A Cat or a Dog - If You Own One, You Should Read This

It's an age-old argument: which of the traditional family pets, (dog or cat), is the better choice?

Let's start with the following two assumptions:

1) For guarding the house and family, a dog has the edge, (although, I've seen Siamese cats that I wouldn't want to meet in the dark); and

2) Most pet owners are urban dwellers.

Pros and cons of each pet:

Dogs: On the pro side, they are normally loyal, lovable, and easy to teach tricks.

On the con side, (outside of a few breeds), they shed hair, (allergy alert), eat a lot, bark when you least expect them to, have an odour if kept indoors, must be taken for a walk at least twice a day regardless of whether it rains, snows, or the sun shines, and you have to pick up their droppings when they do their business.

Cats: On the pro side, they are cuddly, affectionate, eat little, can be taught a few tricks, (if you have the patience) and, if you happen to have a mouse issue, they will quickly clear it up. They can be trained as house pets and don't have to be taken outside for morning and evening walks, since they use a litter box.

On the con side, (outside of a few breeds), they shed hair, (allergy threat), are fussy eaters and will tell you if they don't like the salmon you're serving, and they can be possessive.

I would argue that most dogs require more maintenance than the average cat. The owner/pet relationship is different, as well.

You own a dog. It lets you know so by being slurpy with its tongue and acting servile. A cat, on the other hand, although affectionate, can be fickle, independent, and moody at times. The cat loves to let you know that the relationship is tenuous, and that he/she is just living with you.

So, which is the better choice? A barking loyal, dog, or a quiet, fickle cat?

I lean toward the _ _ _.

Gary

Warning: The Big Bang Theory has Holes in It!

Although there are several theories that try to explain the origin of mankind, two of the more popular ones, in my opinion, are:

- Evolution, starting with the "Big Bang" concept and nothing else; and
- Creation, with the premise that a higher order created human intelligence.

Big Bang advocates argue, in simplistic terms, that the universe, as we know it, originated from a gigantic ball, (a core), that suddenly appeared out of nowhere and exploded, hurtling incalculable quantities and masses of matter across a vast wilderness that came from nowhere. From the initial explosion, stars, planets, comets, asteroids, galaxies, and whatever else, formed in infinite quantities. From all of this, unaided, came the random crashing together of the particles that created human-beings.

Creationists, for the large part, do not have difficulty with the "Big Bang" concept since it does not contradict the creation of humankind by a higher order. In fact, it makes sense, but it doesn't work without a higher-order creator.

Many of the "Big Bang" supporters rely purely on science to explain our physical presence. If you can't see it, either with a microscope or a telescope, then it doesn't exist. I'd like to have a scientist show me a picture of wind.

Our problem as human-beings is that we are bounded by our limitations and our human intellect. Although we are wonders of innovation, we cannot comprehend that which is beyond our ability - and we do have limits.

Imagine, if you will, selecting the brightest species on the face of the Earth, other than the human-being, and creating a team from the brightest of the group and sitting them down at a table in front of us, and giving them the following basic task:

"Here is a photo of the Empire State Building, please design and build it," or,

"Here is a PC, please design and build it."

You might scoff at this ludicrous tasking, since we well know that it would be impossible, even for a highly trained team of, say, chimpanzees to attempt one of the above tasks.

Even so, the Big Bang proponents would like us to accept that there is nothing greater than ourselves. How vain.

The problem that Big Bang advocates and , for that matter, Atheists have, is believing in something that they cannot see, feel, or touch. Creationists, on the other hand, have no problem in this regard. Creationists accept that we are like the brightest chimpanzee in the eyes of our higher order - God. We cannot understand, because we are incapable of doing so, but we have faith.

Gary

Are Wisdom and Smartness the Same?

Do you necessarily need to be smart to be wise, or wise to be smart? A good question.

Let's start by defining both, and any ancillary terms. My "Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary" has the following definitions:

Smart: "Quick in thought or action; bright; acute; clever."

Clever: "Mentally keen; intelligent; quickwitted."

Wise: "Possessed of wisdom; seeing clearly what is right and just; having sound judgement. Sagacious; shrewd; calculating. Marked by wisdom; prudent; sensible. Having great learning; erudite; sage. Having practical knowledge of the arts or sciences."

Wisdom: "The power of true and right discernment; also conformity to the course of action dictated by such discernment. Good practical judgement; common sense."

Does it follow that someone who is smart and clever is necessarily wise, or equally, does it follow that someone who is wise is necessarily smart and clever? And, how does the ability to achieve academically factor into being wise or smart?

From what I've seen during my lifetime, I believe that there are many smart people who perform well academically but who possess little or no common sense and lack good judgement, ergo - lack wisdom.

There are also many wise people, that I have had the good fortune of meeting, who possess good judgement and common sense but don't perform well academically.

My opinion is that both wise and smart people can achieve well academically, but not both smart and wise people will display wisdom in their lives and in interactions with superiors, colleagues, and subordinates.

I would argue that you can be smart and clever without being wise, but, conversely, it would be difficult being wise without being smart and clever.

Today, the chances are very good, in my opinion, that someone who is wise will, as a norm, do well academically, but someone who is smart may fail miserably with the application of wisdom.

What do you think?

Gary