It's MEAT!!

So, the processing of equine livestock for human consumption may resume.  Or, to be more worthy of newsprint the "slaughter of horses may restart".

Opponents to this reinstatement of commerce have vowed to engage in "massive public outcry" in any town where a slaughterhouse may open.  They even have a voice in Congress.  U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., believes the process is inhumane and is lobbying his colleagues to permanently ban the practice.

I do not think activities practiced upon species other than homo sapiens can be characterized as either humane or inhumane.  I do not endorse cruelty nor the imposition of needless pain in the processing of meat.  However, in the absence of cannibalism, I don't think that processing possesses the necessary qualities to be subject to the reference of Rep. Moran.

The Humane Society of the United States said, "Local opposition will emerge and you'll have tremendous uproar over slaughtering Trigger and Mr. Ed.".  Are they providing me with levity?  "Trigger" and "Mr. Ed" are character names used to identify 2 well trained animals used in the entertainment industry.  They are not 2 individuals participating in human society.  They were 2 animals owned and trained to perform for the pleasure of people and the profit of people.  They were NOT  people.  Anthropomorphism may allow for engaging discussion but it neither lends credence nor validity to such a discussion.

I do not eat Silver, Trigger, Bambi, Gentle Ben, Smoky Bear, Beauregard, Benji, Rin Tin Tin, Flicka, Morris, or Charlie.  I eat meat.  I also eat vegetables, grains, and fruits.  I do not eat these things because I have some grudge against them while they are living.  I eat them because they provide sustenance and I enjoy them as food.  I am aware that many people enjoy a relationship with animals that is mutually gratifying.  At least, that relationship is perceived as such by the human.  I do not resent nor begrudge them this relationship.  However, neither do I recognize an obligation for all people to engage in this behavior.

I am unable to understand the particularly vitriolic response this issue seems to provoke.  Unless there exists a viable market for this resource then butchering Flicka is a moot point.  If such a market does exist then I would assume this would provide an incentive to mange the resource in such a way that it remains a viable source of income.  The absence of the ban on inspectors of horse slaughterhouses will not result in some gratuitous slaughter of all the horses in the U.S. simply because the ban no longer exists.  Neither did the ban on inspectors prevent the processing of horses for human consumption.  The animals were still processed but this took place in Canada and Mexico.  Having been transported from the U.S.

Then there is the plea to maintain the aesthetic of the wild horse in the west.  It is a regal, beautiful symbol of the sacrifice and courage that made the expansion of the United States a dream come true.  Hardly, prior to European colonization there were no horses in the Americas.  They are actually an invasive species which competes with the native species for resources.  What won the west was the decimation of the bison.  This deprived the indigenous people of food, clothing, and shelter.  That, and the policy of the U.S. to relocate or exterminate the native American.

Pets are quaint, but they are actually a relative new social phenomenon.  Ah, what about cats in ancient Egypt, you say.  They were not pets, but were considered to be deities and occupied a place of worship, not companionship nor entertainment.  Animals have a place in human culture.  I actually identify 2 places.  They either work or provide food, maybe both. 

I am more concerned with my fellow humans than a pretty animal.  Have I imprisoned the innocent?  Have I fed the hungry?  Have I visited the sick?  Have I provided a little something for the poor?  Once I have all these under control then I may find the time to be disturbed about whether or not Jacque  had a roasted haunch of Mr. Ed for lunch.

What do YOU think?

I don't love you because...

I don't love you because you're rich.
I don't love you because you're poor.
I don't love you because you're handsome or pretty.
I don't love you because you're ugly.
I don't love you because you're smart.
I don't love you because you're ignorant.
I don't love you because you're brave.
I don't love you because you're craven.
I don't love you because you're happy.
I don't love you because you're sad.

I love you because the Lord created each of us to be loved. 
I love you selfishly, as I love myself.
I love you as the Lord directed me.
I love you because, as He does me, the Lord loves you.

It's just a question

I asked a question.  The particulars of the question are not relevant.  The person whom I asked, rather than responding "I don't know" said "I'm drawing a blank".  What the heck does that mean?  I can picture a blank slate or a blank canvas, these are items which bear no mark.  However, I fail to grasp the concept of drawing a blank.  Once you have drawn on something it can no longer be blank. 

I abhor euphemisms.  I am quite capable of following a subtle line of reasoning but why make effective communication any more difficult than it must be.  We already must deal with different languages, accents, cultural and geographical biases. Why add to this miasma of hindrances to communication?

Also, why do people seem to be so unsettled by direct simple responses to their inquiries?  If you anticipate the answer to your query to be something with which you prefer not to deal or choose not to be aware of then rather than imposing on me some obligation to couch my answer in terms which allow you to avoid truth, just don't ask.

If I ask you a question, the more concisely you can respond the better off we may all be.  My time is valuable, so is yours.  Lets not waste it.  Also, the less meandering and skirting about the issue you engage in, the less room for misunderstanding will exist. 

I am not offended by the truth.  I may not like it, but I am not offended by it.  I cannot respond to something precisely and effectively if I am not allowed to understand it in such a manner.   I do not seek to offend you by speaking directly.  I speak that way because I respect you and assume you are capable of assimilating and processing raw data.  I prefer to be treated in a reciprocal manner. 

My motto is "Strive for clarity of thought and precision of speech".  If I don't understand I will tell you so.  If you don't understand I would anticipate you to act in the same manner.  I do not use my expressed lack of understanding to influence you in some manner to change  what you have expressed.  I am merely seeking clarification.

I am not threatened by views or opinions contrary to those I hold.  Rather, a different perspective allows me to more thoroughly inspect my own opinions.  With a greater mindfulness of the components which constitute the entirety of existence I am more able to hold my own views with greater resolve, modify my views, or even discard those I have held but determined to be false. 

What do YOU think?

I have no friends...

I have no gay friends.
I have no friends of color.
I have no smart nor dumb friends.
I have no rich or poor friends.
I just have friends.

My friends have no common look.
They share no social status.
Their political views are diverse.
My friends may or may not share a friendship.
They may not even be aware of the others existence.

Although my friends enrich me, they do not provide me with riches.
Some of my friends are needy, but they do not demand my treasure.
I am obliged to my friends, but not obligated by them

My love for them is unconditional.
Of them no gain or loss is counted.

They are and I am.
No other test need be met.

THE Golden rule (or the ethic of reciprocity)

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  This is a concept with which we are all acquainted.  By all, I do not mean solely Americans of european derivation.  This idea is expressed in different forms throughout the world.  It is not exclusively a biblical product, although you can find it in Luke 6:31. 

The Golden rule is proclaimed in many of the world's holy texts and commentaries.

Islam:  Number 13 of Imam Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths says "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."

Judaism: 

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.  "And what you hate, do not do to anyone." Tobit 4:15 Confucianism:  "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23 Buddhism:  "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18 Obviously the concept of the Golden rule has been spread throughout the world over millenium.  Why does it seem to be practiced on such a limited scale?  I have conducted no surveys which I would submit to a peer reviewed journal but I have observed many interactions in my lifetime.  Based on these I offer some thoughts. There appear to be some derivatives that are very common.  Do unto others before they do unto you. He who has the gold makes the rules. Each of these strikes me as rather contrary to the spirit of The Golden rule.  The Golden rule neither expressly nor by implication encourages us to treat others as they treat us.  Rather, it encourages us to treat them as we would wish to be treated.  I cannot understand this to mean when I am mistreated I should respond in kind.  Rather, I should engage others with the civility and hospitality I desire.  Whether or not we are aware of the scrutiny under which we act our conduct influences that of others.  Some may emulate us and others may be offended but all our actions have some influence.  We choose to establish the environment in which we live.  I can disagree without being disagreeable.  It is possible to condemn the act without condemning the actor.  Justice and vengeance are not synonyms.  Refusing to employ violence, to act with hate, to debase my fellows, does not require that I endorse reprehensible behavior.  The Golden rule calls for me to act with patience.  I must exercise love in all my behavior.  I must demonstrate a genuine concern for the well-being of my fellow.  I must not be consumed by self interest.  I would hold there is only one human race.  Hence, serving the interest of all the members is in my best interest. I want to be fed.  I want to be clothed.  I want to be sheltered.  I want to be secure in my person and possessions.  I want access to quality health care.  I want access to knowledge and education.  Anything that I want for myself is that which I desire for my fellow.

21st century customer service

The thing I like about websites is the lack of human interaction.  I succeed or fail based on my own ability.  I do not suffer great pangs of regret when I am unable to navigate a site successfully.  I do not assume the site is poorly designed but recognize the most common cause of an undesired result is operator error.  I can live with that.

However, when I find it necessary to actually transact with an employee I do not assume I am at fault when a transacton fails.  When there are 2 people involved the most common cause of an undesired result is still human failure, but at this point I am not the only human involved and therefore am able to entertain the possiblity that I am not the sole source of failure.

On the WalMart website it is clear that although not all their stores deal in firearms there are a limited number which do.  I was unable to determine the location of the WalMart closest to my location which would provide this option.  Hardly a tragedy since I had no pressing need to make a firearm purchase but I do have an interest.

Finding myself in the Cedar Hill, TX Walmart on Saturday, 9-17-11, at about 3:10pm it struck me as a fine opportunity to have my query answered.  It made sense since I would be able to ask someone in the sporting goods section and have a good chance of being provided an answer.  Having asked the clerk where the closest WalMart which sold firearms was located I was advised she didn't know.  Fair enough, nobody knows everything.  But, I thought I would make an addition inquiry, can you find out?  Imagine my chagrin when I was informed she did not have the phone numbers for the other WalMarts.  I hadn't asked about the phone numbers, but assumed this was her way of answering me in the negative.  I can handle that, thanks, bye.

Not to be so easily dissuaded, while my lovely, young bride was checking out I moseyed on over to the customed service counter.  I knew I could get an answer there.  Waiting patiently in line it was shortly my turn.  Howdy, I said to the young lady eagerly waiting to assist me and a fine greeting she returned.  Could you tell me where the closest WalMart is that sells firearms?  WalMart doesn't sell guns is her prompt, assured response.  Calmy and politely I let her know that information is contrary to what is on their website and informed her although not all WalMarts offer this service there are a limited number which do and I would like to know the location of the closest one.  She generously takes the time to ask a coworker and that coworker makes the effort to call on her in-store communication device.  Then I am informed the product which I desire is only available at rural locations.  Thank you, I replied.  However, I continued that does not answer my question.  Might one be made cognizant of that rural location which is closest to where we are having this conversation?  Once more the coworker made her call, although possibly not as enthusiastically as the first time.  This time she told me the closest one was 2 hours away.  Now I was looking for something a little more specific than 2 hours.  An address would have been nice.  If an address was not available, then the name of some municipal entity would have been quite satisfactory.  But, for some reason I couldn't even be advised 2 hours in a particular direction, still, this was progress.  Assuming the WalMart I was seeking was in Texas, the search area I must deal with had shrunk from 2,268,580 square miles to a mere 31, 416 square miles.  This is based on 2 miles at 50 miles an hour.  That would put me 100 miles distant, the radius, which squared is 10,000, times pi, in  this case to only 4 decimal places.  You cannot fail to appreciate how pleased I was when the first employee I spoke to was generous enough to tell me, It's in east Texas.  What joy, I now could leisurely search through only 15,708 square miles assuming I eliminated all westward options.

At this point, I thanked them for their assistance and left. 

Now, this part is for WalMart officers.  I can be treated with disdain in much higher end retail establishments than your stores.  Formerly, a disgruntled customer may raise their voice, possibly even use foul language and storm out.  They may even voice their displeasure with a few of their acquaintances.  This being the 21st century that is not very effective.  I left WalMart at approximately 3:40pm.  By 4:00pm I had shared my displeasure on facebook and emailed WalMart with my original question.  Now, I have the ablity to share the details via blog and twitter and have chosen to do so.

If you are reading this please feel free to link it to any other venue you would like.

Be your own Advocate

I do not want to be represented by a union. 

Do not misconstrue my resistance to union representation to be, in any way,disdain of my fellow employees who may wish to be represented by a union.  During the past few months those who desire union representation have been active in the workplace presenting the CWA (Communications Workers of America) position.  I respect their right to do so, but at this time I would like to share another point of view.

I recognize the historical contributions of organized labor and appreciate the efforts and sacrifices of those trail blazers of the social movement which produced the 40 hour work week, paid vacations, and pensions.

However, I am also cognizant of the differences which exist in the market systems of the late 19th, early 20th century, and the 21st century.  As opposed to an agrarian, rural, manufacturing based economy, I live in a consumer driven, urban, service based economy.  This economy requires much greater levels of employment, and consequently more enticements to employees, to maintain a level of consumption which will sustain the economic model in which we currently reside.

I do not work in a sweat shop with heavy machinery and the constant threat of severe bodily injury or even death.  I do not farm and risk exposure to toxic chemicals and use dangerous equipment.  I work in a climate controlled environment with modern technology.  I receive a reasonable wage for reasonable effort.  I am provided with training and tools to accomplish my assigned tasks.  In addition to exchanging my time and labor for financial compensation I am also afforded many additional benefits.  I have worked in an environment of cooperation and mutual reward.  I do not desire to enter into a relationship based on the interaction of adversaries.

I have always represented myself in dealing with AA management.  The members of management with whom I have had personal dealings have ranged from immediate supervisor to corporate vice-president.  I have always been treated profesionally and personably.  I have not always achieved the results I desired but neither have I been denied just and appropriate resolutions.

If I am no longer allowed to represent myself I can see three options.  I would be represented by someone of greater, equal, or lesser abilities.  2 of the 3 options obviously present no advantage to me.  However, I would be paying for this third party to function on my behalf regardless of the results.  There can be no more dedicated advocate for you than yourself.

Currently I receive several benefits which I very much appreciate as they exist and are applied.  As noted above, when my existing benefits are negotiated, in only one of three cases will I benefit from the service for which I will be paying a union.  Also, although my work group is not currently organized, I have benefited from the large union presence in other AA work groups.  Granted, this view may be rather Machiavellian, but since I already receive the benefits for free I am hard pressed to discern the benefit in paying for something I receive for free.

I am only 1 member of the work group being discussed.  I respect the right of each individual in this group to express their opinion by virtue of casting a ballot.  I accept the validity of majority rule.  However, in the event of a vote, I would like to share this with those who will or may vote no.

Previously a non vote for a union was effectively a vote of no.  In the past, for a group to be organized there was a 50% plus 1 vote of yes required based on the total mebership of the group voting.  Now, to organize, the yes vote required is 50% plus 1 only of those who vote regardless of whether the number of voters could be considered significant.  So, if only 500 vote from a group consisting of 5000 members, then 251 people can determine the fate of all the individuals in the work group. 
Example A-previous rules
Work group size-5,000
Yes votes-500, No votes-100, Non votes-4400 = No Union

Example B-current rules
Yes votes-501, No votes-499, Non votes-4000 = Union

As you can see the vote of no is absolutely essential if you desire to remain an independent body.  In the past a non vote was effectively the same as a vote of no and that is no longer the case.  If you want your opinion to count, your voice to be heard, you MUST vote.  Whether you vote no or vote yes do not allow apathy to determine your fate.

I will vote no should the opportunity arise and I invite you to vote with me.

Sequere me.                                              MAWesley

Pay Attention

When I sing in church I think the words deserve attention.  I don't pay attention merely to achieve proper pronunciation but to discern what I am declaring.  Being a Methodist I even have instructions for singing.  For those who may not be familiar with Methodism, it was founded by John Wesley and he gave the following instructions; Sing all; Sing lustily, and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but, Sing modestly. Do not bawl, as to be heard above, or distinct from, the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony; but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound; Sing in time; and Above all, sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing Him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this, attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve of here, and reward when he cometh in the clouds of heaven.

I sang a new hymn today, a hymn being a song or ode in praise or honor of God, a deity, a nation, etc. The title was "Our God". 
The chorus is:
Our God is greater, our God is stronger
God You are higher than any other
Our God is Healer, awesome in power
Our God, Our God…
The bridge is:
And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
What can stand against?
Thinking about these lyrics I was struck by the possessiveness of the words.  Our God is greater, Our God is stronger, as if I am in possession of the Almighty.  These words seem to say I own something and therefore am in some manner superior to others who don't possess this deity. 

I would never presume to establish nor even declare to exist a condition wherein I possess God.  If anything, I pray that my speech and actions will declare me humbly satisfied to be claimed by Him, through Jesus, in grace.  He has provided me with the means to redemption but I find no justification for a proclamation of superiority.  Rather, a call to share that which has so graciously, and at great expense, been provided for me. 

And Our God is stronger and greater than what, your God?  I would hold there is only 1 God and subsequently there would exist no relationship of stronger or greater. 

God is for us and with us?  If anything, I hope I am for and with God.  How many teams have both armies claimed that God is with them?  Who could ever stop us?  What is the concern being expressed here?  Nothing can stop God.  Exclusively it is us who reject the blessing and bounty which the Lord has desired to provide to us.  Who can stand against?  We are not defeated by opposing force but by fear and ignorance.  I think G. K. Chesterton had a point when he said "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried". 

We do not need to be worried about who has the best God, nor who is against us, nor what is going to stop us.  Let us be concerned about how we will be the best we can be for God, how we will be for Him, and what we will do to discern and act to execute His will.  The song I sang tonight certainly gave me pause, and in that, provided for my spiritual growth but I don't really think is serves as a hymn.

As an aside, my favorite hymn is "It is well with my soul", penned by Horation G. Spafford in 1873.  I would reccomend you read the lyrics and make known to yourself the circumstances which spurred him to write this song.

Please feel free to peruse previous posts and do not hesitate to leave your thoughts.  Thanks for reading and God Bless You.

A few words

Depending on what version of the bible you peruse, Jesus is quoted as speaking about 2000 words.  The average person speaks several times that many words every day.  Jesus' ministry lasted for about three years, so I know he had more to say than what we have, but we do have about 2000 words and they are important.

However, the issue I wish to discuss, is that since there are only 2000 words can His message really be that difficult to ascertain? 

Give it a few minutes thought.  What did He say?  OK, we got a couple of really important commandments, Love the Lord and Love your neighbor.  If you are a Christian, Jew, or Muslim you know who the Lord is.  If you are not a member of the aforementioned parties, then the Christians have been tasked with informing you.  That task is one of the thins Jesus is quoted as saying(Mk 16:15).  Jesus told us how to identify our neighbors with the parable of the Samaritan(Luke 10:30-37).  He told us to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, visit the sick and imprisoned, be generous and hospitable to the stranger (Mat 25:34-36).  He said to love your enemies(Mat 5:43-48).

Now, the preceding is not meant to be read as comprehensive.  However, it does give you the gist of His message.

Jesus chastised His disciples in not understanding His message(Mk 8:21).  I cut them some slack because they only had 3 years with Him.  We've had access to this message for the past 2000 years in addition to the works and words of His disciples and we still act like we don't understand. 

I don't think Jesus provided the message of the Lord to allow us justify our own actions in His name.  Rather, He provided this message to enable us to live completely.

I can't find citations in the bible which instruct me to condemn those with whom I disagree nor even those who do me harm.  I have read that I am to turn the other cheek.  I have read that I am  not to judge nor to condemn.  In fact, I am called to forgive(Luke 6:37).

We have spent 2000 years rationalizing how the message Jesus gave us allows us to act in manners which do not accord with His message.  I find it hard to believe we can't grasp a concept which is wholly expressed in 2000 words. 

We are not called to visit our will on others through coercion, economic might, nor force of arms.  We are called to do justice, not to impose justice.  We are not called to exploit the weak, poor, and unlearned.  We are called to care for them and provide for them as we can and as they may require without stripping them of their dignity nor imposing obligation.  The stranger among us, citizen or alien, is not an usurper of resources, but rather a precious brother or sister to be cherished and honored as we are able.

The crusade of Jesus is composed not of steel and shell but word and deed.  There is no concept of Mutually Assured Destruction but Mutually Assured Redemption. 

I hold His truth to be self-evident.  It is a simple message.  I do not argue that simple is the same as easy.  Neither do I think we should try to make it so complicated.

Majority Rules

     In the Greatest country in the world, the United States of America, the majority rules.  Every citizen has a voice, and every vote counts.
    These are very widely held assumptions and popular beliefs in the United States.  However, they are extremely misleading.   Although  very quaint sentiments it can only be the misguided or deluded who would hold these concepts to accuratley and honestly reflect life in the U.S.
     The majority rules.  How can the majority rule if the majority either does not or cannot participate.

musing

I cannot speak to the relationship the "Rev" Terry Jones has with Christ.  He has chosen to desecrate the holy text of a substantial portion of the world.  I have searched but not located anything he has said or written as to the purpose of this act.  I assume he meant this to be an act of condemnation of Islam. 

I can speak to the relationship of Christ to the world.   According to John 3:17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Condemning others for what they are is a rather ineffective means of  effecting any desired change .  Rather, in my opinion, it would seem to be more effective to share an image of what one can be and achieve, and the benefits of a spiritual Christian life.  This does not seen to be the tack Rev. Jones has chosen. 

He is to be commended for providing credence to the argument that The United States is waging war, not against terrorism, but against Islam.  I would not argue that his action caused the attacks upon the United Nations personnel.  I do not think you can deny that it served as a justification by the instigators and coordinators of these attacks.

I abhor the actons of both Terry Jones and the killers in Afghanistan.  Jones does not represent Christianity any more than the killers represent Islam.  Christian, Muslim, or Jew we are all children of Abraham.  However dysfunctional, we are a family of the One true God.

A Day of Peace

I just became aware of a social movement calling fro March 4 2011 to be a day of peace. 

This calls for all people to avoid the harsh word.  For each of us to at least look past what we consider to be others shortcomings, if not to actually embrace them in spite of their differences.  We can spend an entire day being kind to each other. 

Do you think we could stand the shock to our systems? 

I don't think Peace on a personal level is sufficient, but it is a start.  Just imagne how little news coverage there would be if we could, just for 1 day, put down the guns, leave the bombs in their bunkers, and let the bullets rest.

Look it up, give it a shot.  We gotta start somewhere.