The scenario we're about to create is purely speculative in nature, for reasons which will readily become obvious. Nevertheless, we're unable to resist dwelling on a little relatively senseless conjecture.
Should this writer be offered the option of spending a month flat on his back in a hospital bed or else in a prison cell, quite frankly a coin flip would be required. Furthermore, if the clink sojourn turned out to be the loser, insistence would likely be placed on at least a two-out-of-three toss basis.
As already stated, this is no more than a hypothetical issue. It's clear that a hospital stay becomes necessary only for health treatment purposes, while going to the pokey stems from breaking the law. The underlying reasons aren't even remotely comparable.
Still, that's not the point we're endeavoring to establish. We're simply saying that a short prison sentence appears preferable in certain respects to sick room confinement.
The immediately foregoing statement isn't based on mere theory. This writer has had his fair share of days reclining in a hospital room. On the other hand, he cannot attest to having spent a month in a civilian hoosegow. A longer stretch as a prisoner of war a few international skirmishes ago must be excluded from comparison, due to many entirely different underlying circumstances.
Now let's move straight to the meat of the situation, namely our personal reasons for giving preference to a supposed jail term over a hospital stay.
First of all, in prison one is allowed to move about within a cell, albeit somewhat cramped spacewise, supplemented by daily strolls outside.
Moreover, nobody comes in every hour or so to glare at you while jabbing needles into your arm, stuffing you with pills, checking your blood pressure and other vital signs, or whatever else is needed to further your recovery. We deem freedom of mobility to be more important than being tied down to a bed and probed in the extreme. Besides, visitors can come see you in either situation.
There is one major offsetting element, of course, in that the people tending to you at the hospital are bound to be far kinder and gentler than the unsavory criminal characters who share slammer quarters with you. Perhaps we're putting insufficient emphasis on this matter. We'd have to be tossed into a cell for about 30 days before arriving at a more fully-studied conclusion.
Before closing this somewhat inane piece, we must acknowledge that neither the patient nor the inmate really amounts to any more than a mere number -- a statistic in recorded medical or correctional history -- even though allowed to retain his or her name for mere identification purposes while on-scene, and becoming almost totally forgotten thereafter.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
ON ARKS, ONLY BEGOTTEN SONS, AIDS, AND SPARROWS
The words you're about to read are not the outpourings of a deeply religious-minded person, but rather one who tries to look at all things in a practical light.
Moreover, the intent here is not to debate in the slightest regarding the authenticity of the Bible.
For purposes of this treatise, it must be presumed that all the words in the Good Book represent
absolute facts. Otherwise, proceeding any further would be useless.
The Book of Genesis tells how God advised Noah to build an Ark, so that each living animal species might be preserved to "start over". Then came the Flood, wiping out all land-based creatures in the known world of that era, except for those aboard the vessel.
What is the theological significance of said event? Simply that the Almighty had become disappointed with how Mankind -- conceived in His own image -- had grown to behave. He elected to eradicate His mistake and offer a second chance in that world sector considered to be the seat of religion.
Therefore God, in His infinite wisdom, carried out a destructive act against His living beings. So what was the result? Did Man wise up and improve upon its ways? We all know the answer to that.
Since taking such a devastating course had accomplished little in the long run, a second gigantic gesture was then made -- this time a most productive one. The Lord begat and placed His own son among the people on earth, as described in the first four books of the New Testament.
There is no need to elaborate on the story about Jesus' life and death. Most of us have already been thoroughly indoctrinated on that score. The important point is the manifold influence wrought by the Son of God. Christianity has become the world's dominant faith, and has affected our life styles, business practices, and laws, often infringing significantly upon those who choose different religious pursuits.
Truly, the coming of Christ indeed proved to be supremely influential. His presence may well be felt for ongoing millennia. Unquestionably, this was the Almighty's most productive act since earth's creation.
Did this master step work? We might say yes, at least in contrast to the Ark bit. Still, would you call Mankind's subsequent performance/behavior pattern to date adequate in respect to God's divine will? Absolutely not, and we see no need to cite the countless whats and whys of our negative response to such question.
We've now reached the stage in this writing where biblical "fact" leaves off and supposition must take over.
Within very recent years, a strange hitherto unknown physical malady has contaminated our population. The medical brains have dubbed it the Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS for short. Only homosexuals and prostitutes were attacked at first, but the effect has since become far more widespread, even among many innocent of unnatural or promiscuous misdeeds.
Some relatively fanatical religious types have rationalized AIDS as a "penalty" imposition upon the less-than-straight-and-true populace. Although initial reaction of a logical-minded person might be to scoff at such theory, a little probing analysis actually tends to support the idea, no matter how ridiculous it may sound right off.
If we look back at the Almighty's two "really big" past acts in dealing with humanity -- one destructive, the other productive -- does it not stand to reason that a selective process has now been put into play? Can we arbitrarily dismiss the thought that God has chosen to inflict punishment on those who offend him, due to their immoral habits? Might placing a death sentence upon those who engage in such practices be of divine origin?
Still, we find a strict affirmative answer rather difficult to offer, on the premise that the innocent are suffering and dying along with the guilty. Many men, women, and children bearing untarnished records must have perished in the Flood. With our presumption of unquestionable fact for the Holy Scriptures, it must stand to reason as well that God Himself is not perfect. The "He who weeps at the fall of a sparrow" reference could be a debatable issue.
Prolonging the conjecture on this last topic seems needless, except to simply add that, taken in isolation, our AIDS thesis could easily be deemed unacceptable. Nevertheless, when viewed in perspective with the two major foregoing events -- provided they are considered factual by the reader -- the idea does appear to have merit.
None of us here today can really prove or disprove either the Ark or the Messiah acts to have occurred as written about. Individual interpretations remain a matter of personal belief. However, the last point we've raised, which may eventually impact the entire human race in some way, should at least be viewed as a thought-provoking subject.
Moreover, the intent here is not to debate in the slightest regarding the authenticity of the Bible.
For purposes of this treatise, it must be presumed that all the words in the Good Book represent
absolute facts. Otherwise, proceeding any further would be useless.
The Book of Genesis tells how God advised Noah to build an Ark, so that each living animal species might be preserved to "start over". Then came the Flood, wiping out all land-based creatures in the known world of that era, except for those aboard the vessel.
What is the theological significance of said event? Simply that the Almighty had become disappointed with how Mankind -- conceived in His own image -- had grown to behave. He elected to eradicate His mistake and offer a second chance in that world sector considered to be the seat of religion.
Therefore God, in His infinite wisdom, carried out a destructive act against His living beings. So what was the result? Did Man wise up and improve upon its ways? We all know the answer to that.
Since taking such a devastating course had accomplished little in the long run, a second gigantic gesture was then made -- this time a most productive one. The Lord begat and placed His own son among the people on earth, as described in the first four books of the New Testament.
There is no need to elaborate on the story about Jesus' life and death. Most of us have already been thoroughly indoctrinated on that score. The important point is the manifold influence wrought by the Son of God. Christianity has become the world's dominant faith, and has affected our life styles, business practices, and laws, often infringing significantly upon those who choose different religious pursuits.
Truly, the coming of Christ indeed proved to be supremely influential. His presence may well be felt for ongoing millennia. Unquestionably, this was the Almighty's most productive act since earth's creation.
Did this master step work? We might say yes, at least in contrast to the Ark bit. Still, would you call Mankind's subsequent performance/behavior pattern to date adequate in respect to God's divine will? Absolutely not, and we see no need to cite the countless whats and whys of our negative response to such question.
We've now reached the stage in this writing where biblical "fact" leaves off and supposition must take over.
Within very recent years, a strange hitherto unknown physical malady has contaminated our population. The medical brains have dubbed it the Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS for short. Only homosexuals and prostitutes were attacked at first, but the effect has since become far more widespread, even among many innocent of unnatural or promiscuous misdeeds.
Some relatively fanatical religious types have rationalized AIDS as a "penalty" imposition upon the less-than-straight-and-true populace. Although initial reaction of a logical-minded person might be to scoff at such theory, a little probing analysis actually tends to support the idea, no matter how ridiculous it may sound right off.
If we look back at the Almighty's two "really big" past acts in dealing with humanity -- one destructive, the other productive -- does it not stand to reason that a selective process has now been put into play? Can we arbitrarily dismiss the thought that God has chosen to inflict punishment on those who offend him, due to their immoral habits? Might placing a death sentence upon those who engage in such practices be of divine origin?
Still, we find a strict affirmative answer rather difficult to offer, on the premise that the innocent are suffering and dying along with the guilty. Many men, women, and children bearing untarnished records must have perished in the Flood. With our presumption of unquestionable fact for the Holy Scriptures, it must stand to reason as well that God Himself is not perfect. The "He who weeps at the fall of a sparrow" reference could be a debatable issue.
Prolonging the conjecture on this last topic seems needless, except to simply add that, taken in isolation, our AIDS thesis could easily be deemed unacceptable. Nevertheless, when viewed in perspective with the two major foregoing events -- provided they are considered factual by the reader -- the idea does appear to have merit.
None of us here today can really prove or disprove either the Ark or the Messiah acts to have occurred as written about. Individual interpretations remain a matter of personal belief. However, the last point we've raised, which may eventually impact the entire human race in some way, should at least be viewed as a thought-provoking subject.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
THE TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS
(A more modern version, on the premise that one's true love might have decided to get better prices through buying everything in bulk quantity)
On the first day of Christmas my true love (a real peach!)
Sent me twelve pear trees, a partridge in each.
On the second day of Christmas again came my true love
With two-and-twenty cooing turtle doves.
On the third day of Christmas my doorbell rang again,
As my true love delivered thirty French hens.
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent a mix
Of colley birds, in number thirty-six.
On the fifth day of Christmas he brought the damnedest thing --
A box containing forty gold rings.
On the sixth day of Christmas he sent (despite my begs)
Forty-two geese, and all were laying eggs.
On the seventh day of Christmas my true love (what a fool!)
Dropped forty-two swans into my swimming pool.
On the eighth day of Christmas my true love (such a louse!)
Sent me forty milkmaids, plus as many cows.
On the ninth day of Christmas he nearly drove me mad
With thirty-six girls dancing 'round my pad.
On the tenth day of Christmas came lords in fifteen pairs,
To leap o'er furniture and up and down the stairs.
On the eleventh day of Christmas my place got cluttered more
With a two-and-twenty member pipers' corps.
On the twelfth day of Christmas (the last one, I am proud)
Came a dozen drummers playing far too loud.
When it was finally over I phoned Salvation Bay
For thirteen vans to haul the lot away.
Still that was not the finish, as you can maybe guess,
Since it took fourteen maids to clean up all the mess.
As a crowning blow, my ex-love (that tub of lard!)
Had ordered everything and used my credit card.
PROPOSED REINSCRIPTION ON THE STATUE OF LIBERTY
(As Fostered by the Republican-Minded Types)
Give me your fat,
Your rich,
The proven cream of your society;
The business leaders from your friendly shore.
Send these, the wealthy upper crust to me.
For all the rest, I'll slam the God damn door.
Give me your fat,
Your rich,
The proven cream of your society;
The business leaders from your friendly shore.
Send these, the wealthy upper crust to me.
For all the rest, I'll slam the God damn door.
A POINT OF CONJECTURE
QUESTION: Hitler's Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the American Republicans have always had
something in common. What is it?
ANSWER: Their doctrines are all predicated on hatred.
something in common. What is it?
ANSWER: Their doctrines are all predicated on hatred.
Friday, December 18, 2009
A SUMMARY THOUGHT FOR THE YEAR 2009
Any country whose lawmaking giants are forced to engage in marathon public health care debate, with the interest of the people pitted against sheer profit motivation and greed, cannot exactly be one to inspire much pride or confidence.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
ANOTHER OF NATURE'S PHENOMENA
Quite recently, this writer had a brief conversation with a middle-aged black lady, who informed him how she had just recovered from an attack of sickle cell disease. In response to our "what the heck is that" query, she went on to describe the severe overall bodily pain, requiring medical treatment. She then added the bombshell about her race's being the only one so victimized.
Amazing as this sounded, a subsequent look into the internet confirmed her statement that said malady is restricted to black persons only. However, no clear reason seems apparent.
This newfound rather astounding knowledge has led us to wonder if perhaps yet another far more serious and incurable ailment may prevail as well, but solely affecting people who belong to the Ku Klux Klan.
At least we can hope.
Amazing as this sounded, a subsequent look into the internet confirmed her statement that said malady is restricted to black persons only. However, no clear reason seems apparent.
This newfound rather astounding knowledge has led us to wonder if perhaps yet another far more serious and incurable ailment may prevail as well, but solely affecting people who belong to the Ku Klux Klan.
At least we can hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
