I'm told that there are places Google Earth can't reach, or won't. I find that comforting. I live in fly-over country, in one of those countless patches of iddy-bitty dwellings a few dozen travelers spot when they glance out of the windows of a jet on a clear day over the Plains. The only tourists here are relatives, and I've got to drive at least an hour to get a decent bagel. But I'm not complaining.
Take this guy. Chances are he scouted the area, chose his location meticulously. Good night, he's even adjacent to a dumpster. He probably knows very well that if he pees in the public square the way he is, he could be written up for some kind of salacious marketing; and all he wants to do--shoot, all he needs to do--is empty his clattering bladder. Look for yourself--he's trying to be circumspect, and what happens is he gets his mug all over the internet because Google caught him zipping--well, unzipping. It ain't fair.
Besides, what's a man to do? I was in the trees, along the river, Saturday morning, watching the dawn, when the urge came up like a migraine. Twenty years ago, out with an old friend, he excused himself, then reached for some kind of Tupperware gadget he had along in his briefcase and tinkled noisily right there in my car. I'm not kidding. He was in a wheelchair and thusly excused, but that was the first time I noted an unbecoming problem associated with aging. My father had it, and does just about every old geezer I know. Bladders get precarious and tip altogether too easily.
There's nothing criminal about what he's doing, really. And the fact is, I was at least fifteen minutes from the nearest convenience mart. It wasn't that early--7:30, I suppose--but not for a moment did I entertain the notion of knocking on some farmer's door and asking to use the porcelain.
Out in the woods, a man is a boy at heart. If Thoreau didn't write that, he should have. Besides, he did joke about watering all the berries around Walden Pond, a line I've always read as shadowy confession. If he built an outhouse out there, he never said a word, and I know Kohler wasn't making toilets for another several decades.
Anyway, confession is good for the soul, and my excuse for running this great picture is that I can't help but feel sorry for the shlep. Good night, he gets blindsided by his bladder's faulty siren and there's nothing he can do but find a corner.
And then there's Google Earth. That's exactly the horror Orwell had in mind in 1984. That's dystopia all right, the evil eye of Big Brother.
27 comments:
"That's exactly the horror Orwell had in mind in 1984. That's dystopia all right, the evil eye of Big Brother."
Orwell feared the government snooping into our private lives...that was his Big Brother.
Obama's health care plan will do just that. i fear each time we take a potty break we will be watched. Yuk...
What rubbish your first comment by anonymous! At the moment we have insurance companies not only knowing all our health care concerns, they also go all out to deny coverage and compensation when you do get ill. The profit motive does not combine well with the caring motive. All citizens should have coverage. Why is the richest nation on earth unable to have what other developed and some underdeveloped countries provide for all their citizens? Why should only the rich have good health care? We have socialism for the bankers and pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps individualism for the poor!
AMEN to Anonymous #2 !
At least this guy had enough foresight to keep his sunglasses on. Anonymity is precious in these situations.
Anonymity is apparently also precious when commenting on a blog post. Clearly we need a better health care system; private insurance doesn't cover the loss of spine or the failure of nerve now plaguing millions of American internet users.
The RICHEST NATION??????? Really. After the health care goes thru, China will own us "lock, stock and barrel." I'd say we might just end up being a 3rd world country here in about 25 yrs. Another anonymous. I guess we're 50/50.
What's wrong with tweaking what we have instead of the govn't getting involved. They've already messed up MediCare. GIVE ME A BREAK!
The question some of you people need to be asking yourself is, "What kind of health care and treatment will I get when I get old?" Something to ponder!
Anonymous #2 again: I was going to mention being overtaken by China, but it won't be because of healthcare, it will be because W squandered a huge surplus on an unnecessary war and gave us a huge deficit as a result. He also authorized warrantless wiretapping to invade our precious privacy. This morning's (11/18) news mentioned fraud in Medicare. "Tinkering" to remove that would surely help the deficit but a bigger overhaul is need on the total healthcare system.
Anonymous #2 this is Anonymous #1.
it is not rubbish to understand that our personal health records, health care, and medical decisions placed in the hands of any government [Big Brother] is foolish, period. It is solid thinking.
Where does it say in our constitution that health care is an entitlement?
Furthermore, how can one justify the idea written in the House Bill "if you don't have health insurance you will be given jail time by Big Brother".
I fear some have eyes but do not see...
Why does this transparent blog offer the anonymous option?
Hannah, any ideas?
How can I be sure that is your real name?
Maybe anonymous is just fine, your name may be none of my business. Ya think?
Let's keep blaming W for everything. Can't wait till gas goes up again. YEP, it'll be Bush's fault. along with the next hurricane.
"Where does it say in the Constitution that health care is an entitlement?" I suspect nowhere, but the Constitution is not my guide. The Bible says: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The constitution says we're allowed to be in the pursuit of happiness, the Bible encourages us to be in pursuit of justice. The Constitution says citizens are allowed to bear arms (not specifying under what circumstances), but the Bible commends gentleness. Need I go on? Having computerized health records that can be accessed by different health care workers could prevent a lot of deaths by drug interactions etc. Many have eyes but do not see the thousands of preventable deaths each year as a result of lack of coverage.
BTW: this is anon #2 again, in case you couldn't guess.
Anonymous #2 this is Anonymous #1 again. Wow! I will stand by my first conclusion...
I fear some have eyes but do not see...
You say:
"The Bible says: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The constitution says we're allowed to be in the pursuit of happiness, the Bible encourages us to be in pursuit of justice."
My Response:
I am a Christian also and do not believe in mis-applying Biblical truths. With all due respect, when the Bible encourages us to love our neighbor as ourselves this is not a commandment intended for secular governments. This is a command to Christians who comprise the Church. We can not and should not expect unbelievers to follow scriptural commands. Unbelievers are not under scriptural authority, period.
Next you reference one of the inalienable rights-the Pursit of Happiness. Let's first understand that these rights are God given and not for the government to give or take away.
Let's examine all three rights in terms of health care.
1. Life- The Senate health care bill has the provision to abort/murder innocent children that are fearfully and wonderfully made.
2. Liberty- today we learned how the government health care plan will work. Mamogram breast exam tests should be increased to 2 years cheaper schedule instead of the traditional 1 year exam according to a government panel[Big Brother]. This type of thinking is what we have to look forward to with government run health care. A complete loss of liberty.
3. Pursuit of Happiness- This is the only right you conveniently include in your arguement and for the life of me I can not understand how it applies to the health care arguement. Maybe we'll be happier if we are healthy. The government may make us unappy if they are allowed to punish us for eating an extra cheeseburger or two.
The right to bear arms is referenced. As a life long hunter, I deer hunt and defend my family which is my Pursuit of Happiness.
Computerized health records is a great idea but does not have to be government run... take a look at all the phoney job gains reported through the government's fuzzy math on there web site. They attribute job gains to districts that do not even exist. I trust my health records with my medical provider.
Health care needs to be improved. Having the government in control is a bad idea.
This country was founded on the principle of less or little government. I buy it.
Never commented on a comment before, but here goes—a point-by-point response to Anonymous #...let's see...9:
1. Why this blog has an "anonymous" option, I don't know. That's the default setting. Maybe Dr. Schaap is kind enough to let you have your say, even if you're afraid of being identified. For what it's worth, I allow the same on my own blog. (Not that I get many comments from random strangers.)
2. How can you be sure Hannah is my real name? You can't. That's an epistemological issue; it boils down to whom you trust. If a stranger introduces himself to you on an airplane or at a church service, do you believe him when he tells you his name? Or do you, like the FAA, demand proof of identity?
You have a name. As far back as Adam, a name has been essential to being human. Naming was the first job of the human race. When you strip yourself of your name, you strip yourself of an essential part of your humanity.
3. My dear Anonymous #9, your name is none of my business—no more so than if I were to strike up a conversation with you on the street: "Hello, I'm Hannah. What's your name?"
Would you then have the indecency to respond with, "I doubt you are, and my name is none of your business"? Because this is the Internet, does our mutual humanity no longer matter?
If you were a wanted man (or woman), living in constant fear for your life, that response would be understandable. Pitiable. But understandable. There's a time for anonymity. Real danger would be one. Charitable giving, another. If you are Odysseus fleeing the Cyclops, go ahead and be "Nobody." Fine with me. But what do you honestly think is going to happen to you if I (scary stay-at-home mom of four that I am)—or the other members of your vast Anonymous family—were to find out who you are? Do you think Big Brother really is reading comments on this blog? Do your opinions on healthcare carry so much weight that someone would want to hunt you down? Tarnish your reputation? Sell your firstborn?
What are you afraid of?
In these uncertain times, some say, one can never be too careful. But when were times ever certain? And when was laboring under the weight of a persistent lack of trust ever the best way to live? I prefer to retain my attitude of trust. And my humanity. I believe a man when he tells me his name. Sometimes I even leave my car unlocked. Ha.
If your opinion is worth expressing, then why should you fear being known for holding it? Or, to put it another way, if you have no identity, why should I listen to anything you say? If I knew your name, I would never be this blunt with you. But in all seriousness, if you don't have the guts to be held accountable for your own words, then maybe (and I do mean maybe) you should keep them to yourself.
Well Hannah. Sometimes it is important to focus and what is said rather than who said it.
If I did tell you who I am what difference would it make? None. My ideas will stand on their own.
If I know your name I still will know very little about you. What I know is your ideas and that is all I care about. Your ideas will stand on their own.
I am not sharing my ideas to make friends, are you?
The important issue is the free exchange of ideas. A cool concept and the beauty of Internet Blogs, remaining anonymous.
Fear... that is a wild assumption. If you want to know who I am, post your email address and I will tell you.
What does healthcare have to do with aborting babies?? Maybe saving the life of a mother? C. Everett Koop said in his 35 yrs in medicine he "never seen 1 case where an abortion was necessary to save a mother's life." anonymous # 14?
Good point #14. If abortions are only for convenience. Then I'd have to say that was murder. What say you Hannah?
Years back, a missionary couple and some colleagues in Africa had to do a late term abortion: crush the head of the baby to extract it from the womb in order to save the missionary/mother's life. If she had been in a hospital, she could have had a ceasarian section. This was done to save the life of the mother. Do you think God disagreed with their decision? Thank God these situations are rarely/never necessary now.
If you think abortion is necessary you are wrong. It is never necessary. It is murder. If you hang your whole slippery-slope abortion arguement on that example then I have a question for you.
Can God tie a knot so tight he can't open it?
When you arrive at the answer, another 30-40 innocent children will have been murdered at the altar of convenience.
One abstract example in Africa will not cut it. I agree with Everett Koop and Francis Schaefer when they asked... "What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Another Anonymous... this is getting habit forming.
A little metacognition... who would think a guy taking a leak next to a dumpster would generate such a rich discussion?
Sorry another anonymous, my apologies, Hannah.
[Is anyone still reading this? This is my last comment on this thread. Promise.]
To the Anonymous-With-The-Post-Right-After-Mine-Who-May-Also-Be-Anonymous-#9-But-Whom-I-Shall-Hereafter-Refer-To-As-Ulysses:
I grant that sometimes what is said is more important than who said it. But who said it is not irrelevant. All you care about are my ideas, you say. All word. No flesh. That's exactly my point. If my humanity is irrelevant to you, Ulysses, so be it. But know this: Disembodied ideas are Platonic. Not Christian. That the Word became flesh and dwelt among us has, I believe, practical implications beyond the Christmas card.
You say “the beauty of Internet blogs" is remaining anonymous. I could just as easily say that the danger, of Internet blogs is remaining anonymous. Child molesters find it terribly convenient.
"My ideas will stand on their own," you say. Let me tell you a story:
Six days before the Passover…Mary…took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But... one of his disciples... said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”
Consider the question on its own terms. Weigh the words. Ignore the identity of the speaker. He had a point, right? Does the fact that it was Judas who brought up the question not matter? John tells us, "He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief." The words reveal the man, and the man reveals the words.
Would you be reading this blog in the first place if you did not know something of the man who is its author? I wouldn’t. All you care about are his ideas? Ulysses, even I know you better than that. Weren't you the least bit tempted to click on my photo and peek at my blog? To know me better? Maybe you did.
It should be clear that I'm not here to make friends, but I would consider it a happy side-effect. By your anonymity, you have eliminated even the possibility of friendship. Or enmity for that matter. You have a distinct advantage in this discussion: You know who you're up against, while I'm out here swinging my fists blindfolded.
That you are afraid of something is hardly “a wild assumption.” Why else would you withhold your identity than out of fear? Fear that your ideas won't be taken seriously? Fear of rejection? Of embarrassment? Of losing your job? There is such a thing as healthy fear. I, too, wear a seatbelt.
C.S. Lewis first published A Grief Observed anonymously. I cannot blame him for his decision. To bare the soul in so raw a way leaves a person vulnerable to criticism and derision—to invite further pain. But how much more weighty are his words when we know who wrote them; to know that the great apologist could suffer such terrible doubt lends an incomparable poignancy to the book.
As to my e-mail address, you can have it. (Best Buy and Sears do.) But what credit is it to your courage to contact me now? You already know that you have nothing to fear from me. hnnhtwd at hotmail. Ulysses, I call your bluff.
******
To O'Reilley, regarding the abortion issue: At the risk of taking another dog by the ears, I will simply ask another question: How is killing the baby to save the life of the mother any better than the scenario in 2 Kings 6:27-29? I will leave it up to the rest of you to sort that one out.
******
The real moral of the story is this: never take a leak without a roof over your head or your sunglasses on. Which reminds me, I need to go change someone’s diaper.
Hannah:
Your email kicked back, it had fatal errors.
Romey Guttner
So here I am breaking a promise not to post again. Forgive me.
Romey, double-check the spelling. Did you add the .com to the end? I haven't had any trouble receiving e-mails lately.
So you're comparing the ruthless and barbaric actions of the old testament kings to a woman's right (convenient choice) of having an abortion. HOW SWEET Hannah!?!?!
(I apologize for coming back again.) O'Reilly, I don't think my question was clear, so I'll try one more time. My understanding of the Bible leads me to believe that a child, whether unborn or running around the playground, is a human being made in God's image. For that reason, I believe that to kill a child—whether in the womb or out—is murder.
The question I was trying to ask—not rhetorically—is: Why is it not murder to kill my child if I'm going to die in childbirth? I'm not sure we pro-lifers are consistent in our stance when we start making exceptions for rape, for incest, or even for saving the life of the mother. Does a child cease to be human because his mother is dying?
Is a Christian ever right to say to a child, "You must die so that I may live"? (Unless, perhaps, the child cannot be saved either way, as in an ectopic pregnancy.) Being a follower of Christ involves a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of others. "Greater love has no one than this" (John 15:13). Whether the mother is going to die of childbirth or starvation (as in 2 Kings 6), does she have the right to take the life of her child to save her own?
All life is sacred in GOD's eyes. As a Christian we must trust in GOD in all things. That includes a mother's welfare. In the secular world we have come to a point of protection for the mother well being and convenience. YES, it would be murder, you have my answer on that.
My whole contention with this is that I don't like my tax money being used to pay for these "convenient" abortions. AND, that is exactly what will happen when this healthcare bill is passed. THIS stinks to HIGH HEAVEN!
Post a Comment