Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Dies

Everyone who disagrees with me dies, eventually.

You might not be able to tell it from my blog day to day, but I'm a very opinionated person. Another way to say it, I'm a factually-oriented person, since my opinions demonstrate no variance from fact, at least none I can discern.

In addition to being opinionated, my other super power is rage. Manifest most often when anything -- animate or inanimate -- goes against me or disappoints me in any way. You will find me in those moments spinning powerfully in the center of existence, wreaking havoc on everyone, from out and out enemies to good friends who simply misunderstood the question.

I remember one debate, a terrible one, several years ago. I remember it clearly, the issue being on the nature of the Sabbath, whether we should keep it, and, if so, what the nature of keeping it should be. Important stuff. Looking back on it now, having mostly put it out of my mind and being calmed down, I probably could've been calmer at the time. But those were the days before all the "Be Calm" signs, when we had to do tough mental tricks to remember.

It was me and some other guy -- named Burns -- whom, in the muddled consciousness I have when rage hits, I cursed and he dropped dead. His funeral was a few days later and every eye was on me as I entered the church. No one wanted anything to do with me, until one kindly woman in the front row defied the whole lot of them by getting up and walking slowly toward me at the back. She welcomed me. Her example won no converts, but at least I had someone to talk to at the luncheon.

It was that incident that clarified for me the penalty to be exacted when anyone disagrees with me. And I've never forgotten it. It's the basis of my absolute certainty to this day that death is the consequence, and if anyone has a different opinion on it ... make sure your life insurance is paid up.

To a certain extent, though, this has posed a problem for me personally.

Bear with me. Because if I have an opinion, another word for fact, and read something in a book that contradicts it, giving better arguments than I have, does the author die? Or if somehow the new information changes my opinion, does that mean I will die? I've resolved the last question pretty well. My opinions never came to me out of whole cloth but evolved. Therefore, supplemental information only refines my thought. And in the case of it reversing my previous opinion, I look at it as two sides of the same coin.

OK, I know what your argument would be to that, if you were brave enough to argue. Why do I allow this evolution for myself with books -- even to the point of using the "two sides of the same coin" justification -- but don't allow it if living people tell me? I think it's a good question, which I can't answer fully. But naturally any answer I give, this last answer for example, has to satisfy you. Or you'd be contradicting me and would die.

In the case of the authors, there's so many of them that are already dead, I've just more or less given a pass to the others. I can't be running around Googling every author to find out which ones aren't dead. Which might be a lesson for them, that eventually they'll get theirs. It's dangerous to be an author, thinking again of all the dead ones. Who'd they mess with? An author spreads disagreement widely. It'd be best to lock himself in a room, type his opinions and throw them away. Maybe not fulfilling to the ego, but at least he could survive.

Of course I welcome comments to each of my blog posts. This one included. Please, though -- I'll repeat that, PLEASE -- be careful what you say. The slightest disagreement will be met with rage. That's one thing, and it's temporary. But death will follow, which is permanent. No, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, or next week, or even next year. You might live a good 70-80 years, I don't know. But eventually, whether a day, a week, or a century, mark my words, you'll get yours!

Arguing With The Past: Painless Dentisty, 1906

1906. That's over 100 years ago, and you're telling me they had "painless dentistry" back then? I might have to argue with that.

One big reason would be, dentistry isn't painless now, after all these years of refining the tools and techniques. It's relatively more tolerable now than, say, the 1960s when I was most traumatized by dentists. Or the '70s, when I was somewhat less traumatized by them. Or the '80s, when I was even less traumatized. And so forth. The point is, In my lifetime -- encompassing years substantially past 1906 -- there has been plenty of pain to be found in dental work.

But somehow, in 1906 -- in a time of patent medicines and a quack on every corner -- they were able to advertise painless dentistry. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. But I'm looking right at it and that's what it says, "Teeth Extracted Without Pain Or No Pay."

Maybe there's a little technicality in that slogan. It doesn't say there won't be plenty of pain getting you completely anesthetized. A clunk in the head, like on the Three Stooges. Or what? A large injection of something that will kill you when you get home? I don't think I'd like a dentist in 1906 working in my mouth. I'm not sure what all dentists did back then. I know undertakers also sold furniture, barbers did surgery (maybe years before 1906). What would dentists be doing on the side? Jackhammering roads? I'm sure the equipment wasn't quite as nice as now.

I'm looking at the ad a little closer and it says, "Second to none our new process for the removal of nerves in five minutes without previous treatment." Just give us five minutes of your time and we'll strip your entire mouth of nerves. The way they put that, it makes it sound like your nerves are a bunch of wires clumped back there somewhere, and when they start stripping them they come through the drywall and all.  But reading on, it says, "Here is the way it is done. Patient comes in with jumping toothache; we apply the new process, pain stops immediately, nerve removed in five minutes, tooth filled in 20 minutes and crowned in 45 minutes." Something about the nerve being removed sounds lethal.

And as for going from toothache to crown in 45 minutes, they really did have it over us today, because even today the dentist has to send out for a crown. I've never seen a rack of crowns to pick through so you can find the one you like.

This was the Union Dental Company. The ad is from a Des Moines newspaper. They sound like a fairly large outfit, not like our little dental offices today. One, it says "No delay." So you can get right in. They have their own laboratory, which must be where they came up with the crowns. Then in capital letters it says, "NO SWEAT SHOP WORK, as we are agents for no factory." That sounds good. Then, "ALL WORK DONE AT HOME at prices lower than any dentist in Des Moines." Sounding good too. And listen to all the languages they speak there, German, English, French, Italian, and Swedish! And not an "Owww" in any of those tongues! (I added that last bit.)

Prices follow: "Very best set of teeth, $7.00; Gold crowns, $4.00; Bridge work, per tooth, $4.00; Gold Fillings, $1.00 and up; All other fillings, 50c and up."

I can't argue with the prices. They sound very cheap, only $7.00 for a set of teeth. At that price I might do it like they do contact lenses, just throw them away and start over with a new set every week.

Arguing With The Past: A Church In 1902

We've all seen movies about time travel, and the problems that happen when they go back in time and change things. That's not what this is about. I can't change anything about the past.

What this is about is arguing with the past, what should have been done instead of what they did. I can't do much about what they did. Of course in this case, involving the building above, since it's still there, it could be razed to the ground. But that would involve the expense of buying it from the present owners, while in no way making up for problems it caused nearly 110 years ago.

The building in the drawing is the "Proposed New Presbyterian Church" in Estherville, Iowa, from a newspaper account of July 2, 1902. Two days before July 4! What a way to do things, spring the news on us right before a long July 4 weekend (July 4 was on Friday that year). Presenting it essentially as a fait accompli right when we're off to celebrate our nation's independence, then when we get back on Monday we're too tired to raise arms against it. Next thing you know, they're turning the shovel...

I'm getting a little ahead of myself with the arguing, sorry. I wanted to look at the article a little more in detail. From The Estherville Enterprise, Estherville, IA, Wed., July 2, 1902, page 1, it reads:

PROPOSED NEW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Above we present a cut of the new Presbyterian church as designed by Architect James Cox, of this city. We understand the bids for construction are considerably above the sum intended for the purpose by the congregation. The building is one that would be an ornament, and a credit to any city; and yet quite within the resources of the Presbyterian congregation, if they would only think so. It is now evident to everybody that this city is disgracefully behind the times with its church buildings, and if any congregation in Estherville needs a new a larger building, the Presbyterians do. We understand that in the last year and a half, their membership has about doubled. Should their success continue, what will they do with their people? We sincerely hope that this new church will be a reality in Estherville within six months.

I've never seen this church, but going by the recent Google street view picture, they managed to build it. Whether it was within six months -- the paper seems to be really rushing it -- I don't know. Now, some of my arguments against the past, admittedly, are going to be based on ignorance. I have neither the time nor resources to research this as I should. That said, I'm going to make certain assumptions which perhaps could be considered drastically negative so my arguments can be made more strenuously and with greater conviction.

I'm going to assume that the old church was located somewhere else, and that they pulled strings to displace property owners on this particular block to sell out. I'm going to assume that they had an in with the city council and other authorities. I'm going to assume there were shady payoffs, and that while they may have had an interest in souls going to Heaven, their ethics were strictly from Hell. And I'll take it one step further, that the poor folks whose homes were demolished sat in the street pleading with the church, even staying overnight, and that, unknown to anyone until now, one of the deacons (or perhaps he was an elder) drove a bulldozer over them in the middle of the night. I'm assuming that bulldozers were in existence at the time. All that plus whatever other evidence occurs to me in the course of the next few paragraphs...

First, I wonder why the Estherville newspaper was so gung ho about getting the project built in the next six months. What's the rush? Shouldn't the people who live on the block have more notice than that? Shouldn't they be allowed to make an appeal to authorities beyond the city limits who might not be on the make? Six months after July, that puts us right in the heart of the winter. Are they expecting the poor folks on that block will leave quietly, then head somewhere warmer, some other town, without putting up a fuss?

Next, if I'm a member of the congregation, I'm wondering why they're ramrodding this thing through, since the architect, a local guy (!), brought in a bid "considerably above" what the congregation wanted to pay. Can't we shop around, maybe get a guy from out of town who's not acting in collusion with the city council and newspaper? Who's scratching whose back in this shady deal? That's my thought. Plus, I'm thinking, if it's "considerably above" what we want to pay, why do we need the big gothic tower out front? That's just wasted space, and within a hundred years or so, it'll be considered so cliche. How about something more practical? Like something prefab.

And how do you like it that the newspaper considers churches "ornaments" to a city? That's disgusting! A church is meant to be a servant of the Lord and the people, not to deck itself out in gold and finery, plaiting itself like a wanton whore. I could find verses for you in the Bible that judge this church for its attention to ornamentation instead of love for its neighbors. Simply displacing the poor folk who lived on that block, throwing them out in the street with winter coming, would bring judgment enough on them. But to stand idly by while a guy in a recently-invented bulldozer (possibly pulling a big lawnmower) smashes them, then grinds them to bloody body tissue, if that's not worshiping Moloch instead of God, I don't know what is!

I'm reading this -- and I'm, like, What? "The city is disgracefully behind the times with its church buildings..." If there's any disgrace here, it's the disgrace of bulldozing your own neighbors' homes, then mowing down their gardens with your mower attachment! That's a disgrace! One, you didn't give them a fair hearing. The city council, the newspaper, the architect, and the other powers that be were all in one another's pockets. This deal stinks to high heaven. The payoffs, the winks, the nods, the chuckling at other folks' misfortune, it's disgusting ... and you talk about disgrace? Those homes, I'm convinced, were built a long time before. People gave their lives to pay them off, for what? Only to find themselves in the street the first time "a church" decides it needs more lebensraum?

The Presbyterian church's membership had doubled in the last year or so, huh? I wonder how that happened! Maybe by a lowering of their standards, maybe by allowing in some of the baser element who would be vital to the underhanded deals in the very near future. I'm only speaking my own suspicions. This church knew it was going to be breaking kneecaps and inflaming the community with an unprecedented Reign of Terror, unlike anything seen since John Calvin himself, and for that they doubtless brought in a few hundred ringers from Geneva. Big, tough guys, brass knuckles, looking like Bolsheviks or professional wrestlers.

Then some of the other folks making up the increase would be local residents afraid of the Reign of Terror, and "converting" to Presbyterianism only to avoid the worst of the scourge. To those who were weak and gave in without a struggle, I don't give blanket condemnation; I'm sure they had their reasons. But to those who were strong and stood up as long as they could before the bulldozer came, I offer the greatest praise. And of course to any who hid their neighbors in closets and crawlspaces, I honor them as well. We may never know how many lives were spared in Estherville. Their testimonies would be great to hear, so this disgrace never happens again.

Looking at the church in the Google picture, it doesn't look as magnificent as the 1902 drawing. They've boarded up the bell tower and it looks like some shrubby tree took root. In short, rather than being the "ornament" they dreamed of, it's complete squalor. If there's anyone left from 1902, I ask, "How ya like them apples?" Because I only tell it like it is...

Arguing with the past is a useful exercise because time goes on. And we can let the failures of the past be cautionary tales for the future. If we want to build it, let's do it justly, and not ... by leaving victims bleeding in the street, victims whose blood still cries out to this day, over a century later.