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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Favorite TV redux
I can't believe I forgot to mention these two shows, but there you go...
Star Trek:TNG - I loved watching the reruns of Star Trek when I was younger (I saw most of them on a black-and-white tv set, so I didn't get to appreciate the fantastic lighting and psychedelic colors of the set, but I still loved them), so I eagerly anticipated the new series. I watched the first few eps but soon gave up. I just didn't think the show was up to the high expectations I had for it. However, I came back to it now and then through the rest of that first season and then more through season two. By the time season three was on, I was hooked and watching it every week. An excellent successor to the original, and what a great choice in Patrick Stewart! I was given the dvd sets of seasons four and six as gifts, although some of the best eps were from seasons three and five (and some fun experimental ones in season seven).
Arrested Development - I saw most of the eps from season one when they were first on but, although I enjoyed it immensely, for some reason was not able to see the show every week. When the dvd's were released, I bought season one and loved it, but I hesitated in buying seasons two and three (see previous post). Recently Partner and I were able to watch all of those eps in order on tv, and we loved them. Now, I can't believe I never invested in the dvd's. If I find them cheap, I still might. This is a show that definitely rewards multiple viewings. Can't wait for the movie!
Star Trek:TNG - I loved watching the reruns of Star Trek when I was younger (I saw most of them on a black-and-white tv set, so I didn't get to appreciate the fantastic lighting and psychedelic colors of the set, but I still loved them), so I eagerly anticipated the new series. I watched the first few eps but soon gave up. I just didn't think the show was up to the high expectations I had for it. However, I came back to it now and then through the rest of that first season and then more through season two. By the time season three was on, I was hooked and watching it every week. An excellent successor to the original, and what a great choice in Patrick Stewart! I was given the dvd sets of seasons four and six as gifts, although some of the best eps were from seasons three and five (and some fun experimental ones in season seven).
Arrested Development - I saw most of the eps from season one when they were first on but, although I enjoyed it immensely, for some reason was not able to see the show every week. When the dvd's were released, I bought season one and loved it, but I hesitated in buying seasons two and three (see previous post). Recently Partner and I were able to watch all of those eps in order on tv, and we loved them. Now, I can't believe I never invested in the dvd's. If I find them cheap, I still might. This is a show that definitely rewards multiple viewings. Can't wait for the movie!
DVD Buying
On my friend's blog (Messages from Atlantis - the link is in my profile), he mentioned Amazon's gold box special for the dvd set of "Babylon 5." Now that I've looked, the price has gone back up. Chuck/Maethe didn't buy the set because he said that "Netflix ruined the impulse buy." Even though I'm not a member of Netflix, I've had a similar dilemma for at least a year now.
The dilemma: do I invest in a dvd or not. For years I never thought about it because my dvd buying habits were generally limited to single movies. I'd spend anywhere from $10-25 for a movie and figure it was worth it because a) I'd probably watch it multiple times, and b) I like the idea of showing my support with my wallet. If I did have a question about buying a dvd, it was usually because the dvd didn't come with any special features, which is something that I really enjoy.
More recently, almost any and all tv series have been released on dvd, which raises the dilemma to a new level because the price for these sets is significantly higher. I still like the idea of supporting the shows I like, but usually tv shows don't reward multiple viewings the way good movies do. (The clear exception is any Joss Whedon show, which is why I bought the set for "Buffy" and "Firefly.") So, do I invest in a set, watch the eps once with Partner, and then put the dvd's away? That hardly seems worth the high price.
Obvious solutions are to join Netflix or rent the dvd's from a video rental store. Another solution I've come up with is to let friends borrow the dvd's. In that way, the more people who watch the dvd, the more it was worth buying it. (To this end, I keep a running list of my dvd's and can email it to any friend who's interested.) Otherwise, I don't buy the set and hope the eps are rerun on tv ( thanks to the dvr).
Back to "Babylon 5." Since the price went back up, I had to seriously consider the investment. I've always heard it was a well-written sci-fi show (my cousin thinks it is the best-written show on tv), but will Partner and I watch it more than once? Do I have any friends who would borrow the set? We thought about it and decided against buying the set. Instead, I'll look for it at my video store (when I rent "Lost" season 4) and possibly rent the discs.
I looked at the gold box special today, and it was for "Angel." The price is really cheap, so I decided it was worth the investment and ordered it. I assume that, even though I've seen all the eps on tv, Partner and I will still want to see the show again. Also, it's a show that more of my friends are more likely to want to borrow.
For anyone keeping score, yes - I ordered it from Amazon. I did this despite my earlier assertion that Amazon sucked. What can I say? Hence the title, "Truth and Contradictions."
The dilemma: do I invest in a dvd or not. For years I never thought about it because my dvd buying habits were generally limited to single movies. I'd spend anywhere from $10-25 for a movie and figure it was worth it because a) I'd probably watch it multiple times, and b) I like the idea of showing my support with my wallet. If I did have a question about buying a dvd, it was usually because the dvd didn't come with any special features, which is something that I really enjoy.
More recently, almost any and all tv series have been released on dvd, which raises the dilemma to a new level because the price for these sets is significantly higher. I still like the idea of supporting the shows I like, but usually tv shows don't reward multiple viewings the way good movies do. (The clear exception is any Joss Whedon show, which is why I bought the set for "Buffy" and "Firefly.") So, do I invest in a set, watch the eps once with Partner, and then put the dvd's away? That hardly seems worth the high price.
Obvious solutions are to join Netflix or rent the dvd's from a video rental store. Another solution I've come up with is to let friends borrow the dvd's. In that way, the more people who watch the dvd, the more it was worth buying it. (To this end, I keep a running list of my dvd's and can email it to any friend who's interested.) Otherwise, I don't buy the set and hope the eps are rerun on tv ( thanks to the dvr).
Back to "Babylon 5." Since the price went back up, I had to seriously consider the investment. I've always heard it was a well-written sci-fi show (my cousin thinks it is the best-written show on tv), but will Partner and I watch it more than once? Do I have any friends who would borrow the set? We thought about it and decided against buying the set. Instead, I'll look for it at my video store (when I rent "Lost" season 4) and possibly rent the discs.
I looked at the gold box special today, and it was for "Angel." The price is really cheap, so I decided it was worth the investment and ordered it. I assume that, even though I've seen all the eps on tv, Partner and I will still want to see the show again. Also, it's a show that more of my friends are more likely to want to borrow.
For anyone keeping score, yes - I ordered it from Amazon. I did this despite my earlier assertion that Amazon sucked. What can I say? Hence the title, "Truth and Contradictions."
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
One Reason I Don't Trust Politicians
Senator Arlen Specter from PA yesterday announced that he was switching parties from Republican to Democrat. Apparently the man has been a republican for 30+ years in the Senate, but he's only now realized that the democrats are closer to his personal philosophy. Actually, he said that the republican party has recently moved further to the right and away from his own beliefs.
I know it's now an over-used expression, but "Really?" After eight years of being in the republican party under Bush, during which time the religious right took over leadership of the party and the Constitution was practically ignored ("Free Speech Zone" anyone?), only NOW he feels like the party moved too far to the right. Let's also not forget that the republican party during Clinton's administration practically hunted the President from the day he got in office, spending years and millions of dollars to find some crime to accuse him of. At the end, what did they get to impeach him? A lie about a blow job. And THAT's the party that Specter thinks wasn't too far to the right for him.
What do those years have in common? The right ruled the Senate. So, no matter how conservative the party was, Specter was ok with it as long as it was in power. Now that the republicans have practically destroyed the country and people (voters) have moved to the center/left, and now that the dems are in power, NOW Specter has decided that the republicans are too far to the right. What it comes down to is this: Specter has decided that he can't win a primary race in PA next year against a conservative candidate, so in order for him to stay in power he's got to change parties, beliefs be damned. He'll do anything to stay in the country's most powerful men's club, and he'll change his own philosophy to be on the winning team.
Is it any wonder that the average citizen doesn't trust politicians?
I know it's now an over-used expression, but "Really?" After eight years of being in the republican party under Bush, during which time the religious right took over leadership of the party and the Constitution was practically ignored ("Free Speech Zone" anyone?), only NOW he feels like the party moved too far to the right. Let's also not forget that the republican party during Clinton's administration practically hunted the President from the day he got in office, spending years and millions of dollars to find some crime to accuse him of. At the end, what did they get to impeach him? A lie about a blow job. And THAT's the party that Specter thinks wasn't too far to the right for him.
What do those years have in common? The right ruled the Senate. So, no matter how conservative the party was, Specter was ok with it as long as it was in power. Now that the republicans have practically destroyed the country and people (voters) have moved to the center/left, and now that the dems are in power, NOW Specter has decided that the republicans are too far to the right. What it comes down to is this: Specter has decided that he can't win a primary race in PA next year against a conservative candidate, so in order for him to stay in power he's got to change parties, beliefs be damned. He'll do anything to stay in the country's most powerful men's club, and he'll change his own philosophy to be on the winning team.
Is it any wonder that the average citizen doesn't trust politicians?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
