should mistreat their pets, of course. But it does leave us to wonder: when we place animals on very nearly the same plain as people, being urged to worry about them very nearly as much as actual human beings, have we perhaps made an equivocation which is simply not particularly valid? Especially as the Freep article goes so far as to give specific advice on caring for pets ahead of offering similar advice on the care of people, it would seem that we are putting the animals ahead of ourselves.
That we should care for our pets is simple decency. Yet caring for people is more important and our actions and articles ought to reflect that. It is disconcerting when those groups such as journalists who presume to speak for human goodwill advise us on how to treat animals ahead of how to treat real people. We wonder how much they may actually care for us.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Ozone Action Days
We are now well beyond the start of the Ozone Action Day season, according to SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. And although today is not an action day, SEMCOG's website reminds us to be aware of them and to check frequently about when they occur. People are encouraged to not gas up their cars or mow their lawns on Ozone Action Days.
Go ahead and do it anyway. Indeed, look for such days and gas up and mow on them precisely because our local government has said we should not. Nature is incredibly resilient and will survive what little real effect gassing up and cutting grass may do. But more than that, it would serve as a protest against precisely the kind of government intrusion into our lives that is evidence by declaring such days.
To be sure and fair, avoiding certain things on Ozone avoidance days has not been made a point of law. But that step is surely somewhere down the road. The first step is to condition people that the government knows best, that SEMCOG is smarter than and better than you and ought to be obeyed. The slippery slope is exactly how basic human freedoms are the surest way eroded.
So look out for them, and purposely violate them. You're serving a purpose by asserting your authority over your property.
Go ahead and do it anyway. Indeed, look for such days and gas up and mow on them precisely because our local government has said we should not. Nature is incredibly resilient and will survive what little real effect gassing up and cutting grass may do. But more than that, it would serve as a protest against precisely the kind of government intrusion into our lives that is evidence by declaring such days.
To be sure and fair, avoiding certain things on Ozone avoidance days has not been made a point of law. But that step is surely somewhere down the road. The first step is to condition people that the government knows best, that SEMCOG is smarter than and better than you and ought to be obeyed. The slippery slope is exactly how basic human freedoms are the surest way eroded.
So look out for them, and purposely violate them. You're serving a purpose by asserting your authority over your property.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Recall Attempts are Undemocratic
About a dozen Republican elected officials, among them Governor Rick Snyder, are faced with recall petitions. So it goes; it is difficult to call such drives undemocratic, seeing as the recall process is written into state law.
But we'll call these efforts undemocratic anyway. It seems that there are folks out there, generally liberals, quire frankly, who simply cannot accept that the results of elections sometimes go against them. So when it happens, they have to do whatever they can to muck up the running of the government and disallow the public will enacted through the ballot box to take effect. They have to pull every lever they can in self serving attempts, like petulant children with a temper tantrum, to get their way.
Granted, the Michigan Constitution is without judgment on what ought to qualify an officeholder for recall. What that means, basically, is that anyone may be subject to recall for any reason. So what is happening is that the Democrats, merely because they do not like the political actions of the elected Republicans, are attempting to have them removed from office. The exact nature of each individual recall is not important to the point here, as they are all nothing more than political gripes.
It would have been interesting to see what those same people would have said should conservatives have tried to recall former Governor Jennifer Granholm. Yet the fact is that conservatives and the GOP didn't. They recognized that she had been legitimately elected and that the only proper recourse (outside of some kind of genuinely horrid action) was to try and see her removed during the regular election cycle. They did not try any shallow political gamesmanship but rather accepted things as they were. They did not try to stall progress in Michigan by creating a sideshow which shall only cost time and effort which would be better spent making our state productive again.
Our Democratic friends feel the need to redo any election which does not suit their purpose. It is an attitude unworthy of anyone who truly respects democracy, and speaks loudly of their real feelings about the voters.
But we'll call these efforts undemocratic anyway. It seems that there are folks out there, generally liberals, quire frankly, who simply cannot accept that the results of elections sometimes go against them. So when it happens, they have to do whatever they can to muck up the running of the government and disallow the public will enacted through the ballot box to take effect. They have to pull every lever they can in self serving attempts, like petulant children with a temper tantrum, to get their way.
Granted, the Michigan Constitution is without judgment on what ought to qualify an officeholder for recall. What that means, basically, is that anyone may be subject to recall for any reason. So what is happening is that the Democrats, merely because they do not like the political actions of the elected Republicans, are attempting to have them removed from office. The exact nature of each individual recall is not important to the point here, as they are all nothing more than political gripes.
It would have been interesting to see what those same people would have said should conservatives have tried to recall former Governor Jennifer Granholm. Yet the fact is that conservatives and the GOP didn't. They recognized that she had been legitimately elected and that the only proper recourse (outside of some kind of genuinely horrid action) was to try and see her removed during the regular election cycle. They did not try any shallow political gamesmanship but rather accepted things as they were. They did not try to stall progress in Michigan by creating a sideshow which shall only cost time and effort which would be better spent making our state productive again.
Our Democratic friends feel the need to redo any election which does not suit their purpose. It is an attitude unworthy of anyone who truly respects democracy, and speaks loudly of their real feelings about the voters.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Abortion and Capital Punishment: not the same
In the great and ongoing debate about abortion, it is often suggested that opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty go hand in hand. Perhaps so; capital punishment should no longer be a shirt sleeve issue for Catholic conservatives, seeing as Rome has spoken so forcefully about it in recent years. Still, it does appear that the one question does not so easily blend with the other.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#2267)
While this is obviously a very strong statement against capital punishment, it does not condemn it. Indeed it seems to say that, though 'practically nonexistent' the right of the state to use the death penalty does exist. It almost sounds like the admonition against violence or war: it should be used as a last recourse, when no other option exists.
So tying abortion to capital punishment, especially in a state such as right here in Michigan, where capital punishment has not existed since the middle of the 19th Century, indeed to place the death penalty under the umbrella of 'life issues' seems nothing short of a brazen attempt to call conservative anti-abortion activists hypocrites. Don't misunderstand this: if getting rid of capital punishment would in turn rid us of abortion, then we should do it.
But it won't. It would only force the pro-abortion crowd to find another bad name to call the right wing. Because they, unlike the Church and true conservatives, do not want what's right. They want what they want because they want it. They want it, not on grounds of true morals, but on the selfish grounds of mere human will.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#2267)
While this is obviously a very strong statement against capital punishment, it does not condemn it. Indeed it seems to say that, though 'practically nonexistent' the right of the state to use the death penalty does exist. It almost sounds like the admonition against violence or war: it should be used as a last recourse, when no other option exists.
So tying abortion to capital punishment, especially in a state such as right here in Michigan, where capital punishment has not existed since the middle of the 19th Century, indeed to place the death penalty under the umbrella of 'life issues' seems nothing short of a brazen attempt to call conservative anti-abortion activists hypocrites. Don't misunderstand this: if getting rid of capital punishment would in turn rid us of abortion, then we should do it.
But it won't. It would only force the pro-abortion crowd to find another bad name to call the right wing. Because they, unlike the Church and true conservatives, do not want what's right. They want what they want because they want it. They want it, not on grounds of true morals, but on the selfish grounds of mere human will.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Jack Kevorkian
Jack Kevorkian, Detroit's own and national proponent of assisted suicide, has passed away this morning at Beaumont Hospital.
Known colloquially as Dr. Death, Kevorkian certainly knew how to draw a crowd and was unabashed in his belief ion a supposed right to die. It is somewhat ironic that he died quietly. Yet no matter what we may think of that, no matter how venom either side on the issue may want to inject into any eulogy about him, our duty now is simple and direct: pray for him.
It is presumably not something he would want himself. That is not, however, the point. Nor is the point today to reinvigorate the debate about any right to die. The point is that, as his soul has passed on, we are where we can really do the most good him. We can ask for the mercy of the Father, and hope that Kevorkian himself somehow made amends before he left his earthly bonds. Because right now, what he did and supported isn't important. Where he is going is what matters, and we should wish him the best on that account.
Known colloquially as Dr. Death, Kevorkian certainly knew how to draw a crowd and was unabashed in his belief ion a supposed right to die. It is somewhat ironic that he died quietly. Yet no matter what we may think of that, no matter how venom either side on the issue may want to inject into any eulogy about him, our duty now is simple and direct: pray for him.
It is presumably not something he would want himself. That is not, however, the point. Nor is the point today to reinvigorate the debate about any right to die. The point is that, as his soul has passed on, we are where we can really do the most good him. We can ask for the mercy of the Father, and hope that Kevorkian himself somehow made amends before he left his earthly bonds. Because right now, what he did and supported isn't important. Where he is going is what matters, and we should wish him the best on that account.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
More Alternative Education?
A local school district, Warren Consolidated to be exact, has taken up the problem of what to do about dropouts. Nothing new there, except that the dropouts they are concerned with are those leaving the Alternative High School the district supports. In the words of an administrator, “We are looking for an alternative to alternative education.”
Now, you really should not be snickering at that. It happens all the time in education: every one must be educated, willing or not, and if we can only just find the way to reach them they will become educated.
Right. The education establishment refuses to accept that some young folks simply will not be educated. That isn’t necessarily the fault of educators; indeed it’s likely not the fault of theirs in the overwhelming majority of cases. But it is pig headed to think that everyone will learn. That attitude simply forces us to keep students in the system who should not be there yet are, to the detriment of those really trying to learn and the teachers really trying to teach.
Yes, state and federal laws (think No Child Left Behind, that onerous boondoggle of W’s) compel us to such nonsense. Yet a lot of that was brought on in the long term by the education elite who promised the education of every single student. You got what you asked for, guys. Deal with it.
Unless you can find an alternative to that.
Now, you really should not be snickering at that. It happens all the time in education: every one must be educated, willing or not, and if we can only just find the way to reach them they will become educated.
Right. The education establishment refuses to accept that some young folks simply will not be educated. That isn’t necessarily the fault of educators; indeed it’s likely not the fault of theirs in the overwhelming majority of cases. But it is pig headed to think that everyone will learn. That attitude simply forces us to keep students in the system who should not be there yet are, to the detriment of those really trying to learn and the teachers really trying to teach.
Yes, state and federal laws (think No Child Left Behind, that onerous boondoggle of W’s) compel us to such nonsense. Yet a lot of that was brought on in the long term by the education elite who promised the education of every single student. You got what you asked for, guys. Deal with it.
Unless you can find an alternative to that.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Single Mothers and the Minumun Wage
A recent study based on the Basic Economic Security Tables for Michigan has concluded that people can't live on minimum wage.
Shocked? You shouldn't be. Yet what is so often forgotten is that no one generally has to live on it. The overwhelming majority of minimum wage earners are exactly those who don't need to live off of it. They are teenagers and others on the first step of the employment ladder, or the second wage earner in a traditional household. In short, they are, generally speaking, those just getting their feet wet economically. They're getting job experience; what ought they expect when just starting out?
But that is not the real intent behind the study. One of the people it focused on was a 23 year old unmarried mother of two, trying to support herself and her kids working two jobs which paid between $9.50 and $13 bucks an hour. Another is a single mother of three who makes $7.54 an hour as a telemarketer. Single mothers... is anyone willing to stand up and point out that these are not traditional families?
How did they become single mothers? It doesn't matter, because we will be told that that's none of our business as a society. Yet when these single moms want sympathy, and a liberal organizations such as Wider Opportunities for Women and the Michigan League for Human Services, who created the report using public data, want attention to their views on how the government ought to run the economy, then their lot in life is supposed to be our concern.
To call that effrontery is to understate the point. Yet simple common sense says that if these single moms had waited to have kids until they were in a more stable and traditional home environment, or at least until they had gained the skills themselves to qualify for better jobs, then their current wages wouldn't be such an issue.
This is not to disparage all single moms. Some are in that position through no fault of their own, to be sure. But as to the ones who are in such circumstances as the direct result of free will actions of their own, it is fair to wonder exactly how much society ought to change for their benefit. Simple Christian charity indeed calls on us to help...but more for the sake of the children involved. They are the innocents. Their mothers are all too often merely insisting that they be allowed to act any way they want, then demanding society help hold the bag.
It is a point which should not be lost on the larger society when considering wealth and poverty issues.
Shocked? You shouldn't be. Yet what is so often forgotten is that no one generally has to live on it. The overwhelming majority of minimum wage earners are exactly those who don't need to live off of it. They are teenagers and others on the first step of the employment ladder, or the second wage earner in a traditional household. In short, they are, generally speaking, those just getting their feet wet economically. They're getting job experience; what ought they expect when just starting out?
But that is not the real intent behind the study. One of the people it focused on was a 23 year old unmarried mother of two, trying to support herself and her kids working two jobs which paid between $9.50 and $13 bucks an hour. Another is a single mother of three who makes $7.54 an hour as a telemarketer. Single mothers... is anyone willing to stand up and point out that these are not traditional families?
How did they become single mothers? It doesn't matter, because we will be told that that's none of our business as a society. Yet when these single moms want sympathy, and a liberal organizations such as Wider Opportunities for Women and the Michigan League for Human Services, who created the report using public data, want attention to their views on how the government ought to run the economy, then their lot in life is supposed to be our concern.
To call that effrontery is to understate the point. Yet simple common sense says that if these single moms had waited to have kids until they were in a more stable and traditional home environment, or at least until they had gained the skills themselves to qualify for better jobs, then their current wages wouldn't be such an issue.
This is not to disparage all single moms. Some are in that position through no fault of their own, to be sure. But as to the ones who are in such circumstances as the direct result of free will actions of their own, it is fair to wonder exactly how much society ought to change for their benefit. Simple Christian charity indeed calls on us to help...but more for the sake of the children involved. They are the innocents. Their mothers are all too often merely insisting that they be allowed to act any way they want, then demanding society help hold the bag.
It is a point which should not be lost on the larger society when considering wealth and poverty issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
