Once again there was a nice break since the last time I posted. In that time, the Congress has seen fit to address gun control (sort of) by including a gun provision in a bill that had NOTHING TO DO WITH guns in any way. Yet another reason why I don't like/trust the government. If someone does get shot in a national forest, I hope they (or their surviving family) sue each and every politician who voted for that law. That would make 'em think twice...maybe.
Anyway, there was a break since last posting in part because Partner and I went to San Francisco and Paradise, CA for six days. Luckily I had heard the long-standing fact that SF weather in the summer can be very cold, so I dressed for it. I almost felt sorry for the other tourists in shorts and light clothes who were shivering under the fog-filled sky. One little kid in a restaurant said it was supposed to be warm, to which the surly waitress replied, "Why, because it's California? In San Francisco it's cold in the summer!" That'll teach him.
The Friday night before we left for our trip, we were at a bar talking to a friend. I told him how I had given up alcohol for a few weeks and was trying to stay on a diet that had me eating foods specifically beneficial for my blood type. I told him I was blood type A. With a drink in his hand, Partner said he was blood type AA.
Later in that same conversation, the friend and I got on to the subject of how we dislike people who can't laugh at themselves. (I don't trust or like people who don't use self-deprecating humor. Is their self-esteem so delicate that they can't see any humor in what they do? I'd feel sorry for them except that I'm usually running in the other direction.) My friend said, "People who can't laugh at themselves are the only ones not in on the joke." Brilliant!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Cure for America II
I'm a big fan of common-sense solutions for what seem to be really devisive issues. Take, for example, gun control.
Right up front I have to say that I am not a hunter, nor did I grow up with a gun in my house. However, I do consider myself somewhat of a libertarian, and I don't think of guns as evil; I believe they are made to kill, but I also believe they serve a purpose for hunting and home defense. With that in mind, I'm all for the ban on all handguns and automatic weapons.
That might sound like a purely Leftist statement to someone who is a member of the NRA and thinks this country would be better off if everyone carried a firearm, but I think it's just a pragmatic solution to a terrible problem. In this country, people die from shootings every day (and if I weren't so lazy, I'd probably do a google search and get some statistics), and in fact, most small cities have more gun-related deaths in a couple of months than the UK has in a year. It IS a problem, and if the victims were rich white kids instead of poor blacks, then I'm sure there'd be more of an outcry (ok, now I am sounding like a Lefty).
Anyway, if we want to keep weapons for hunting and defense, then there's no need for handguns (which are inaccurate) or automatic weapons (designed to kill many people very quickly). Shotguns and rifles can do just fine for both, since rifles are more accurate, and neither activity requires a gun that must be concealed. Handguns are basically designed to be concealable and shot in very close quarters at fairly close distances - designed, in fact, to be perfect for crime.
In fact, if we take those same qualities to an extreme, we can see why handguns are bad. Imagine if a gunmaker came out with a gun that was about the size of a wallet (very concealable), was very inaccurate after four feet (absolutely NO good for hunting), and was powerful enough to blow a hole through plexiglass. Most people (especially police!) would probably want to ban that gun because it was absolutely perfect for crime - like robbing banks - without serving any other practical purpose. Yet, normal handguns have those very same qualities, just not as powerful. Do we have to wait until the technology improves to the point where that imaginary gun is possible?
**********************************
OK, after writing all that I realize that I'm probably not stating my case in the most articulate manner, and I have more points to make about the practical difficulties of banning guns. However, I'm a bit tired and distracted, so I'm going to stop here...
Right up front I have to say that I am not a hunter, nor did I grow up with a gun in my house. However, I do consider myself somewhat of a libertarian, and I don't think of guns as evil; I believe they are made to kill, but I also believe they serve a purpose for hunting and home defense. With that in mind, I'm all for the ban on all handguns and automatic weapons.
That might sound like a purely Leftist statement to someone who is a member of the NRA and thinks this country would be better off if everyone carried a firearm, but I think it's just a pragmatic solution to a terrible problem. In this country, people die from shootings every day (and if I weren't so lazy, I'd probably do a google search and get some statistics), and in fact, most small cities have more gun-related deaths in a couple of months than the UK has in a year. It IS a problem, and if the victims were rich white kids instead of poor blacks, then I'm sure there'd be more of an outcry (ok, now I am sounding like a Lefty).
Anyway, if we want to keep weapons for hunting and defense, then there's no need for handguns (which are inaccurate) or automatic weapons (designed to kill many people very quickly). Shotguns and rifles can do just fine for both, since rifles are more accurate, and neither activity requires a gun that must be concealed. Handguns are basically designed to be concealable and shot in very close quarters at fairly close distances - designed, in fact, to be perfect for crime.
In fact, if we take those same qualities to an extreme, we can see why handguns are bad. Imagine if a gunmaker came out with a gun that was about the size of a wallet (very concealable), was very inaccurate after four feet (absolutely NO good for hunting), and was powerful enough to blow a hole through plexiglass. Most people (especially police!) would probably want to ban that gun because it was absolutely perfect for crime - like robbing banks - without serving any other practical purpose. Yet, normal handguns have those very same qualities, just not as powerful. Do we have to wait until the technology improves to the point where that imaginary gun is possible?
**********************************
OK, after writing all that I realize that I'm probably not stating my case in the most articulate manner, and I have more points to make about the practical difficulties of banning guns. However, I'm a bit tired and distracted, so I'm going to stop here...
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Cure for America I
I'm a big fan of common-sense solutions for what seem to be really devisive issues. Take, for example, abortion.
Right from the start I have to say that I'm pro-choice. It's ridiculous to think that if a (young) woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she won't try to abort the fetus herself and thereby hurt or perhaps kill herself in the process. After all, that's what was done before abortions became legal - that is, unless the girl was lucky enough to find a woman/doctor who would do the procedure in secret. Also, I can't imagine making a woman carry a baby to term if the baby is a product of a rape. That's a nine-month reminder of the horrible event, all the while the mother has to endure pain and sacrifice to keep the baby healthy. Ultimately, it has to be a woman's choice.
(And I came up with a bumpersticker slogan: "If you choose to have a baby, then you are Pro Choice.")
Given my beliefs, I also recognize that people are going to try and take away a mother's right to choose. More often then not they cite god in their argument, but since we have a separation of church and state, I don't see how that argument can hold water. Or, they call abortion murder. It's admirable that they want to protect the child, but I find it interesting that those same people will turn their backs on the child as soon as it's born. Why aren't they crying out for better and cheaper pre-natal care? Why aren't they supporting more Head Start programs? Why aren't they helping the poor/unfortunate mothers who often have to support the babies alone? Why aren't they adopting the unwanted infants after they're born? I just hate the hypocracy of the "pro-life" movement.
Anyway, my solution is this: since the two sides will never see eye-to-eye, why not compromise. I say that abortion should be 100% legal in the first trimester and 100% illegal in the third trimester, and let the individual states decide if they want to allow abortions during the second trimester. Again, I am pro-choice, but even I believe that 6 months ought to be enough time for a woman/couple to decide on an abortion or not. After that, fly to another country if you want to abort; you have to pay extra for your indecision. (By the way, abortions are never an issue if the mother's health is at stake, no matter what the trimester. That's called self-defence, and that's legal no matter what the circumstances.)
The only problem with my solution as far as I can see is that I don't know if it's technically legal. In other words, I don't know if the federal government has the ability to make a law for two-thirds of a problem and leave one-third up to the states. Perhaps all the states would have to agree to the first- and third-trimester rule and then decide for themselves about the second. In that way, the federal government wouldn't be involved.
Next up: gun control...
Right from the start I have to say that I'm pro-choice. It's ridiculous to think that if a (young) woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she won't try to abort the fetus herself and thereby hurt or perhaps kill herself in the process. After all, that's what was done before abortions became legal - that is, unless the girl was lucky enough to find a woman/doctor who would do the procedure in secret. Also, I can't imagine making a woman carry a baby to term if the baby is a product of a rape. That's a nine-month reminder of the horrible event, all the while the mother has to endure pain and sacrifice to keep the baby healthy. Ultimately, it has to be a woman's choice.
(And I came up with a bumpersticker slogan: "If you choose to have a baby, then you are Pro Choice.")
Given my beliefs, I also recognize that people are going to try and take away a mother's right to choose. More often then not they cite god in their argument, but since we have a separation of church and state, I don't see how that argument can hold water. Or, they call abortion murder. It's admirable that they want to protect the child, but I find it interesting that those same people will turn their backs on the child as soon as it's born. Why aren't they crying out for better and cheaper pre-natal care? Why aren't they supporting more Head Start programs? Why aren't they helping the poor/unfortunate mothers who often have to support the babies alone? Why aren't they adopting the unwanted infants after they're born? I just hate the hypocracy of the "pro-life" movement.
Anyway, my solution is this: since the two sides will never see eye-to-eye, why not compromise. I say that abortion should be 100% legal in the first trimester and 100% illegal in the third trimester, and let the individual states decide if they want to allow abortions during the second trimester. Again, I am pro-choice, but even I believe that 6 months ought to be enough time for a woman/couple to decide on an abortion or not. After that, fly to another country if you want to abort; you have to pay extra for your indecision. (By the way, abortions are never an issue if the mother's health is at stake, no matter what the trimester. That's called self-defence, and that's legal no matter what the circumstances.)
The only problem with my solution as far as I can see is that I don't know if it's technically legal. In other words, I don't know if the federal government has the ability to make a law for two-thirds of a problem and leave one-third up to the states. Perhaps all the states would have to agree to the first- and third-trimester rule and then decide for themselves about the second. In that way, the federal government wouldn't be involved.
Next up: gun control...
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Timely Medicine
I played D&D with local friends on Sat afternoon, then came home and played D&D remotely (using Google Talk) with friends back in MA. Except...I didn't. At least not on time. Our start time is supposed to be 5 pm (my time), but we didn't start until almost 6.
The problem: I had to stop my other game prematurely in order to get home by 5. Also, I had to sit by my computer and wait without having any idea why there was a delay. (I tried calling two different phone numbers, but no answer on either line.) Now, I totally enjoy playing D&D with those friends, but I couldn't help but feel that the rest of my night was tainted by the late start. It was unlike me, but I ended up writing an email to all of them to try and start on time in future. I won't know til June if they paid attention to it...
Recently I started going to a chiropractor for tendonitis in my shoulder. Since he's an older man with lots of knowledge and experience, I asked him for a recommendation for an acupuncturist. He recommended Chris Slama in North Portland, so I went to him last Friday. I was supposed to be there for 90 minutes but ended up staying for almost two and a half hours. His questions were very thorough and he said all of the right things to make me feel like he knows what he's doing. I went back yesterday for an herbal tea, which I took last night and again this morning. I'll keep track of my progress. Hopefully I can get back to the point where I'm happy with my body again.
The problem: I had to stop my other game prematurely in order to get home by 5. Also, I had to sit by my computer and wait without having any idea why there was a delay. (I tried calling two different phone numbers, but no answer on either line.) Now, I totally enjoy playing D&D with those friends, but I couldn't help but feel that the rest of my night was tainted by the late start. It was unlike me, but I ended up writing an email to all of them to try and start on time in future. I won't know til June if they paid attention to it...
Recently I started going to a chiropractor for tendonitis in my shoulder. Since he's an older man with lots of knowledge and experience, I asked him for a recommendation for an acupuncturist. He recommended Chris Slama in North Portland, so I went to him last Friday. I was supposed to be there for 90 minutes but ended up staying for almost two and a half hours. His questions were very thorough and he said all of the right things to make me feel like he knows what he's doing. I went back yesterday for an herbal tea, which I took last night and again this morning. I'll keep track of my progress. Hopefully I can get back to the point where I'm happy with my body again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
