A basis for civility

My asking you a question should not be construed to act as a method by which I may judge you. I make a query of you because I am interested. I desire your response because I value your ability to contribute.

If I do not agree with you, that in and of itself is not a rationale to act disagreeably. This observation is to apply equally to all involved parties. That you may hold an opinion contary to what I conceive to be correct, or vice versa, is no call for me to condemn you. I hold that a concept may exist and be expressed without totally defining the individual sharing said concept.

 We can have ideas that are not fully developed.  We may be misled or posess an incomplete understanding.  We may desire something to be true to such an extent we deny evidence to the contrary.  The expression of a concept can be the basis for a disgreement for many reasons.  This need not be a basis for enmity nor hostility.

 I can express a view which may run counter to one you hold dear.  You may connote a doctrine which is the antithesis to that which I sincerely maintain.  Such a lack of accord should not require hostile nor malicious acts.  Rather, such a difference of understanding should provide an opportunity to share a greater understanding of perception.  What are the views of the other that have created a difference in conviction?  Do either of us have knowledge of events or relationships which could provide a greater understanding to the other? That I may not agree with you does not provide a justification for me to afflict you.

Possessing the ablity to impose my will or viewpoint upon another does not require I act in such a matter.  I may work towards the modification of my own or another's conceptual holdings without  the destruction of the individual. 

Living; and death

Recently, my father died.  In the months preceding his demise I was involved in his care.  Based on that involvement I would share some thoughts.

There is no process of dying.  Living is a process.  Death is an event.  To constantly anticipate this event is to degrade the process of living.

There are none among us who will elude death.  That only serves to make living a more precious gift. 

There are conditions which clearly indicate the process of living will cease in the not too distant future.  These existence of these conditions does not call for us to, at such a point, engage in a trial of dying.  Rather, all parties should find it incumbent upon themselves to embrace and cherish all the living which remains.  It is frivolous to deny that death will occur or may even be imminent.  However, as long as life continues we should endeavor to live as completely as our ability and resources allow.  Even following the introduction of hospice care the purpose should be to provide for some quality of life rather than some quality of dying. 

My emphasis in the preceding has been upon the individual whose life may be approaching an end.  I have been intimately acquainted with imminent death in my own existence.  I am fully cognizant of the joys and trials of life in its many and varied forms.  Caregivers, friends, family; your life is not ending with the death of your patient/loved one.  Your life will have changed, it will not have ended.  As long as life continues, there is hope.  Share that hope.  This hopefulness will support you and the one who is approaching the end of their life.  Share the knowledge that life will continue and your patient/loved one will always be a part of that living even when they are no longer present in  it.  Hopelessness and despair serves neither the living nor the late.  Allow them and yourself to cherish all the life each of you has.

We will all experience death but we need not be ruled by it.  While you are alive, live.

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.