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