From a Grump

Today I’m having a bad day. I’m sick, I’m tired, and things aren’t going too well. But a good question I have is why do we have bad days? Is it mostly psychological? And why is it that we decide to try to spread around the bad mood to as many people as we can? I mean, when you get in a bad mood, you want the world to know that you are mad at the world. You tell as many people that you can that you have had a bad day, and that life in general sucks, and then give the reasons why. Then, that person has been effected by your grumpful ways. Wouldn’t it make our day better if we went out of our way to please someone rather than grumpify that person?

To a Jackass: A salute to Retailers

I had a pissy experience yesterday and I’m still miffed about it. A fellow came into the office and asked for some efflorescence cleaner. I gave him the cleaner, told him how to apply it and explained the product to him. He came back yesterday and wanted his money back because the product didn’t work. I asked him how he used the cleaner, and the coles notes version is that he didn’t do absolutely anything that I told him to. The product he returned was contaminated, and he stood there demanding his money back because the product was no good. You can’t ignore the instructions to a product and then blame the product! I had four customers waiting behind this *Ahem* Gentleman, so I decided save face in front of the other customers and this him so I refunded his money. When I was done, he virtually told me that he thought I was a shyster for selling him something that didn’t work and he wouldn’t be back to do business here.

Customers are the core of our business and we try to go the extra mile when doing business. Clearly, if all customers were like this, because there would be no retail business. Businessmen are in the business to make money, not to look out for the stupidity of the customer. How can I protect the consumer from his own stupidity?

Furthermore, if retail businessmen got fed up with dealing with the public (and they do) the economy would fall. With no retail, nobody selling to the final consumer, all sub-trades would fall. The final consumer drives the economy, and without the retail outlets, the consumer would have no where to purchase goods.

So, I would like to offer my appreciation to those who deal with retail customers. Waitresses, clerks, tellers, thank you. You put up with more garbage on a day to day basis than I have experience all month no doubt.

Store Wars

Check out this site, it is a very cute presentation about organic food. More like, science geeks with a little too much time on their hands.

http://storewars.org/flash/index.html

Traffic Lights and Condoms

Here is a paper written by my good friend Brett Salkeld. He is a masters student at University of Toronto and is studying Catholic History. This paper was published by the Catholic Register in November 2004 and deals with the Catholic Church's position on the AIDS Epidemic in Africa and the administering of condoms.

Enjoy

Traffic Lights and Condoms
Imagine a society where drivers are turning into oncoming traffic with alarming frequency. The authorities are clear about the proper way to proceed at intersections: drivers can turn right on red lights, but not left (across a lane of oncoming cars). Studies show that people are turning when the authorities suggest, but the accident rate continues unchanged. People start to question the wisdom of the traffic authorities, declaring that strict adherence to this arbitrary rule doesn’t help prevent accidents at all. Indeed there are accidents, they point out, where these rules are a direct cause. How?
Some people are driving in the wrong side of the road.
Review the rules above and you will note that the safety they provide only occurs when people are driving on the right side. You cannot follow only part of the system and demand the results guaranteed by the whole system, and you certainly cannot denounce a system that doesn’t work when the reason it fails is because people only follow part of it.
The Catholic Church has come under fire due to the perception that its stand against artificial contraception (specifically condoms) is contributing to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The logic of this seems clear enough: condoms stop the HIV virus more often than not (though nothing approaching 100%); therefore more condoms in Africa should translate into less AIDS. The Church’s teaching that condoms denature the sexual act is small consolation to those who see condoms as essential in the war against AIDS. Accordingly the Church is accused of implicitly supporting the epidemic.
These critiques, however, display a shallow understanding of ethical systems. Catholic moral teaching is a comprehensive system, not a buffet table where one chooses to follow only those rules that best suit one’s lifestyle. Christian sexual morality is based on the principle of monogamy. It is not surprising that people not practicing monogamy should encounter problems when they follow Church teaching about condoms. Church teaching about condoms presumes adherence to the first principle of Christian sexuality, monogamy. The question of whether the Church supports the use of condoms for promiscuous people is a moot one, akin to asking whether the Church believes murderers should hide evidence to avoid the more obvious (i.e. temporal) consequences of their immoral actions.
The Church cannot support society’s mixed message on AIDS in Africa: “Monogamy is the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS, but here’s a condom if you can’t accept that.” The number of lives lost because a promiscuous lifestyle was pursued under the false sense of security that this message encourages may be impossible to gauge, but it is not negligible. What those attacking the Church’s stance fail to appreciate is that, by perpetuating the myth of “safe sex,” condoms are in fact detrimental to the type of attitude we need to engender in the African population if the AIDS epidemic is to be stopped.
It is narrow-minded and illogical to attack Church teaching on condoms, when the only reason a lack of condoms spreads AIDS is because people don’t follow Church teaching on monogamy. People driving on the wrong side of the road are already risking their lives and, condom or not, with that many oncoming vehicles an accident is almost inevitable. Let’s teach people where to drive, because once they’re in the right lane, how to drive makes a lot more sense.

Teleological argument for God's Existence

I was made aware that I didn't write a blog today, so I thought I would put in an essay that I wrote for a philosophy class this semester on the ever so popular teleological argument of God's existence.

The Teleological Argument (or design argument) may be the most appealing argument attempting to prove God’s existence. By definition, teleological means exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. By observing nature, many different philosophers have concluded that nature is a very complex machine with all of it’s components working in harmony. Furthermore, a parallel can be drawn between the fabrication of nature and human artifice, the latter obviously being on a much smaller scale.

William Paley draws this parallel by comparing the existence of the universe to that of a watch. The small complex parts of the watch work intricately with each other in complete unison for it’s purpose. If a watch were found lying on the ground, one would not assume that it had always been in existence, yet the universe is often thought of in this way. In order for the watch to exist, there had to be a watchmaker. Similarly, the universe requires a creator.

No one would claim that a watch came into existence due to a chance formulation of various components of different shapes and sizes, which happened to form into an independent object. Yet, many believe that the universe has come into being by the chance occurrences of matter exploding into space (Big Bang Theory); or, moreover, that life came into existence by the slight odds of different minerals combining to create the first single celled organism (Theory of Evolution, Darwin).

Paley continues that, although he may have never met a man capable of making a watch, he has no doubt that there is indeed a watchmaker. Many have no faith in God’s existence though a Supreme Being would be the only one capable of creating the universe as intricate as it is.

Although God created the universe, it may not always operate perfectly. Paley emphasizes this when he admits that the watch may not function correctly all of the time. The watch may malfunction, but the purpose of the watch is still evident. If the watch were to have mysterious parts, which were (currently) inexplicable, it would not lead to the conclusion that the watchmaker never existed. There would still have to be a watchmaker, and therefore there has to be a God.[1]

Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that God’s existence could be proved in five different ways. The first four proofs are cosmological, but his fifth proof is teleological. Aquinas argued that there exist in the world many things, such as natural bodies, which lack an intellect. These natural bodies always behave in the same manner to achieve the best result for their actions. Because these inert bodies lack intelligence, they cannot behave in these ways of their own volition, some unknown force must drive their behavior, and this force is known as God.[2]

Another aspect to the design argument is that the world is imperfect, yet it still is in harmony.

“Observe too, says PHILO, the curious artifices of nature, in order to embitter the life of every living being. The strong prey upon the weaker, and keep them in perpetual terror and anxiety. The weaker too, in their turn, often prey upon the stronger, and vex and molest them without relaxation.”[3]

Here Hume demonstrates that, although the world may be viewed in a pessimistic light, all things have a purpose whose end is unknown. For example, people may dislike insects, as they are annoying, but they serve as food to the birds, and birds to animals farther up the food chain. So, although the world may seem imperfect, the world is in harmony and exhibits balanced design. PHILO goes on to further illustrate that the design behind nature’s very existence seems to support a theory of a human-like intelligence.

Some argue that the world was designed with great thought in regards to all the creatures on the planet. They compare the creation of the universe to that of a watch. It is evident that there has been an intelligence, which created the universe with all its intricacies. Even the laws, which govern the exanimate bodies, must have been created by something; they could not have always been in existence. As Saint Thomas Aquinas stated, “…whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.”[4] Since the universe exists in harmony, God must exist.


[1] William Paley, STATE OF THE ARGUMENT from Natural Theology 77-82

[2]Saint Thomas Aquinas, Whether God Exists? - from The Summa Theologica, 63-64

[3] David Hume, “Part X” from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 194
[4] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Whether God Exists? from The Summa Theologica, 27

Today's Topic: Cement

Today’s topic: Cement.

As a concrete salesman, I get to discuss cement on a day to day basis. People come in and ask me, I need cement for a driveway, I need cement for my patio. How much is cement these days?

My reply? $12 a bag.

A bag? A bag? $12 a bag? I want to buy my cement by the cubic yard! I need cement to pour a patio! Well, asking me for a load of cement for your driveway is like asking the bakery for a loaf of flour.

This failure to communicate is based on the assumption that everyone uses the same terminology. Merriam-webster defines cement as: “a powder of alumina, silica, lime, iron oxide, and magnesium oxide burned together in a kiln and finely pulverized and used as an ingredient of mortar and concrete” In short, cement is a powder, and if you poured your driveway with cement, it would blow away!!!

Our good friend Webster (Webster would be a great name for a dog, wouldn’t it?) also defines concrete as: “a hard strong building material made by mixing a cementing material (as portland cement) and a mineral aggregate (as sand and gravel) with sufficient water to cause the cement to set and bind the entire mass.”

So, unfortunately for me, the mis-labeling of these products causes me much heartache. The easiest way to remember the difference? Concrete is the finished product and requires cement, as well as gravel, and water (in it’s simplest form) that would be used in the pouring of a driveway.

So, the next time you go into your local ready mixed concrete supplier shop, please remember that we supply concrete, and not cement. The situation that I offered at first is very unrealistic. It is not realistic that someone would ask for a cement driveway, but it is unrealistic that I would correct someone on the term. , even though it may make our skin crawl every time it's used improperly, because the customer is always right. :-)

This is it

My first blog. Wow, this is very exciting.

I have never been involved in the blogging world. As a matter of fact, I just found out what a blog was about a month ago. A very cute girl that I know is a blogger and she got me involved.
So, let the blogging begin, and I hope you all enjoy the show...