SOCIAL STUDIES - March 24th 2008
For at least the last 10,000 years people have celebrated this weekend; the first full moon following the Vernal Equinox --- or as we like to call it, Spring. When Christians chose to make this an important religious festival about Jesus; they actually just tacked that on to an existing and ancient celebration. No matter who you are, what you do, and how you do it; if you live in a Nordic country covered with ice for as long as we have had it --- you celebrate Spring!
Some people have today as a holiday, and everyone was supposed to have Friday; so I thought it might be interesting to examine labour laws and productivity.
Canada has 10 nationally recognized statutory holidays. Each province has one or two more, except Newfoundland which adds another seven. Most workplaces also provide vacation time to their employees; but it does not amount to that much on the global scale.
Mercer Consulting, an International Labour Organization, compared the amount of paid leave that is mandated by country; we are 11th on the list, with Hong Kong, Australia, most European countries, Greece, Sweden and Finland ahead of us. Finland has the best ratio with a minimum of 30 days paid vacation and 14 paid holidays. Out of curiosity, the lowest spot on the list goes to the United States; which also has no nationally enforced paid maternity leave.
CNN points out in their own study that Americans are unlikely to use all of their time off whereas in the European Union employees do not have a choice, and are encouraged to take their vacation in two week chunks.
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development charts economic, population, and even happiness trends worldwide. It finds that the countries with the highest labour output as measured by percentage of Gross Domestic Product per hour worked are also the countries with the most time off. With the exception of the U.S., who still manage great productivity --- perhaps because companies do provide vacation even though they are not so mandated? In plainer language: more time off means happier workers means more quality work done.
Not surprisingly these same countries rank in the top 10 most liveable countries according to the United Nations. The Economist Magazine concurs with their own survey of countries based on a huge number of factors and again, those of us who have more vacation have better lives.
On an individual level there are many companies that are jumping on the bandwagon of creating a less stressful environment for their employees and therefore increasing productivity and quality. Intel, for example, has declared Fridays to be e-mail free. According to Fortune magazine, of the top 100 companies to work for in the States, 82 of them allow for flex time, compressed work weeks, and other more creative ways to get your work done. The federation for European Employers has researched the history of time off; in 1831 In England the government passed the Factories Act which limited the daily hours of work to 12. In 1843 it became 10. In 1868 U.S. Congress created the eight-hour working day.
It was not until 1911 that the Swiss actually started regulating holidays. Over the next 30 years most countries adopted legislation limiting the standard work week to 40 hours. It wasn't until 1970, however, that the International Labour Organization first regulated paid holidays.
In the US it is estimated that there are 550 million working days lost due to stress and illness; and seven million worldwide. Statistics Canada puts our total at somewhere in the 700,000 range. Our Department of Health takes this further by documenting stress in our lives alongside chronic illness.
The average amount of major stressors that a Canadian has to deal with is five. These include things like not having enough money, workplace stress, and marital tension. Some people have as many as 10 stressors at any given time.
They go on to document in Health Reports that this level of stress directly causes a number of diseases: arthritis and rheumatism, back problems, chronic bronchitis or emphysema, and stomach or intestinal ulcers. For men, they also included heart disease, and for women, asthma and migraine. Women, by the way, suffer from far more stress due to heightened expectations around family, workplace, and self care.
As you can imagine, some of this is simply beyond our control. One of those major stressors is money, which we all need, in abundance, to survive in our economy. That means that we need a source of income, and we should not pretend that anywhere near a majority of us find employment in our dream job.
But this could all be changing. With so many companies looking at new ways of doing things, of attracting workers, and of ensuring productivity --- there is a chance that we will take this data seriously. Whether you work in labour, management, or as a professional; the chances are that if you were more rested and fulfilled you would accomplish your work faster and more proficiently.
There are also steps each of us can take to reduce stress, workplace or otherwise. Set realistic goals and priorities, use good time-management techniques, take short breaks after a particularly stressful event, rehearse and prepare, don't procrastinate, know your limits, change your attitudes, learn to say "no", treat your body right, use positive self-talk, take responsibility, and most importantly, maintain a sense of humour.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Canada Has a History of Acting in a Just Way
Social Studies - March 17, 2008
Barack Obama might just end the war in Iraq. I would argue that this is about the only thing the United States could do now to actually make the world a safer place.
"The War on Terror" is a strange beast. It has been a thorn in the side of not only the government to the South of us, but also every western democracy who has been asked to participate.
A very real question to ask is whether or not it is in fact a war.
War is defined as actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor does a feud on the order of the Hatfield's versus the McCoy's.
War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which are valid political governments.
Now, "terror" means a state of profound fear; and "terrorism" simply means the symptomatic use of terror to get your own way.
Neither one of these definitions would lead, even remotely, to an actual definition of a valid political community, let alone to an organization like al Qaeda whose main objective, ironically, is to end foreign influence in Muslim countries.
There is a course offered at the University of Michigan on the "War on Terrorism" which explores the traditions and rationale behind the actions now governing this conflict.
That course suggests that the actual goal of the so called war is "regime change in Iraq."
Which changes the entire way we think about this -- it is not a war to fight terrorism, which would in fact be impossible; it is an invasion of another country for the purpose of economics. Wars are, after all, always fought with someone you intend to trade with after the war is over; otherwise there is no reason for the war. Almost every conflict has been fought to ensure the economic prosperity of the countries involved. That is why the Union States fought the Confederates; Germany invaded Poland; China invaded Taiwan; North Korea invaded the South; and the United States invaded Iraq.
But what about our troops in Afghanistan? I think we could validly argue that we are not in this for any sort of cash grab? Our troops have been in Afghanistan, on and off, since 1988 as part of the United Nations Peacekeeping force (UNGOMAP) charged with changing over the government from Soviet to local control.
When the United Nations sends peacekeeping troops it is doing so with a policy of non-interference; that is to say, the local government makes the decisions, and the foreign military advisors, and troops, try to ensure a safe and where possible, peaceful process.
There is supposed to be nothing to gain and everything to lose; and the reason for our being there is quite clear -- we want the best possible outcome for the people of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is in the midst of a historic transition. Its progress to date has been guided by a 2001 treaty, the Bonn Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan, which transferred power to the Afghan Interim Authority chaired by Hamid Karzai, defined the implementation role of the United Nations and set out a roadmap towards a permanent government.
Now, when all of this September 11 fall-out began, Afghanistan was already the largest recipient of Canadian military and economic aid.
This has always been carried out under the "3D" umbrella; a catchall phrase which includes Defence, Development and Diplomacy.
Many experts, from our own General Hillier, to Professor William Maley of Australian National University, have pointed out that self-government has not existed in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion of 1979; and so despite the work done by the United Nations and the current international Provincial Reconstruction Teams, there is a long way to go.
I mention all of this as preamble to my actual point: I do not believe the battle with terrorism is just, or winnable, or for that matter, an actual war.
I do, however, believe the work in Afghanistan to be just, achievable, and valid.
Back in the 1200s there was a religious scholar named Thomas Aquinas. Remember, in those days, the church was the state, and so the only politicians were also priests.
He developed the Just War Theory that is still in use to this day.
It states that for a war to be just it must meet a simple set of criteria: Just cause, proper authority, right intention, probability of success and proportionality.
Just on the last point alone consider this: the Wall Street Journal published an estimate this time last year that a minimum of 30,000 and a possibility of 600,000 civilians have been killed as a direct result of American action following the deaths of some 3,000 people in the World Trade Towers.
That is far from a proportional response.
I have always blamed the current administration in the United States for the out of whack response to one terrorist act; and am so disappointed that Senator McCain, and Hillary Clinton, might actually continue the conflict if they win.
On the other hand, I do feel that developed nations have a responsibility to the world; given that our great wealth has come largely from a system which keeps others under-developed for our own gain.
I come to this realization from the point of view of simple ethics: that when one sees another person getting hurt, they have a responsibility to intervene; that when you can make a difference you should; and that everyone, everywhere, should have equality of opportunity and circumstance.
Sometimes I fear we mistake helping people be more like us for doing the right thing.
At other times we simply put ourselves first and try to make other people subservient to our desires.
Canada has a history of doing the right thing; let's hope we continue to live in a just way as we deal with the world.
Barack Obama might just end the war in Iraq. I would argue that this is about the only thing the United States could do now to actually make the world a safer place.
"The War on Terror" is a strange beast. It has been a thorn in the side of not only the government to the South of us, but also every western democracy who has been asked to participate.
A very real question to ask is whether or not it is in fact a war.
War is defined as actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor does a feud on the order of the Hatfield's versus the McCoy's.
War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which are valid political governments.
Now, "terror" means a state of profound fear; and "terrorism" simply means the symptomatic use of terror to get your own way.
Neither one of these definitions would lead, even remotely, to an actual definition of a valid political community, let alone to an organization like al Qaeda whose main objective, ironically, is to end foreign influence in Muslim countries.
There is a course offered at the University of Michigan on the "War on Terrorism" which explores the traditions and rationale behind the actions now governing this conflict.
That course suggests that the actual goal of the so called war is "regime change in Iraq."
Which changes the entire way we think about this -- it is not a war to fight terrorism, which would in fact be impossible; it is an invasion of another country for the purpose of economics. Wars are, after all, always fought with someone you intend to trade with after the war is over; otherwise there is no reason for the war. Almost every conflict has been fought to ensure the economic prosperity of the countries involved. That is why the Union States fought the Confederates; Germany invaded Poland; China invaded Taiwan; North Korea invaded the South; and the United States invaded Iraq.
But what about our troops in Afghanistan? I think we could validly argue that we are not in this for any sort of cash grab? Our troops have been in Afghanistan, on and off, since 1988 as part of the United Nations Peacekeeping force (UNGOMAP) charged with changing over the government from Soviet to local control.
When the United Nations sends peacekeeping troops it is doing so with a policy of non-interference; that is to say, the local government makes the decisions, and the foreign military advisors, and troops, try to ensure a safe and where possible, peaceful process.
There is supposed to be nothing to gain and everything to lose; and the reason for our being there is quite clear -- we want the best possible outcome for the people of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is in the midst of a historic transition. Its progress to date has been guided by a 2001 treaty, the Bonn Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan, which transferred power to the Afghan Interim Authority chaired by Hamid Karzai, defined the implementation role of the United Nations and set out a roadmap towards a permanent government.
Now, when all of this September 11 fall-out began, Afghanistan was already the largest recipient of Canadian military and economic aid.
This has always been carried out under the "3D" umbrella; a catchall phrase which includes Defence, Development and Diplomacy.
Many experts, from our own General Hillier, to Professor William Maley of Australian National University, have pointed out that self-government has not existed in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion of 1979; and so despite the work done by the United Nations and the current international Provincial Reconstruction Teams, there is a long way to go.
I mention all of this as preamble to my actual point: I do not believe the battle with terrorism is just, or winnable, or for that matter, an actual war.
I do, however, believe the work in Afghanistan to be just, achievable, and valid.
Back in the 1200s there was a religious scholar named Thomas Aquinas. Remember, in those days, the church was the state, and so the only politicians were also priests.
He developed the Just War Theory that is still in use to this day.
It states that for a war to be just it must meet a simple set of criteria: Just cause, proper authority, right intention, probability of success and proportionality.
Just on the last point alone consider this: the Wall Street Journal published an estimate this time last year that a minimum of 30,000 and a possibility of 600,000 civilians have been killed as a direct result of American action following the deaths of some 3,000 people in the World Trade Towers.
That is far from a proportional response.
I have always blamed the current administration in the United States for the out of whack response to one terrorist act; and am so disappointed that Senator McCain, and Hillary Clinton, might actually continue the conflict if they win.
On the other hand, I do feel that developed nations have a responsibility to the world; given that our great wealth has come largely from a system which keeps others under-developed for our own gain.
I come to this realization from the point of view of simple ethics: that when one sees another person getting hurt, they have a responsibility to intervene; that when you can make a difference you should; and that everyone, everywhere, should have equality of opportunity and circumstance.
Sometimes I fear we mistake helping people be more like us for doing the right thing.
At other times we simply put ourselves first and try to make other people subservient to our desires.
Canada has a history of doing the right thing; let's hope we continue to live in a just way as we deal with the world.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Thinking about that Canadian Coffee Contest
SOCIAL STUDIES - March 10th 2008
Okay, so I would like to think that I tackle the big issues of society in these pages. Life the Universe and Everything is, after all, a pretty daunting subject; but during a bout of our never-ending freezing rain I was sitting in the newly renovated Tim Horton's in Riverview with a friend and, laughingly, we came up with the column.
To be fair, it was his idea, so I owe him a coffee. And although at first this might seem like fluff, the more I edit, the less I am sure.
. . . Have you won anything at Tim Horton's yet?
If you work the math backwards on a Tim Horton's "Roll up the Rim" cup you find some pretty interesting facts.
First off, there are a little over 31 million prizes to be won; and there are a little more than 31 million Canadians. Is this a coincidence or a clever bit of social engineering?
In a sort of roundabout way the coffee chain is suggesting that each and every Canadian is going to win a prize.
One might be tempted to think of it as merely coincidence unless you look at the other side of the coin - each of us has a one in nine chance of winning; it says so in the fine print; but what grabs us first is the sheer number of prizes compared to the population - not the inconceivable odds of getting something good.
For that matter, why did they not choose one out of every 10?
Probably for the same reason that Wal-Mart sells everything for $19.99, or that P.T. Barnum was such a success; "There is a sucker born every minute" as he used to say. We walk into the any department store and say to ourselves, well, at least it's not $20 dollars, and we buy it; forgetting that now we will have to do something with the penny that weighs our coat pocket down.
When it comes to a contest, the smaller the odds, the better we like it, and so we are compelled to play because at least this is better than one out of every 10.
Let's look at this a little closer: There are actually some 32 million people living in Canada, so a whole million of them are just plain out of luck; but at the same time, a one in nine chance to win one of 31 million prizes means that there are about 279 million cups out there.
From previous experience I know that they begin to run out of cups before the contest is over, so we can conclude that over the next month or so this company alone is going to sell 279 million coffees at a rough average of a dollar and a half per cup, or $418 million.
Just as an aside, the average worker in Guatemala gets about 50 cents per pound of coffee, which is then made into about 100 cups on average and sold for $150; it is almost as lucrative as popcorn.
(as a corrective - I was informed by the coffee industry that my estimate was a little "weak". Tim Horton's uses way more coffee per cup in order to ensure quality, and so only brings in about $39 per pound. Also, it is the farmer who receives .50 per pound, there is a whole supply/prep/roast chain of people in between... my apologies for the mistakes)
So we have all these cups of coffee out there; probably in fact, way more than are sold at any other time during the year. Which should tell us two things: first, this is not a contest, it is an advertising campaign; they will, if everyone does win, pay out $35 million in prizes while bringing in $385 million in sales; and we would do well to remember that. Secondly, since there are about 19 per cent of us who are too young to drink coffee, we have to drink an additional six million cups as adults. So each and every Canadian who falls into the age of majority must buy and consume over 10 cups of coffee each in order for all of us to win a prize. Some people don't drink coffee, so I will drink theirs and increase my odds.
It should also be pointed out that this innocuous little business is catering to something more than desire; it is just possible that what we are dealing with, after multiple millions of caffeinated beverages, is addiction.
Chris Gahan at "The Humour Bin" developed a simple quiz to determine if you might be ADD (or suffering from Alertness Deficit Disorder) He points out that if you do have this disease missing just one trip to Tim Horton's could be fatal.
There are quite a few questions in the quiz, but here are the top 10: 1. Do you use coffee to escape from your problems?
2. Do you eat spoonfuls of instant coffee because it's easier?
3. Have you ever woken up in a puddle of your own coffee?
4. Do you find that it's easier to drink more coffee than go to sleep?
5. a) Have you ever drunk cold coffee?
b) Right out of the pot?
6. Do you spend more than 20 per cent of your income on coffee and/or coffee related products?
7. Do you need coffee: a) to get up in the morning?
b) to get out of bed?
c) to be injected intravenously to stimulate blood-flow?
8. Does the phrase "Swiss water decaffeinated" strike terror into your heart?
9. Do you have a coffee maker in more than one room of your house?
a)in more than five?
10. Do you salivate uncontrollably whenever you hear dripping water?
The truth is, people just do not understand the mystical nature of coffee. It can bring clarity, peace, and understanding into the world.
I know I feel a lot better after 10 cups. The funny thing is, I still haven't won anything.
Another friend of mine has a bumper sticker, and since I am borrowing ideas left and right from friends I will share it with you: "Lottery: A tax on people who can't do math." Still, it is good coffee.
Okay, so I would like to think that I tackle the big issues of society in these pages. Life the Universe and Everything is, after all, a pretty daunting subject; but during a bout of our never-ending freezing rain I was sitting in the newly renovated Tim Horton's in Riverview with a friend and, laughingly, we came up with the column.
To be fair, it was his idea, so I owe him a coffee. And although at first this might seem like fluff, the more I edit, the less I am sure.
. . . Have you won anything at Tim Horton's yet?
If you work the math backwards on a Tim Horton's "Roll up the Rim" cup you find some pretty interesting facts.
First off, there are a little over 31 million prizes to be won; and there are a little more than 31 million Canadians. Is this a coincidence or a clever bit of social engineering?
In a sort of roundabout way the coffee chain is suggesting that each and every Canadian is going to win a prize.
One might be tempted to think of it as merely coincidence unless you look at the other side of the coin - each of us has a one in nine chance of winning; it says so in the fine print; but what grabs us first is the sheer number of prizes compared to the population - not the inconceivable odds of getting something good.
For that matter, why did they not choose one out of every 10?
Probably for the same reason that Wal-Mart sells everything for $19.99, or that P.T. Barnum was such a success; "There is a sucker born every minute" as he used to say. We walk into the any department store and say to ourselves, well, at least it's not $20 dollars, and we buy it; forgetting that now we will have to do something with the penny that weighs our coat pocket down.
When it comes to a contest, the smaller the odds, the better we like it, and so we are compelled to play because at least this is better than one out of every 10.
Let's look at this a little closer: There are actually some 32 million people living in Canada, so a whole million of them are just plain out of luck; but at the same time, a one in nine chance to win one of 31 million prizes means that there are about 279 million cups out there.
From previous experience I know that they begin to run out of cups before the contest is over, so we can conclude that over the next month or so this company alone is going to sell 279 million coffees at a rough average of a dollar and a half per cup, or $418 million.
Just as an aside, the average worker in Guatemala gets about 50 cents per pound of coffee, which is then made into about 100 cups on average and sold for $150; it is almost as lucrative as popcorn.
(as a corrective - I was informed by the coffee industry that my estimate was a little "weak". Tim Horton's uses way more coffee per cup in order to ensure quality, and so only brings in about $39 per pound. Also, it is the farmer who receives .50 per pound, there is a whole supply/prep/roast chain of people in between... my apologies for the mistakes)
So we have all these cups of coffee out there; probably in fact, way more than are sold at any other time during the year. Which should tell us two things: first, this is not a contest, it is an advertising campaign; they will, if everyone does win, pay out $35 million in prizes while bringing in $385 million in sales; and we would do well to remember that. Secondly, since there are about 19 per cent of us who are too young to drink coffee, we have to drink an additional six million cups as adults. So each and every Canadian who falls into the age of majority must buy and consume over 10 cups of coffee each in order for all of us to win a prize. Some people don't drink coffee, so I will drink theirs and increase my odds.
It should also be pointed out that this innocuous little business is catering to something more than desire; it is just possible that what we are dealing with, after multiple millions of caffeinated beverages, is addiction.
Chris Gahan at "The Humour Bin" developed a simple quiz to determine if you might be ADD (or suffering from Alertness Deficit Disorder) He points out that if you do have this disease missing just one trip to Tim Horton's could be fatal.
There are quite a few questions in the quiz, but here are the top 10: 1. Do you use coffee to escape from your problems?
2. Do you eat spoonfuls of instant coffee because it's easier?
3. Have you ever woken up in a puddle of your own coffee?
4. Do you find that it's easier to drink more coffee than go to sleep?
5. a) Have you ever drunk cold coffee?
b) Right out of the pot?
6. Do you spend more than 20 per cent of your income on coffee and/or coffee related products?
7. Do you need coffee: a) to get up in the morning?
b) to get out of bed?
c) to be injected intravenously to stimulate blood-flow?
8. Does the phrase "Swiss water decaffeinated" strike terror into your heart?
9. Do you have a coffee maker in more than one room of your house?
a)in more than five?
10. Do you salivate uncontrollably whenever you hear dripping water?
The truth is, people just do not understand the mystical nature of coffee. It can bring clarity, peace, and understanding into the world.
I know I feel a lot better after 10 cups. The funny thing is, I still haven't won anything.
Another friend of mine has a bumper sticker, and since I am borrowing ideas left and right from friends I will share it with you: "Lottery: A tax on people who can't do math." Still, it is good coffee.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
What is it with our Drivers and their Cars?
SOCIAL STUDIES - March 2, 2008
What is it with this town and cars?
When I drive along the Salisbury Road and into town on Main Street I pass at least three Hummers. In the YMCA parking lot I see 20-year-olds getting out of their Lexus RX Sports Utility vehicles. You regularly see people driving cars by Audi, BMW, Cadillac; even the regular car lines seem to sell proportionately higher "high end" vehicles around here.
Perhaps it is just jealousy. When I was 20 I seem to remember that my gross earnings topped the $12,000 mark and afforded me a much better apartment in the McGill Ghetto area, and a subway pass. Of course, I borrowed most of that. It never occurred to me, even now that I am pushing the halfway point of life, that I could afford a luxury vehicle yet.
Don't get me wrong, I was brought up in the Maritimes. I was trained to think that a Crown Victoria was a nice mid-sized sedan; but still, I was also led to believe that it took a while to buy that fancy car.
In fact, the first time I ever laid eyes on a Porsche was in Hampton. It was bright yellow, a convertible, and was being driven by Dr. Snow who was at the time, I believe, 100.
I've been waiting for a truly monumental mid-life crisis to throw away that type of security and get myself a Shelby Cobra, or perhaps a restored 1968 Plymouth Barracuda. I've always thought if it was going to be a statement I should purchase a car that was born with me; just as I have always thought I would have to wait until everything else, house, kids, retirement was pretty much secure before I laid down that type of cash.
I lived like a fish out of water for a short time amongst the rich and famous on Nun's Island off the coast of Montreal. When I parked my Saturn out front of the Van Houte to get a coffee there was always at least one car to gawk at; sometimes a Ferrari, or perhaps a Land Rover. But there was usually only just the one; Most of the stars and celebrities who found their way there seemed to be driving a Ford, or at best, a Buick.
In Montreal the "in" car for the rich young elites was a tricked out Honda Civic. Admittedly, they had usually done some extensive overhauling; but it was still just a little Civic. In the run of a day-long commute across the island, however, you would only see one or two of them, and a couple of other luxury vehicles after passing hundreds of thousands of other rusted behemoths.
In the 15 minutes it takes to drive across Moncton you will most likely encounter 10 times as many fancy cars; and despite my own sense of inadequacy I still think it bears asking, why?
How is it that so many people have that type of disposable income?
How come it seems that younger and younger people seem to be driving cars once reserved for those of us who needed a second childhood?
Why is it that we can justify putting money that rightly should be spent on charities and long-term financial planning into the hands of the automobile industry?
While I am off on this tangent I might as well throw in something else related to the world of motor vehicles. There is a little sign; it is in the shape of a triangle, but standing on one point. This sign is red and white, which might give you some hint as to how it relates to the motor vehicle code; it is a close cousin to an octagonal sign with similar colours that has the word "STOP" written on it. Now this triangle sign has no word emblazoned on its exterior, which might be part of why people keep missing it; but it is in fact a "Yield" sign, and the dictionary definition of the word "Yield" means "to give way to."
Sorry if this sounds a little snarky; but just as there is a running debate in this city over exactly how and when cars should merge, I think we need to bat around the idea that one should take the idea of yielding very seriously.
There is a Science Fiction Series, Battlefield Earth which I never really cared for too much; but it has a great chapter in it. An alien who is living amongst humans as a spy decides to buy himself an old Checker Manufacturing Company New York taxi cab. These cars were solid steel, and he buys it primarily to ram all the people off the road who do not understand how to drive. There are days when I think it would just be prudent to spend my money on a solid steel car.
I would like to think that if I did ever scrape together the cash to get my Cudda, I would slow down when I came to an intersection, I would even stop when oncoming traffic was barrelling towards me with the ability to cause a whole lot of structural damage to the front end.
Yet almost daily I am cut off in one traffic circle or another as people blithely drive out in front of the oncoming traffic. I am never sure if they just did not notice the yield sign, if they just assume they have the right of way, or if they simply expect that I am going to stop before hitting them. I mean, it's not like I am always paying attention either; things happen behind the wheel; which is my point. Defensive driving means that we should expect that other people are going to make mistakes, and therefore try not to make any ourselves by following the rules.
If we are going to be a culture obsessed with cars, we should at least learn how to drive.
What is it with this town and cars?
When I drive along the Salisbury Road and into town on Main Street I pass at least three Hummers. In the YMCA parking lot I see 20-year-olds getting out of their Lexus RX Sports Utility vehicles. You regularly see people driving cars by Audi, BMW, Cadillac; even the regular car lines seem to sell proportionately higher "high end" vehicles around here.
Perhaps it is just jealousy. When I was 20 I seem to remember that my gross earnings topped the $12,000 mark and afforded me a much better apartment in the McGill Ghetto area, and a subway pass. Of course, I borrowed most of that. It never occurred to me, even now that I am pushing the halfway point of life, that I could afford a luxury vehicle yet.
Don't get me wrong, I was brought up in the Maritimes. I was trained to think that a Crown Victoria was a nice mid-sized sedan; but still, I was also led to believe that it took a while to buy that fancy car.
In fact, the first time I ever laid eyes on a Porsche was in Hampton. It was bright yellow, a convertible, and was being driven by Dr. Snow who was at the time, I believe, 100.
I've been waiting for a truly monumental mid-life crisis to throw away that type of security and get myself a Shelby Cobra, or perhaps a restored 1968 Plymouth Barracuda. I've always thought if it was going to be a statement I should purchase a car that was born with me; just as I have always thought I would have to wait until everything else, house, kids, retirement was pretty much secure before I laid down that type of cash.
I lived like a fish out of water for a short time amongst the rich and famous on Nun's Island off the coast of Montreal. When I parked my Saturn out front of the Van Houte to get a coffee there was always at least one car to gawk at; sometimes a Ferrari, or perhaps a Land Rover. But there was usually only just the one; Most of the stars and celebrities who found their way there seemed to be driving a Ford, or at best, a Buick.
In Montreal the "in" car for the rich young elites was a tricked out Honda Civic. Admittedly, they had usually done some extensive overhauling; but it was still just a little Civic. In the run of a day-long commute across the island, however, you would only see one or two of them, and a couple of other luxury vehicles after passing hundreds of thousands of other rusted behemoths.
In the 15 minutes it takes to drive across Moncton you will most likely encounter 10 times as many fancy cars; and despite my own sense of inadequacy I still think it bears asking, why?
How is it that so many people have that type of disposable income?
How come it seems that younger and younger people seem to be driving cars once reserved for those of us who needed a second childhood?
Why is it that we can justify putting money that rightly should be spent on charities and long-term financial planning into the hands of the automobile industry?
While I am off on this tangent I might as well throw in something else related to the world of motor vehicles. There is a little sign; it is in the shape of a triangle, but standing on one point. This sign is red and white, which might give you some hint as to how it relates to the motor vehicle code; it is a close cousin to an octagonal sign with similar colours that has the word "STOP" written on it. Now this triangle sign has no word emblazoned on its exterior, which might be part of why people keep missing it; but it is in fact a "Yield" sign, and the dictionary definition of the word "Yield" means "to give way to."
Sorry if this sounds a little snarky; but just as there is a running debate in this city over exactly how and when cars should merge, I think we need to bat around the idea that one should take the idea of yielding very seriously.
There is a Science Fiction Series, Battlefield Earth which I never really cared for too much; but it has a great chapter in it. An alien who is living amongst humans as a spy decides to buy himself an old Checker Manufacturing Company New York taxi cab. These cars were solid steel, and he buys it primarily to ram all the people off the road who do not understand how to drive. There are days when I think it would just be prudent to spend my money on a solid steel car.
I would like to think that if I did ever scrape together the cash to get my Cudda, I would slow down when I came to an intersection, I would even stop when oncoming traffic was barrelling towards me with the ability to cause a whole lot of structural damage to the front end.
Yet almost daily I am cut off in one traffic circle or another as people blithely drive out in front of the oncoming traffic. I am never sure if they just did not notice the yield sign, if they just assume they have the right of way, or if they simply expect that I am going to stop before hitting them. I mean, it's not like I am always paying attention either; things happen behind the wheel; which is my point. Defensive driving means that we should expect that other people are going to make mistakes, and therefore try not to make any ourselves by following the rules.
If we are going to be a culture obsessed with cars, we should at least learn how to drive.
Monday, March 3, 2008
God Can Send Messages From Anywhere
RELIGION TODAY - March 1st 2008
It is far too easy to slip into the 'Christus Victor' sort of way of seeing the world. That is the fancy official way of talking about a way of being religious that is akin to going to a Wildcats game; we sit in the stands shouting as loud as we can "We're Number One!" knowing in our hearts that God is about to put a whooping on the other team.
Anyone can fall prey to this way of thinking. Those of us on the liberal left are pretty sure that God is a liberal too. Those of us who would call ourselves conservative or right wing are convinced God is too. Both of us know for sure that God is Christian.
All of this knowledge is deeply rooted in our hearts even though most of what we read in the Bible and observe from experience contradicts this. For example, Jesus took great pains to try and convince us that God loves everybody -- but for some reason we just don't hear this the way it is intended.
Which is why we need Comedians -- comedians, when they are good, have a way of using satire to indict us of our own faults, and call us to repentance. I will never forget, as a teenager, seeing the Canadian sketch comedy group "The Frantics" perform their routine St. Peter. In a nutshell it goes something like this:
Tom has arrived at the Pearly Gates and is greeted by St. Peter who says "Welcome, you may enter the Kingdom of Heaven to join your fellow Presbyterians. Tom says he isn't Presbyterian... he's Catholic and St. Peter shuts the gate. Tom must go to hell. It turns out Heaven is for those who follow the one true path, Presbyterian. Tom says he's been a good Catholic. He did mass, communion and confession. St. Peter laughs, saying it was all a waste of time. Tom asks what about Jews, God's chosen people? St. Peter says God is fickle. For a few thousand years the Jews were the chosen people; then Muslims, Aztecs and Methodists.
It goes on for a while, but you get the point. The point is that it is silly of us to decide God likes us better than someone else. Sometimes we need to hear these lessons from outside of a church so that they have a little more impact. I just saw the movie Evan Almighty. I put it off for a while because the critics panned it so bad. I should have known better; it was both really funny, and a good religious message, no matter what faith you find yourself in.
The message is this: God loves everybody and God offers everybody different opportunities to remember this.
When I wrote this, there were some 6 billion 787 million, 278 thousand people on the planet, the population grows at about 3 people per second and you will read this some four days after I write it if you want to do the math. There is a moment in Evan Almighty where God talks about his 6 billion children. (And I only use Him because God in these movies is Morgan Freeman -- which is inspired in that a person of African Descent challenges some of the audience. In the comedy Dogma, God was played by Alanis Morissette, in the nude. God as a young naked female pop star challenges another set of assumptions, but I digress).
The most powerful scene in the movie is a dialogue between God and Evan's wife about whether or not God has actually answered their prayers. Near the beginning of the movie, Evan, a newly elected congressman prays for his family in the midst of all the upheaval they are experiencing. Later, after Evan has begun construction on a massive Ark his wife leaves him, fearing he is crazy. God meets her in a coffee shop and says this: "Let me ask you something. If someone prays for patience, you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If he prayed for courage, does God give him courage, or does he give him opportunities to be courageous? If someone prayed for the family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?"
I could preach a million sermons in which I say exactly this same point. You could read it in religious books or even the Bible. But sometimes we need Morgan Freeman to say it from the big screen. God works in mysterious ways indeed.
It is far too easy to slip into the 'Christus Victor' sort of way of seeing the world. That is the fancy official way of talking about a way of being religious that is akin to going to a Wildcats game; we sit in the stands shouting as loud as we can "We're Number One!" knowing in our hearts that God is about to put a whooping on the other team.
Anyone can fall prey to this way of thinking. Those of us on the liberal left are pretty sure that God is a liberal too. Those of us who would call ourselves conservative or right wing are convinced God is too. Both of us know for sure that God is Christian.
All of this knowledge is deeply rooted in our hearts even though most of what we read in the Bible and observe from experience contradicts this. For example, Jesus took great pains to try and convince us that God loves everybody -- but for some reason we just don't hear this the way it is intended.
Which is why we need Comedians -- comedians, when they are good, have a way of using satire to indict us of our own faults, and call us to repentance. I will never forget, as a teenager, seeing the Canadian sketch comedy group "The Frantics" perform their routine St. Peter. In a nutshell it goes something like this:
Tom has arrived at the Pearly Gates and is greeted by St. Peter who says "Welcome, you may enter the Kingdom of Heaven to join your fellow Presbyterians. Tom says he isn't Presbyterian... he's Catholic and St. Peter shuts the gate. Tom must go to hell. It turns out Heaven is for those who follow the one true path, Presbyterian. Tom says he's been a good Catholic. He did mass, communion and confession. St. Peter laughs, saying it was all a waste of time. Tom asks what about Jews, God's chosen people? St. Peter says God is fickle. For a few thousand years the Jews were the chosen people; then Muslims, Aztecs and Methodists.
It goes on for a while, but you get the point. The point is that it is silly of us to decide God likes us better than someone else. Sometimes we need to hear these lessons from outside of a church so that they have a little more impact. I just saw the movie Evan Almighty. I put it off for a while because the critics panned it so bad. I should have known better; it was both really funny, and a good religious message, no matter what faith you find yourself in.
The message is this: God loves everybody and God offers everybody different opportunities to remember this.
When I wrote this, there were some 6 billion 787 million, 278 thousand people on the planet, the population grows at about 3 people per second and you will read this some four days after I write it if you want to do the math. There is a moment in Evan Almighty where God talks about his 6 billion children. (And I only use Him because God in these movies is Morgan Freeman -- which is inspired in that a person of African Descent challenges some of the audience. In the comedy Dogma, God was played by Alanis Morissette, in the nude. God as a young naked female pop star challenges another set of assumptions, but I digress).
The most powerful scene in the movie is a dialogue between God and Evan's wife about whether or not God has actually answered their prayers. Near the beginning of the movie, Evan, a newly elected congressman prays for his family in the midst of all the upheaval they are experiencing. Later, after Evan has begun construction on a massive Ark his wife leaves him, fearing he is crazy. God meets her in a coffee shop and says this: "Let me ask you something. If someone prays for patience, you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If he prayed for courage, does God give him courage, or does he give him opportunities to be courageous? If someone prayed for the family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?"
I could preach a million sermons in which I say exactly this same point. You could read it in religious books or even the Bible. But sometimes we need Morgan Freeman to say it from the big screen. God works in mysterious ways indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
