So yeah, we've ordered a copy of the last Harry Potter book. We pre-ordered it earlier this year, and Robin received an email notification from Amazon.com that our shipment would arrive on Saturday, which is the day of publication.
I like the books. They have their minor flaws, but on the whole, they're humorous, well-written, and imaginative. I'm looking forward to reading the final installment, and I have no intention of seeking out spoilers on the Intarwebz before Saturday. It seems that "spoiling the fun" has become a major sport, and there are lots of spoilers circulating online already, presumably originating with people who have received the book early by accident. (Some online retailer mistakenly shipped out a bunch of orders early.) Even the German newspaper I read online every day has a big headline about the "Harry Potter scandal", and their banner graphic breathlessly announces "Who Lives! Who dies! Who marries!", enticing folks to click on the story to learn more.
When the previous book came out, some people thought it to be great fun to drive to bookstores where kids were standing in line for the midnight release, and yell crucial plot information out of the window to spoil it for everyone standing in line. ("Snape kills Dumbledore!") People scanned the crucial page of the book, highlighted the critical information, and then posted it on discussion boards online, before the official release date of the book.
Now, some may think that the whole Harry Potter hubbub is ridiculous, and just a giant money making machine. Still, it's one thing to roll your eyes at the spectacle of midnight book launches and kids dressing up as wizards, and a different thing altogether to actively destroy the suspense and fun for those same kids. Sometimes I think that a significant portion of the population does not mature beyond high school age.
I'm not even reading reviews before Saturday, and I'm staying off the Internet for the most part, just so my fun isn't spoiled by some jackass with a scanner and an Internet account.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
a plague on both their houses.
I think that the culture war is lost.
By "culture war", I don't mean the tug-of-war between conservatives and liberals. Taxes, gun control, welfare, immigration, abortion, church & state issues...all of those things are smoke and mirrors in the end. No, the culture war I mean is the conflict between those who believe in the principles of freedom, and those who give mere lip service to it. There is no appreciable difference between liberals and conservatives these days--they all belong in the latter category, and the only difference between them is the kind of prohibition they want the government to enforce on the rest of us.
L. Neil Smith says that a politician's attitude towards the right to keep and bear arms is a barometer for his general attitude towards you. In other words, if he doesn't trust you with a gun, he won't trust you with anything else. I have come to the point where I must respectfully disagree with that theory.
I've moderated on several conservative-leaning gun boards for over half a decade now, and in the process I have learned a great deal about the gun rights crowd: they're people like anyone else, and they have no greater propensity towards defending civil liberties in general than the rest of the population. They like guns, plain and simple, and they tend to be thorough only in the defense of the constitutional amendment that recognizes their right to keep what they like. In general, however, gun owners have as many fans of authoritarianism among them as do the granola-munching Trotskyists on the other side of the political spectrum. Being in favor of gun rights is no guarantee of being a defender of liberty--it merely means that you like guns. There are plenty of politicians out there who wouldn't touch my right to own a firearm, but who would gladly use the power of the State to keep me from reading, watching, eating, smoking, driving, or talking about things they don't like.
Every group seems to have its own personal favorite in the Bill of Rights, and none of them seem to particularly care much about the other articles. The Left holds the First Amendment sacrosanct (especially the part about freedom of speech), but they have very little love or respect for the Second Amendment. The Right sees the Second Amendment as the linchpin of the Bill of Rights, but they're deeply uncomfortable with the protections afforded by the First Amendment, especially when the speech in question is deemed "obscene", or the religion exercised is anything but mainstream Christianity. Talk about the rest of the Bill of Rights, and you lose most gun folk altogether, who can't fathom why anyone would insist on keeping that archaic prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure or due process when it comes to drug or terrorism suspects.
In the meantime, those among us who just want to be left alone are shrinking in numbers. We are outvoted by the authoritarian wings of both the Right and the Left. Both Democrats and Republicans are in agreement about the need for further government authority and extensive social engineering; they merely fight over the proper vector. With control of the legislature seesawing between those two groups every few years, freedom is declining rapidly, and the only choice every election day seems to be a pick between a police state or a nanny state. We make our pick, sometimes as "single-issue voters" (as if you can defend the Bill of Rights by voting only for the guy who promises to leave your favorite amendment alone), and the compromise required for passing laws in D.C. guarantees that we get a mushy mix of nanny and police state, with emphasis tilting in whatever direction the majority in Congress wants it to go.
I think the root of all lousy legislation in this country is the desire of so many people to run the lives of other people. I think the vast majority of both liberals and conservatives is infected with the attitude that they themselves can run their own lives just fine, but that their neighbors just can't be trusted to run theirs if left to their own devices.
I'm not a single-issue voter. I may have been, once upon a time, but I have come to realize that the right to keep and bear arms is meaningless if you have to trade it for the rest of the Bill of Rights. With our rights disappearing at an ever-increasing rate, what exactly are we going to defend with those guns in the end? Our right to say non-obscene non-fighting words while practicing a non-controversial religion? Our right to be secure in our belongings and houses unless we're suspected of growing the wrong kind of plant in the basement? Our right to come and go as we please...unless we don't have the proper papers (and reasons for traveling)? Our right to due process and a jury trial...unless we're declared terrorism suspects or "enemy combatants"? Our right to own property...unless the city wants to give our land to a developer to increase tax revenue?
This may be pessimism, but I look at the way things are going, and I see a storm coming. Our slide into totalitarianism won't come in obvious and dramatic fashion, with some thirteenth-century holy warriors crossing the border in force with crescent armbands on their tunics and sharia law on their minds. It won't come like in a movie, with some flashy operetta dictator seizing power in a quick and photogenic coup. It's coming on quiet soles, with the help and assistance of most everyone around you, with everyone who casts a ballot for someone who promises to set their neighbors straight for them. Too many people are actively involved in making the links for the chains that bind all of us, and too many of them would rather surrender their own pet freedom than let their neighbor have his.
(Exaggeration? Ask some garden-variety conservatives if they'd vote to let anyone take any drug they wanted in return for the right to keep and bear arms without restrictions.)
It's pretty sad that we've reached the point where someone quoting the Founding Fathers is regarded as an "anti-government extremist", and that the only candidate on the national ballot who gives more than lip service to the Bill of Rights is derided by conservatives near and far as an unelectable looney.
If you vote for more of the same, you'll get more of the same, whether your pet vote whore has a (R) or a (D) after their name. As for me, I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils, and I won't help them wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights just because they promise to not use the part with my favorite amendment.
By "culture war", I don't mean the tug-of-war between conservatives and liberals. Taxes, gun control, welfare, immigration, abortion, church & state issues...all of those things are smoke and mirrors in the end. No, the culture war I mean is the conflict between those who believe in the principles of freedom, and those who give mere lip service to it. There is no appreciable difference between liberals and conservatives these days--they all belong in the latter category, and the only difference between them is the kind of prohibition they want the government to enforce on the rest of us.
L. Neil Smith says that a politician's attitude towards the right to keep and bear arms is a barometer for his general attitude towards you. In other words, if he doesn't trust you with a gun, he won't trust you with anything else. I have come to the point where I must respectfully disagree with that theory.
I've moderated on several conservative-leaning gun boards for over half a decade now, and in the process I have learned a great deal about the gun rights crowd: they're people like anyone else, and they have no greater propensity towards defending civil liberties in general than the rest of the population. They like guns, plain and simple, and they tend to be thorough only in the defense of the constitutional amendment that recognizes their right to keep what they like. In general, however, gun owners have as many fans of authoritarianism among them as do the granola-munching Trotskyists on the other side of the political spectrum. Being in favor of gun rights is no guarantee of being a defender of liberty--it merely means that you like guns. There are plenty of politicians out there who wouldn't touch my right to own a firearm, but who would gladly use the power of the State to keep me from reading, watching, eating, smoking, driving, or talking about things they don't like.
Every group seems to have its own personal favorite in the Bill of Rights, and none of them seem to particularly care much about the other articles. The Left holds the First Amendment sacrosanct (especially the part about freedom of speech), but they have very little love or respect for the Second Amendment. The Right sees the Second Amendment as the linchpin of the Bill of Rights, but they're deeply uncomfortable with the protections afforded by the First Amendment, especially when the speech in question is deemed "obscene", or the religion exercised is anything but mainstream Christianity. Talk about the rest of the Bill of Rights, and you lose most gun folk altogether, who can't fathom why anyone would insist on keeping that archaic prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure or due process when it comes to drug or terrorism suspects.
In the meantime, those among us who just want to be left alone are shrinking in numbers. We are outvoted by the authoritarian wings of both the Right and the Left. Both Democrats and Republicans are in agreement about the need for further government authority and extensive social engineering; they merely fight over the proper vector. With control of the legislature seesawing between those two groups every few years, freedom is declining rapidly, and the only choice every election day seems to be a pick between a police state or a nanny state. We make our pick, sometimes as "single-issue voters" (as if you can defend the Bill of Rights by voting only for the guy who promises to leave your favorite amendment alone), and the compromise required for passing laws in D.C. guarantees that we get a mushy mix of nanny and police state, with emphasis tilting in whatever direction the majority in Congress wants it to go.
I think the root of all lousy legislation in this country is the desire of so many people to run the lives of other people. I think the vast majority of both liberals and conservatives is infected with the attitude that they themselves can run their own lives just fine, but that their neighbors just can't be trusted to run theirs if left to their own devices.
I'm not a single-issue voter. I may have been, once upon a time, but I have come to realize that the right to keep and bear arms is meaningless if you have to trade it for the rest of the Bill of Rights. With our rights disappearing at an ever-increasing rate, what exactly are we going to defend with those guns in the end? Our right to say non-obscene non-fighting words while practicing a non-controversial religion? Our right to be secure in our belongings and houses unless we're suspected of growing the wrong kind of plant in the basement? Our right to come and go as we please...unless we don't have the proper papers (and reasons for traveling)? Our right to due process and a jury trial...unless we're declared terrorism suspects or "enemy combatants"? Our right to own property...unless the city wants to give our land to a developer to increase tax revenue?
This may be pessimism, but I look at the way things are going, and I see a storm coming. Our slide into totalitarianism won't come in obvious and dramatic fashion, with some thirteenth-century holy warriors crossing the border in force with crescent armbands on their tunics and sharia law on their minds. It won't come like in a movie, with some flashy operetta dictator seizing power in a quick and photogenic coup. It's coming on quiet soles, with the help and assistance of most everyone around you, with everyone who casts a ballot for someone who promises to set their neighbors straight for them. Too many people are actively involved in making the links for the chains that bind all of us, and too many of them would rather surrender their own pet freedom than let their neighbor have his.
(Exaggeration? Ask some garden-variety conservatives if they'd vote to let anyone take any drug they wanted in return for the right to keep and bear arms without restrictions.)
It's pretty sad that we've reached the point where someone quoting the Founding Fathers is regarded as an "anti-government extremist", and that the only candidate on the national ballot who gives more than lip service to the Bill of Rights is derided by conservatives near and far as an unelectable looney.
If you vote for more of the same, you'll get more of the same, whether your pet vote whore has a (R) or a (D) after their name. As for me, I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils, and I won't help them wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights just because they promise to not use the part with my favorite amendment.
goose and gander.
I'm not surprised that CNN doesn't have the facts right about the Ramos/Compean case. I'm even less surprised that some Senator has his head up his ass about the whole case.
To wit: Border agents Ramos and Compean shot at a fleeing and unarmed suspected drug trafficker at the border, then covered up the shooting and lied about it. They were convicted in a court of law, and are now serving 11- and 12-year federal sentences, respectively.
There's a movement afoot to have the convictions overturned and/or the agents pardoned by the POTUS. Nobody speaking up for those agents seems to get the facts right.
The case is not about whether it ought to be right to shoot at fleeing felons at the border. It's not about the rights of cops and border agents to defend themselves against Mexican criminals. That's another debate, and it's completely irrelevant to this particular case.
Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted of shooting at an unarmed suspect fifteen times and then covering up the shooting. They also received a mandatory ten years in Club Fed for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. That's Federal law, friends, and stupid or not, it applies to everyone, not just the gangbanger doing a drive-by or robbing a Kwik-E-Mart. (That's the nature of law...once it's passed, it never takes long for someone to get that "pants around the ankles" look on their face and say, "But it was never supposed to apply to people like me!")
From the article, we learn that Senator Dianne Feinstein (Marxist-CA) wants to "change a law used by Sutton that required the agents receive at least 10 years for firing their weapons."
Oh, sure, mandatory firearms sentences are fine and dandy when some yokel from Oklahoma gets busted in NYC with a snubby in his front pocket, or some disadvantaged minority youth robs a convenience store, but they're unjust and in need of changing when the King's Men get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, right?
You know you're on the wrong side of an argument when you look next to you and see Dianne Feinstein on your side.
Don't want unintended consequences from mandatory sentencing? Don't want to see good folks go to jail for decades because those mandatory guidelines take discretion away from the judge? Then repeal the stupid law, or don't pass it in the first place.
That's what mandatory sentence laws are: the judiciary version of "zero tolerance" policies in public schools. They share all the same drawbacks, and they deserve the same kind of contempt. Alas, the same folks who rant against "zero tolerance" policies as a tool of the moonbat left also support mandatory sentence laws because it "gets the crackhead gangbangers off the street for a long time", and it won't allow those liberal activist judges to get soft on sentencing.
To wit: Border agents Ramos and Compean shot at a fleeing and unarmed suspected drug trafficker at the border, then covered up the shooting and lied about it. They were convicted in a court of law, and are now serving 11- and 12-year federal sentences, respectively.
There's a movement afoot to have the convictions overturned and/or the agents pardoned by the POTUS. Nobody speaking up for those agents seems to get the facts right.
The case is not about whether it ought to be right to shoot at fleeing felons at the border. It's not about the rights of cops and border agents to defend themselves against Mexican criminals. That's another debate, and it's completely irrelevant to this particular case.
Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted of shooting at an unarmed suspect fifteen times and then covering up the shooting. They also received a mandatory ten years in Club Fed for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. That's Federal law, friends, and stupid or not, it applies to everyone, not just the gangbanger doing a drive-by or robbing a Kwik-E-Mart. (That's the nature of law...once it's passed, it never takes long for someone to get that "pants around the ankles" look on their face and say, "But it was never supposed to apply to people like me!")
From the article, we learn that Senator Dianne Feinstein (Marxist-CA) wants to "change a law used by Sutton that required the agents receive at least 10 years for firing their weapons."
Oh, sure, mandatory firearms sentences are fine and dandy when some yokel from Oklahoma gets busted in NYC with a snubby in his front pocket, or some disadvantaged minority youth robs a convenience store, but they're unjust and in need of changing when the King's Men get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, right?
You know you're on the wrong side of an argument when you look next to you and see Dianne Feinstein on your side.
Don't want unintended consequences from mandatory sentencing? Don't want to see good folks go to jail for decades because those mandatory guidelines take discretion away from the judge? Then repeal the stupid law, or don't pass it in the first place.
That's what mandatory sentence laws are: the judiciary version of "zero tolerance" policies in public schools. They share all the same drawbacks, and they deserve the same kind of contempt. Alas, the same folks who rant against "zero tolerance" policies as a tool of the moonbat left also support mandatory sentence laws because it "gets the crackhead gangbangers off the street for a long time", and it won't allow those liberal activist judges to get soft on sentencing.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
that's why they call it the wilderness.
So a California guy goes hiking in Montana with his daughter, and they get attacked by a brown bear. They survive the attack, but dad gets mauled pretty badly, and they're all over the news with their "dramatic story of survival".
What amuses me about the reporting is the gratuitous use of emotionally charged adjectives. We are told that the bear "savagely attacked" the guy.
Well, duh. It's a freakin' bear. They're not known for their civilized table manners.
"I say, old chap, would you awfully mind holding out your arm so I can take a brief nibble, if it's not too much of a bother? I am feeling a tad peckish this morning."
Nature is great, but I have no illusions that there are things out there that will cheerfully turn me into lunch without malice or remorse. That's the way nature works--it's hard and unforgiving. Like Bob Heinlein says, we're adapted to living on this rock by millions of years of evolution, and an unprotected human can (and will) die just from exposure to the elements within a day or two. Toss in all the things on the planet which are a.) predatory, and b.) stronger than humans, and the only advantage we have is the fact that we have opposable thumbs and big brains, the better to fashion tools and shelter with.
One of such tools is the firearm. I'll probably see the Montana back country at some point in my life. Maybe I'll even make it up to Alaska. Wherever I go, however, you can be damn sure of the fact that there will be a large-ish handgun loaded with very heavy hardcast bullets on my person.
(Yeah, I know about the rules on personal firearms in national parks. Guess I have to stay out of those, eh? Wouldn't want to break the law or anything.)
What amuses me about the reporting is the gratuitous use of emotionally charged adjectives. We are told that the bear "savagely attacked" the guy.
Well, duh. It's a freakin' bear. They're not known for their civilized table manners.
"I say, old chap, would you awfully mind holding out your arm so I can take a brief nibble, if it's not too much of a bother? I am feeling a tad peckish this morning."
Nature is great, but I have no illusions that there are things out there that will cheerfully turn me into lunch without malice or remorse. That's the way nature works--it's hard and unforgiving. Like Bob Heinlein says, we're adapted to living on this rock by millions of years of evolution, and an unprotected human can (and will) die just from exposure to the elements within a day or two. Toss in all the things on the planet which are a.) predatory, and b.) stronger than humans, and the only advantage we have is the fact that we have opposable thumbs and big brains, the better to fashion tools and shelter with.
One of such tools is the firearm. I'll probably see the Montana back country at some point in my life. Maybe I'll even make it up to Alaska. Wherever I go, however, you can be damn sure of the fact that there will be a large-ish handgun loaded with very heavy hardcast bullets on my person.
(Yeah, I know about the rules on personal firearms in national parks. Guess I have to stay out of those, eh? Wouldn't want to break the law or anything.)
Saturday, July 14, 2007
pet peeves.
I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty, but I firmly believe that there are some offenses that merit getting a one-way trip to Magic Happy Land via needle or electric chair.
There are some offenses, however, that are so much of an affront to a civilized society that their commission should result in instant execution. No trial, no due process--get caught doing any of these things, and you deserve a swift and violent death, administered by the folks who have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Among those acts are:
1.) Talking out loud during a movie, including (but not limited to) shouting advice to the characters on the screen, or answering your motherfucking cell phone. They should issue every moviegoer a suppressed Ruger Mark II just for the purpose of shooting movie yakkers in the back of the head when they start running their mouths.
*ring ring* (or worse, MP3 "gangsta rap" ring tone)
"Hello? Yeah, dawg, I'm at the movies. Where you a--"
*plop plop*
"...urrrrgh..."
2.) Standing in the "20 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket with a cart packed halfway to the ceiling. Bonus points for paying with a slow method of currency exchange, like filling out a check laboriously by hand. Extra bonus points for not having ID to present with said check. Super extra bonus points for having the cashier scan in a stack of coupons. Triple bonus for checking every goddamned item on your goddamned receipt to make sure the cashier didn't stiff you on your $0.89 cat food coupons. Cashiers ought to have sawed-off double-barrel shotguns under the register just for folks like you. In fact, keep another one on a string hanging from the magazine & candy bar rack by the register, so that the suffering person next in line can let you have both barrels.
3.) Attempting to merge into fast-moving Interstate traffic, and then coming to a dead stop at the end of the on-ramp, blinker out, hoping to merge into traffic going 60+ miles per hour from a standing start. That's not just a great way to get yourself killed, but also a marvelous source of enjoyment for the drivers coming up behind you--the ones that actually know how to merge into Interstate traffic, and who now have to do a happy little slalom around your retarded ass, because you're blocking the on-ramp with your Mercury Medicare. It's a great injustice that 40mm grenade launchers are restricted as Destructive Devices, because there ought to be one in every passenger foot space just for folks like you.
4.) Using the words "irregardless" and "supposably" with serious intent, as if they are actual, valid English. If you're an adult with at least a high school diploma, and those words come out of your mouth, your conversation target should have the undisputed and absolute right to empty their sidearm into your stupid face and leave your carcass on the sidewalk as a warning.
5.) Speeding past the line of cars waiting on an off-ramp or interstate merge, only to squeeze into the line at the last possible moment. Because, you know, we're all just waiting our turn in this long-ass line because we have nothing better to do. You, on the other hand, are so goddamned important that the normal rules of the road don't apply to you, never mind the unwritten rules of common courtesy. If you do that clever little last-second merge, the ticked-off people behind you ought to have the right to drag you from your vehicle, string you up on the nearest light post, and go piñata on your ass with tire irons.
6.) Driving around in a pick-up truck with a bed full of loose trash. Look, Bubba, I understand it's a bit of an effort to bag your trash and take it to the dump, but I don't think I should have to dodge your terbaccy-juice-filled Styrofoam soda cups, Twinkie wrappers, and ashtray contents. It'd be sweet (and by that I mean totally awesome) if the people suffering from your comet trail of garbage could chain you to the steering wheel and dump you and your truck in one of those handy car compactors that turn a two-ton vehicle into a two-ton coffee table.
This list of offenses is by no means exhaustive. They're just the tip of the iceberg, the most egregious of courtesy felonies that get my blood pressure up every time I encounter them. I think if we must have a death penalty on the books, it would be a shame to limit its application to such pedestrian offenses as Murder One. It's time to cull the herd, I say.
There are some offenses, however, that are so much of an affront to a civilized society that their commission should result in instant execution. No trial, no due process--get caught doing any of these things, and you deserve a swift and violent death, administered by the folks who have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Among those acts are:
1.) Talking out loud during a movie, including (but not limited to) shouting advice to the characters on the screen, or answering your motherfucking cell phone. They should issue every moviegoer a suppressed Ruger Mark II just for the purpose of shooting movie yakkers in the back of the head when they start running their mouths.
*ring ring* (or worse, MP3 "gangsta rap" ring tone)
"Hello? Yeah, dawg, I'm at the movies. Where you a--"
*plop plop*
"...urrrrgh..."
2.) Standing in the "20 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket with a cart packed halfway to the ceiling. Bonus points for paying with a slow method of currency exchange, like filling out a check laboriously by hand. Extra bonus points for not having ID to present with said check. Super extra bonus points for having the cashier scan in a stack of coupons. Triple bonus for checking every goddamned item on your goddamned receipt to make sure the cashier didn't stiff you on your $0.89 cat food coupons. Cashiers ought to have sawed-off double-barrel shotguns under the register just for folks like you. In fact, keep another one on a string hanging from the magazine & candy bar rack by the register, so that the suffering person next in line can let you have both barrels.
3.) Attempting to merge into fast-moving Interstate traffic, and then coming to a dead stop at the end of the on-ramp, blinker out, hoping to merge into traffic going 60+ miles per hour from a standing start. That's not just a great way to get yourself killed, but also a marvelous source of enjoyment for the drivers coming up behind you--the ones that actually know how to merge into Interstate traffic, and who now have to do a happy little slalom around your retarded ass, because you're blocking the on-ramp with your Mercury Medicare. It's a great injustice that 40mm grenade launchers are restricted as Destructive Devices, because there ought to be one in every passenger foot space just for folks like you.
4.) Using the words "irregardless" and "supposably" with serious intent, as if they are actual, valid English. If you're an adult with at least a high school diploma, and those words come out of your mouth, your conversation target should have the undisputed and absolute right to empty their sidearm into your stupid face and leave your carcass on the sidewalk as a warning.
5.) Speeding past the line of cars waiting on an off-ramp or interstate merge, only to squeeze into the line at the last possible moment. Because, you know, we're all just waiting our turn in this long-ass line because we have nothing better to do. You, on the other hand, are so goddamned important that the normal rules of the road don't apply to you, never mind the unwritten rules of common courtesy. If you do that clever little last-second merge, the ticked-off people behind you ought to have the right to drag you from your vehicle, string you up on the nearest light post, and go piñata on your ass with tire irons.
6.) Driving around in a pick-up truck with a bed full of loose trash. Look, Bubba, I understand it's a bit of an effort to bag your trash and take it to the dump, but I don't think I should have to dodge your terbaccy-juice-filled Styrofoam soda cups, Twinkie wrappers, and ashtray contents. It'd be sweet (and by that I mean totally awesome) if the people suffering from your comet trail of garbage could chain you to the steering wheel and dump you and your truck in one of those handy car compactors that turn a two-ton vehicle into a two-ton coffee table.
This list of offenses is by no means exhaustive. They're just the tip of the iceberg, the most egregious of courtesy felonies that get my blood pressure up every time I encounter them. I think if we must have a death penalty on the books, it would be a shame to limit its application to such pedestrian offenses as Murder One. It's time to cull the herd, I say.
Friday, July 13, 2007
another arrival in valhalla.
Jim Cirillo, former NYPD stakeout unit officer, shooter, and instructor, died last night in a traffic accident.
In his service with NYPD, he survived--make that won--over 250 armed encounters with bad guys. He was known to sling a mean wheelgun, and he was one of the gun gurus I truly respected.
Add another name to the list of people I'll never get to meet.
In his service with NYPD, he survived--make that won--over 250 armed encounters with bad guys. He was known to sling a mean wheelgun, and he was one of the gun gurus I truly respected.
Add another name to the list of people I'll never get to meet.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
hooray for capitalism.
Our fridge gave up the ghost on Saturday. Robin was at work, and we were looking forward to a nice, relaxing evening. Instead, she had to run back out to Lowe's to get a new fridge, and I had to shuttle Lyra's milk bottles into a cooler.
Thanks to the marvels of capitalism, we were able to have a new fridge delivered the next day. They unloaded it, hooked it up, and hauled away the busted one. In addition, they upgraded us from a basic GE to a nicer Frigidaire, because the web-advertised special was not in stock.
In a socialist country, we would have had to file a request with the Household Appliance Committee, which would have weighed the urgency of our request, and then decided where to fit us into the waiting line for the People's Refrigerator Factory. Since we have a toddler and an infant, we probably would have made the accelerated waiting list, which means that the factory would have had a replacement ready for us in less than six months. The new fridge would have been made in Bulgaria, or (if we were politically connected) Slovenia. On the plus side, it would have cost us only very little of our worthless paper currency with pictures of Heroes of the Socialist Struggle on it.
You think I'm joking, or perhaps exaggerating? Think again. Not only did I visit East Germany when it was still the DDR, but we also had relatives over there. They had to put in the request for a car for their kids shortly after they were born, so they could take delivery of their smoking little two-stroke-engine-equipped duroplast car when the kid turned eighteen. (They still had to pay when they put in the order, though.) When I was over there to visit, they made us exchange thirty or so Deutsche Marks for each day of our stay. I couldn't find anything on which to spend my several hundred East German Marks, so I had to get rid of it by going to a bookstore and getting a suitcase full of East German propaganda books. (You couldn't take the precious socialist currency out of the country, you see.) The East German border guard who checked our luggage on our way back home was mightily pleased to see a young Klassenfeind with a proper variety of socialist literature in his suitcase. (That was okay to take out of the country, you see.)
Ah, but remember, kids--socialism is such a great idea in theory! And the only reason why it hasn't worked yet is because the right people haven't been in charge.
Thanks to the marvels of capitalism, we were able to have a new fridge delivered the next day. They unloaded it, hooked it up, and hauled away the busted one. In addition, they upgraded us from a basic GE to a nicer Frigidaire, because the web-advertised special was not in stock.
In a socialist country, we would have had to file a request with the Household Appliance Committee, which would have weighed the urgency of our request, and then decided where to fit us into the waiting line for the People's Refrigerator Factory. Since we have a toddler and an infant, we probably would have made the accelerated waiting list, which means that the factory would have had a replacement ready for us in less than six months. The new fridge would have been made in Bulgaria, or (if we were politically connected) Slovenia. On the plus side, it would have cost us only very little of our worthless paper currency with pictures of Heroes of the Socialist Struggle on it.
You think I'm joking, or perhaps exaggerating? Think again. Not only did I visit East Germany when it was still the DDR, but we also had relatives over there. They had to put in the request for a car for their kids shortly after they were born, so they could take delivery of their smoking little two-stroke-engine-equipped duroplast car when the kid turned eighteen. (They still had to pay when they put in the order, though.) When I was over there to visit, they made us exchange thirty or so Deutsche Marks for each day of our stay. I couldn't find anything on which to spend my several hundred East German Marks, so I had to get rid of it by going to a bookstore and getting a suitcase full of East German propaganda books. (You couldn't take the precious socialist currency out of the country, you see.) The East German border guard who checked our luggage on our way back home was mightily pleased to see a young Klassenfeind with a proper variety of socialist literature in his suitcase. (That was okay to take out of the country, you see.)
Ah, but remember, kids--socialism is such a great idea in theory! And the only reason why it hasn't worked yet is because the right people haven't been in charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)