DD, Monkey - this one's for you.
I was out tonight with 2 friends, Mimi (Slovak) and Rob (Slovak-Canadian), and we talked a lot about politics, both EU and US. Almost to my surprise, I found myself espousing libertarian ideals, especially proclaiming the dangers of strong centralised governments.
I think I may be converted.
This is an unusually brief post but it is already nearly 2 a.m.; I stayed out late to watch the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim play (they lost). I shall write more later about the development of my political philosophy.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
Vive la France!
The Frogs have finally done something right that does not involve gastronomy or oenology. Yesterday they voted ‘NON’ in a referendum on ratification of the EU Constitution.
I used to be in favour of the EU. The European Economic Community was a good idea, allowing for the free movement of goods in a common market, and benefiting everyone from an economic perspective. But as the EEC developed into the European Community and then the European Union, national governments started giving up too much power to Brussels. In recent years people have started to speak of the “United States of Europe” in order to emphasise the direction in which the EU seems to be heading.
While studying law in England, one of my mandatory subjects was EU Law. I remember being surprised upon learning how much power sovereign countries had been willing to give up for the sake of the Union, and that when a member state’s laws are in conflict with EU law, EU law prevails. That always seemed offensive to me.
The Czech Republic joined the EU in May of 2004. At first I thought it was a positive development, that it would benefit the country politically and economically, but now I am not so sure. For one thing, it puts me at a disadvantage, not being a citizen of an EU member state. And the Czechs have already started to rebel against governance from Brussels, which is hardly surprising since they have spent most of their recent history unhappily being ruled from somewhere else, whether Vienna, Berlin or Moscow.
To return to the EU Constitution, it has to be ratified by every state in order for it to come into force. Nine countries have already ratified it. Certain countries, considered more ‘euro-sceptic’, e.g. the UK and Denmark, have been expected to reject the constitution, but France, which was one of the EEC’s six founding states and generally pro-Europe, was until recently expected to vote ‘yes ’ with a comfortable margin.
As to what will happen next, predictions are that either a new draft constitution will be introduced, leaving out some of the more controversial articles, or that the important articles will be implemented through other legislation.
At any rate, the Frogs have struck a blow to the EU, and I hope that it will lead a movement towards decentralisation of power from Brussels.
I used to be in favour of the EU. The European Economic Community was a good idea, allowing for the free movement of goods in a common market, and benefiting everyone from an economic perspective. But as the EEC developed into the European Community and then the European Union, national governments started giving up too much power to Brussels. In recent years people have started to speak of the “United States of Europe” in order to emphasise the direction in which the EU seems to be heading.
While studying law in England, one of my mandatory subjects was EU Law. I remember being surprised upon learning how much power sovereign countries had been willing to give up for the sake of the Union, and that when a member state’s laws are in conflict with EU law, EU law prevails. That always seemed offensive to me.
The Czech Republic joined the EU in May of 2004. At first I thought it was a positive development, that it would benefit the country politically and economically, but now I am not so sure. For one thing, it puts me at a disadvantage, not being a citizen of an EU member state. And the Czechs have already started to rebel against governance from Brussels, which is hardly surprising since they have spent most of their recent history unhappily being ruled from somewhere else, whether Vienna, Berlin or Moscow.
To return to the EU Constitution, it has to be ratified by every state in order for it to come into force. Nine countries have already ratified it. Certain countries, considered more ‘euro-sceptic’, e.g. the UK and Denmark, have been expected to reject the constitution, but France, which was one of the EEC’s six founding states and generally pro-Europe, was until recently expected to vote ‘yes ’ with a comfortable margin.
As to what will happen next, predictions are that either a new draft constitution will be introduced, leaving out some of the more controversial articles, or that the important articles will be implemented through other legislation.
At any rate, the Frogs have struck a blow to the EU, and I hope that it will lead a movement towards decentralisation of power from Brussels.
Friday, May 27, 2005
On China
Beamis wrote an enlightened post yesterday entitled “Perpetual Warfare”: I encourage you all to read it. http://pinyonpine.blogspot.com/
But I disagree with the prediction at the end of the post. While our attention is drawn to those who fight in the name of Allah, there is a greater danger building farther to the east.
On Monday morning I had a conversation with a business associate about commerce in China. Her forecast was that the Chinese were going to be the first ones to successfully marry European know-how and American-style marketing which will further boost their economy. Yesterday in another meeting, we discussed the problem of the total disdain for the laws of intellectual property amongst the Chinese, and how the Chinese actually make friendly visits to research and production facilities elsewhere in the world, surreptitiously take photographs and then copy any useful technology. Why worry about patents if you don’t have to?
On Wednesday at dinner, Olive and I were discussing what the Chinese had very cleverly done in the Ruhrgebiet, the area of Germany in which she lives and which used to be Europe’s industrial coal and steel centre. Sometime after the decline of the steel industry in the 1970s, the Chinese went to the Ruhrgebiet and bought everything they would need to produce steel. They disassembled machinery and structures and shipped them all back to China. And, of course, steel production has become more important again. Germany was still ahead of China in steel exports in 2004: Germany 27.3 million tonnes; China 20.1 million tonnes, but while Germany was up only 10% on its 2003 exports, China was up 140%. In 2004 China produced 272 million tonnes of steel; 2005 production is projected to reach 330 million tonnes.
China is already the second largest economy in the world after the US (measured in purchasing power parity). China has a large armaments industry and a space programme. Its environment is in terrible shape; they have lost one-fifth of their agricultural land since 1949. China has been developing military and economic co-operation with both India and Russia. China’s population is approximately 1.3 billion. They have compulsory military service and the largest army in the world.
What scares me is that while attention is focused on the Middle East and “rogue” states like North Korea, China will just quietly go about its business becoming more powerful. And one day, although perhaps not for another 20 years or so, China will suddenly explode.
But I disagree with the prediction at the end of the post. While our attention is drawn to those who fight in the name of Allah, there is a greater danger building farther to the east.
On Monday morning I had a conversation with a business associate about commerce in China. Her forecast was that the Chinese were going to be the first ones to successfully marry European know-how and American-style marketing which will further boost their economy. Yesterday in another meeting, we discussed the problem of the total disdain for the laws of intellectual property amongst the Chinese, and how the Chinese actually make friendly visits to research and production facilities elsewhere in the world, surreptitiously take photographs and then copy any useful technology. Why worry about patents if you don’t have to?
On Wednesday at dinner, Olive and I were discussing what the Chinese had very cleverly done in the Ruhrgebiet, the area of Germany in which she lives and which used to be Europe’s industrial coal and steel centre. Sometime after the decline of the steel industry in the 1970s, the Chinese went to the Ruhrgebiet and bought everything they would need to produce steel. They disassembled machinery and structures and shipped them all back to China. And, of course, steel production has become more important again. Germany was still ahead of China in steel exports in 2004: Germany 27.3 million tonnes; China 20.1 million tonnes, but while Germany was up only 10% on its 2003 exports, China was up 140%. In 2004 China produced 272 million tonnes of steel; 2005 production is projected to reach 330 million tonnes.
China is already the second largest economy in the world after the US (measured in purchasing power parity). China has a large armaments industry and a space programme. Its environment is in terrible shape; they have lost one-fifth of their agricultural land since 1949. China has been developing military and economic co-operation with both India and Russia. China’s population is approximately 1.3 billion. They have compulsory military service and the largest army in the world.
What scares me is that while attention is focused on the Middle East and “rogue” states like North Korea, China will just quietly go about its business becoming more powerful. And one day, although perhaps not for another 20 years or so, China will suddenly explode.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The 18th Track
On Tuesday, in addition to the book of quotes, Richard also presented me with his control copy of a demo cd he had recently sent to a music magazine in the US. (He produces music in a studio in his house: electronic tracks, remixes and such.) He told me what was on each track and I looked at the cd and registered that there were 17 tracks.
But I knew straight away that there should have been 18 tracks and that it was a mistake that the 18th track had been left off.
I asked Richard about the missing track and his eyes got very wide.
“How did you know that?” he asked.
I had been spot on. Richard had had another track all set to go on the cd, but had finished everything before he realised that he had left it off.
I just know things sometimes. It does not help me with the horses, however. On Sunday I bet on 8 races and did not win a single one.
My research has shown me that there is a significant connection between Carl Jung’s concepts of the unconscious mind and synchronicity on the one hand, and extra-sensory perception (telepathy and clairvoyance) on the other. But it gets really complicated and I’m not sure how much further I will get in my sporadic research because I have a very limited attention span.
But I knew straight away that there should have been 18 tracks and that it was a mistake that the 18th track had been left off.
I asked Richard about the missing track and his eyes got very wide.
“How did you know that?” he asked.
I had been spot on. Richard had had another track all set to go on the cd, but had finished everything before he realised that he had left it off.
I just know things sometimes. It does not help me with the horses, however. On Sunday I bet on 8 races and did not win a single one.
My research has shown me that there is a significant connection between Carl Jung’s concepts of the unconscious mind and synchronicity on the one hand, and extra-sensory perception (telepathy and clairvoyance) on the other. But it gets really complicated and I’m not sure how much further I will get in my sporadic research because I have a very limited attention span.
Max for The Beautiful Game
From a post by Riggs is Crazy:
Soccer – Get up pussy!
– If anyone reading my blog likes soccer, don’t bother coming back. You’re about as welcome as fat Canadians in Murphy’s bedroom.
This post is in response to that.
I have just come home from watching the UEFA Cup final: Liverpool FC v AC Milan. The match was in
The Liverpool FC website had this to say about the match:
On what will go down as THE most incredible night in this club's illustrious history the Reds amazingly fought back from a 3-0 half-time deficit and won the match on penalties.
AC Milan scored their first goal in the 1st minute. By the half they were ahead 3-0. I thought it was hopeless and suggested to Mike that we just turn off the tv. Luckily he did not listen to me.
In the second half,
Now, a lot of people object to penalty shoot-outs as being not fair, not reflective at all of how the teams have played during the game, etc. But, bloody hell, they are exciting.
Just last Saturday Arsenal beat Manchester United in the FA Cup final on a penalty shoot-out after a 0-0 draw -- a fantastic ending to the match.
Jerzy Dudek,
The penalties:
I really don’t understand how anyone can not love football/soccer. By the way, the
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Roger Daltrey on Taxes
Richard was surprised to learn that The Who are my favourite band ever; he said that was very unusual for a girl. Nonetheless, he lent me a book called The Who In Their Own Words. It was published in 1979 and is a compilation of quotes from interviews given in their first 15 years. I read the whole thing while sitting at the bar at Banditos tonight.
One of the quotes made me think immediately of Devastatin’ Dave.
Roger Daltrey: I think you should pay the people on welfare enough to live. What is such a shame is that people go to work and can’t really earn much more because it’s all taken away in tax…and the tax is all wasted on more government to dish out less welfare. Just suppose I invest money, whatever that money makes as investment income I’m paying about ninety-eight per cent tax on it. And yet that’s the only way
Roger Daltrey was not quite describing a DD-style taxless Utopia, but DD, I thought you’d like the quote.
A Visit to the Foreigner Police (Cizinecká policie)
A comparison with getting a tourist visa at the Russian embassy in London will help me illustrate the trials of trying unsuccessfully to submit my paperwork for a long-term residency visa in Prague today.
You have to wait for a long time at both places. The queue outside the Russian embassy in London is just that, a queue – a proper orderly English queue, with everyone standing a respectful distance from everyone else. No problems with people touching you and no problems breathing.
The situation at the foreigner police in Prague is different. A rock concert where people get stampeded to death comes to mind. All the EU citizens now get to go elsewhere, but the Americans are left to suffer with our poorer relations from the east, i.e. mostly Ukrainians, assorted Yugoslavs and Vietnamese. The problem with our eastern brethren is that they have no concept of personal space. People were pressing in and pushing through and touching me, which I hate, and several times I had to close my eyes and force myself to take deep breaths. I may have even elbowed one or two people (strictly self-defence).
In London I had to wait for two days before I got into the embassy. I gave up after 4 hours on the first day, and went back the next day and waited for 8. The Czech policeman, who looked to be about 14 years old, let us in after only about 2 hours.
The Russians in the embassy were really mean and yelled a lot. The women in the Czech information window were very nice to us. They told us where we needed to go and gave us a number. We got inside office #4 suspiciously quickly only to find out that we had been sent to the wrong place. We went back to the window and the women were gone. It was about 9.30 and all the numbered tickets for the morning had been given out.
We stood outside another door where I needed to go to register my new passport before I could apply for my new visa, but we did not stand a chance of getting in without a number. It suddenly seemed that everyone else was from the same village in Ukraine and they were all letting each other cut into the imaginary line.
I had more or less known what to expect at the foreigner police, although I had managed to avoid going to this, the main Prague office, for about 7 years. Katka, on the other hand, was completely traumatised by the experience.
When I left the Russian embassy nearly 33 hours after I had first got there, I had a valid visa glued into my passport. When we gave up and left the foreigner police only 3 hours after we had arrived, I left with nothing, except a promise from Katka that the firm would pay an agency to do the dirty work for me after all.
You have to wait for a long time at both places. The queue outside the Russian embassy in London is just that, a queue – a proper orderly English queue, with everyone standing a respectful distance from everyone else. No problems with people touching you and no problems breathing.
The situation at the foreigner police in Prague is different. A rock concert where people get stampeded to death comes to mind. All the EU citizens now get to go elsewhere, but the Americans are left to suffer with our poorer relations from the east, i.e. mostly Ukrainians, assorted Yugoslavs and Vietnamese. The problem with our eastern brethren is that they have no concept of personal space. People were pressing in and pushing through and touching me, which I hate, and several times I had to close my eyes and force myself to take deep breaths. I may have even elbowed one or two people (strictly self-defence).
In London I had to wait for two days before I got into the embassy. I gave up after 4 hours on the first day, and went back the next day and waited for 8. The Czech policeman, who looked to be about 14 years old, let us in after only about 2 hours.
The Russians in the embassy were really mean and yelled a lot. The women in the Czech information window were very nice to us. They told us where we needed to go and gave us a number. We got inside office #4 suspiciously quickly only to find out that we had been sent to the wrong place. We went back to the window and the women were gone. It was about 9.30 and all the numbered tickets for the morning had been given out.
We stood outside another door where I needed to go to register my new passport before I could apply for my new visa, but we did not stand a chance of getting in without a number. It suddenly seemed that everyone else was from the same village in Ukraine and they were all letting each other cut into the imaginary line.
I had more or less known what to expect at the foreigner police, although I had managed to avoid going to this, the main Prague office, for about 7 years. Katka, on the other hand, was completely traumatised by the experience.
When I left the Russian embassy nearly 33 hours after I had first got there, I had a valid visa glued into my passport. When we gave up and left the foreigner police only 3 hours after we had arrived, I left with nothing, except a promise from Katka that the firm would pay an agency to do the dirty work for me after all.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Coincidentally speaking
This post about coincidence has been inspired by two occurrences that happened a month apart.
On 19 April, DD, in
On 19 May, one of the partners in my firm, a Czech, called to ask me for an explanation of the saying “The die is cast.” At about the same time, an anonymous commenter posted on DD’s blog “Alea iacta est.” I looked it up the next day to find that it means “The die is cast,” which words were attributed to Julius Caesar (by Suetonius) upon his decision to cross the Rubicon with his army intact. Again, it seemed like a weird coincidence.
So I started thinking about coincidence. At first my question was whether there is such a thing as coincidence. I googled: the first link took me to a website that showed me how to fold an American $20 bill to see the
In reality, the most astonishingly incredible coincidence imaginable would be the complete absence of all coincidences. -- mathematician John Allen Paulos.
But then I realised a question of more fundamental importance is how do we define coincidence. We cannot discuss whether something exists or not if we do not know what we are looking for. It is the lawyer in me: define your terms.
The dictionary on my desk says: “the chance occurrence at the same time or place of two or more events that appear to be related or similar.” But while semantically accurate, the definition does not convey the deeper meaning that the word has attached to it. In addition, too many explanations of “coincidence” focus on finding a parking spot or something else that hollow, which to me is not the same as DD and Richard using the same biblical quote within a day of each other.
More research led me to the term “synchronicity” which was coined by Carl Jung to describe “meaningful coincidence”. According to Jung, synchronicity has occurred when “no causal connection can be demonstrated between two events, but where a meaningful relationship nevertheless exists between them.”
My question has now become “Does ‘synchronicity’ really exist?”
More research to follow.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Guest blog: "Daryl" answers the Canadian's questions about guns
First of all, I had never been to the comments section of a blog until today (at your request). Secondly, I wouldn't post anything in the comments section of a blog (not even your wonderful blog), my own blog doesn't even contain a comments section. You want to comment? Start your own blog. Thirdly, the plural of American is Americans, not "American's."
All of that being said, I suppose I've been baited. But my response is no doubt more worthy of a front page post than any sarcastic drivel that might be drummed up on nothing more than ignorant assumptions and generalizations.
I'd like to clear up this gun issue once and for all:
I carry a gun because I have an exceptionally small penis and the gun, in my subconscious and elsewhere, helps compensate for that fact. I carry a gun because I'm frightfully scared of the dark, of bogey men, of lightning, of my own shadow, and of anything that moves under its own power or some mystic power that I'm not able to fully understand due to my undying faith in God's dominion. I carry a gun because I'm wholly impotent and the gun reminds me of a hard penis. I carry a gun because my mother didn't breast feed me. I carry a gun because I have violent and delusional tendencies, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and virtually every sexually transmitted disease known to man. Syphilis can make a man think all manner of strange thoughts. And it can make strange monsters appear in the closet. Properly armed I am able to vanquish these beasts, unarmed I would be entirely prone to their wrath. I carry a gun because I'm a snake-charming hillbilly with no more interest in the world than killing me some communists, terrorists, hippies, democrats, and innocent school children.
Oh, wait, no, those are the reasons for which I carry a gun...according to those whose pre-conceived notions of guns and America fit neatly into their banana hammocks (in case you're wondering, that's an American name for those absolutely ridiculous swim suits you men insist on wearing. My god, cover up some, nobody wants to see that unkempt afro between your legs!).
Actually, I carry a gun because I'm a Jew living in rural Oregon, among other things. I carry a gun because I handle large amounts of cash during certain times of the year. I carry a gun because I live in one of America's methamphetamine capitals (tweakers are unpredictable). I carry a gun because the last thing that I want to do is finish some poor deer off with a golf club, hammer, or whatever other blunt instrument I might have in my car (they don't often die immediately when hit on the highway). I carry a gun because areas that I walk, hike, fish, and sleep aren't always safe (because of cougars, bears, or even gang-rapists (which has happened on more than one occasion in Oregon campgrounds)). I carry a gun because I've been chased by the KKK in this state for doing nothing more than stopping to photograph anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda. I carry a gun because the world and its people are unpredictable. I carry a gun because even the mightiest nations in human history have fallen, (and if you listen to some, mine's falling as I write). I carry a gun because, in rural areas, police protection is farcical. I carry a gun because my business has been vandalized with swastikas and human feces. Most importantly, I carry a gun because it's a right afforded me in the United States Constitution, a right so vital to the founding fathers that they protected it, in the Bill of Rights, well enough that, despite no shortage of domestic or international pressure to change it, it exists unchanged to this day.
I carry a gun because I'm a citizen. You don't carry a gun because you're a subject. It's that simple. It really is. Gun laws around the world are a reflection of the lack of trust of governments in their people. The less stable a political system, the more laws regarding guns are passed and the more extreme penalties for gun possession become (and, ironically, the more guns become vital to either overthrow or stabilization). Governments ABSOLUTELY FEAR an armed citizenry. The United States staked its ground on an armed revolt. That spirit doesn't die in only two hundred fifty years, and it can't be squelched by the rote statistics or the inane logic of those who'd prefer that people like me be properly subjugated. With straight faces, these people fear for the safety of my children, simply because I own guns.
My kid is safe, I assure you, I see to it as his father. It's kind of my job. I assure you that you will do more damage to children by smoking in their presence than I will ever do to my child by owning a gun.
It seems odd to me that the "educated" of the world, the "nuanced," the "progressive thinkers" seem to concur on matters involving guns. Is it that their intelligence and righteousness know no bounds, or is it because they think exactly as they're expected to? Have they, in fact, ever given the subject anything more than cursory (read predictable) attention?
The "Canadian" is certainly wrong about one thing, at least as it pertains to America. Time and again, with the LONE exception of one defendant in one case decided by one court (which is currently under appeal), in every state in this country, lethal defense of one's domicile (rights that extend, in most U.S. states, to a car in which one is sleeping) has been upheld by every level of court. It is unadulterated gibberish to claim anything different. To refer to ONE SINGLE CASE is disingenuous at best, hyperbole at least.
But the "Canadian" is right about one thing, it's highly unlikely that I'll have to use my weapon in my own defense. In the United States, the percentage of "hot" burglaries (defined as burglaries in which the residents are in the home) is roughly 18% (a certain portion of that percentage must be homes in which it wasn't expected that the residents would be inside). In the UK, for example, the percentage of "hot" burglaries is nearly double that figure. What one single variable do you suppose accounts for that discrepancy? It's certainly not a fear of the grape smuggler (please see banana hammock).
My right to own guns serves a two-fold purpose. First, it's the final defense against tyranny. Don't believe me? Check here for a more eloquent explanation: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/ (federalist papers, numbers 41 and 43 to be exact, by James Madison, writing, of course, as "Publius"). Secondly, it prevents foreign armies from invading America. Think of your worst image of Americans with guns. Now, apply that image to the perspective of a foreign soldier preparing to invade. Exactly, nobody's coming. Individual ownership, by itself, is an international deterrent against invasion. Aside from an extremely erroneous decision by a lone Japanese submariner, the U.S. mainland has never been attacked, even before America had established its power in the world. Why is that? Individual gun ownership is certainly one component.
But, really, what is it about guns themselves that scare people? Who is more scared, me of a bogey man, or the "Canadian" of a gun? And what's a more realistic description of humanity, 10,000 years of brutality, or 60 years of moderate civility?
Because, let's remember, had the citizens of Europe, independently, risen up in arms against Hitler or Mussolini, well, history books would certainly contain very different chapters. Oh, but that was so long ago (yeah, right, eons and eons, huh?)...
The fact is that the world is filled with two distinct personality types: aggressive and passive-aggressive (yes, only two; show me a passive person and I'll show you a dead person or an institutionalized person). Guns make the passive-aggressives uncomfortable because there's no pretending that they're anything but the obvious; namely, the weapons that even they'd use if things truly went sour.
So stuff your common-denominator opinions of America and its guns right into your sausage sack (see grape smuggler), and in the process recognize that I'm no more ignorant than you solely on the basis of my gun ownership, citizenry, or even, gasp, my political choices.
If we wanted to be more like Europe, well, we NEVER WOULD HAVE REVOLTED in the first place.
One last thing about Canadians: What is it with the black socks and shorts? Is the black sock/short combination some kind of national movement? I tell you, you can take the Canadian out of the mullet, but you can't really take the mullet out of the Canadian. And they say "American's" lack style!
Appreciatively, and armed to the teeth,
"Daryl"
All of that being said, I suppose I've been baited. But my response is no doubt more worthy of a front page post than any sarcastic drivel that might be drummed up on nothing more than ignorant assumptions and generalizations.
I'd like to clear up this gun issue once and for all:
I carry a gun because I have an exceptionally small penis and the gun, in my subconscious and elsewhere, helps compensate for that fact. I carry a gun because I'm frightfully scared of the dark, of bogey men, of lightning, of my own shadow, and of anything that moves under its own power or some mystic power that I'm not able to fully understand due to my undying faith in God's dominion. I carry a gun because I'm wholly impotent and the gun reminds me of a hard penis. I carry a gun because my mother didn't breast feed me. I carry a gun because I have violent and delusional tendencies, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and virtually every sexually transmitted disease known to man. Syphilis can make a man think all manner of strange thoughts. And it can make strange monsters appear in the closet. Properly armed I am able to vanquish these beasts, unarmed I would be entirely prone to their wrath. I carry a gun because I'm a snake-charming hillbilly with no more interest in the world than killing me some communists, terrorists, hippies, democrats, and innocent school children.
Oh, wait, no, those are the reasons for which I carry a gun...according to those whose pre-conceived notions of guns and America fit neatly into their banana hammocks (in case you're wondering, that's an American name for those absolutely ridiculous swim suits you men insist on wearing. My god, cover up some, nobody wants to see that unkempt afro between your legs!).
Actually, I carry a gun because I'm a Jew living in rural Oregon, among other things. I carry a gun because I handle large amounts of cash during certain times of the year. I carry a gun because I live in one of America's methamphetamine capitals (tweakers are unpredictable). I carry a gun because the last thing that I want to do is finish some poor deer off with a golf club, hammer, or whatever other blunt instrument I might have in my car (they don't often die immediately when hit on the highway). I carry a gun because areas that I walk, hike, fish, and sleep aren't always safe (because of cougars, bears, or even gang-rapists (which has happened on more than one occasion in Oregon campgrounds)). I carry a gun because I've been chased by the KKK in this state for doing nothing more than stopping to photograph anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda. I carry a gun because the world and its people are unpredictable. I carry a gun because even the mightiest nations in human history have fallen, (and if you listen to some, mine's falling as I write). I carry a gun because, in rural areas, police protection is farcical. I carry a gun because my business has been vandalized with swastikas and human feces. Most importantly, I carry a gun because it's a right afforded me in the United States Constitution, a right so vital to the founding fathers that they protected it, in the Bill of Rights, well enough that, despite no shortage of domestic or international pressure to change it, it exists unchanged to this day.
I carry a gun because I'm a citizen. You don't carry a gun because you're a subject. It's that simple. It really is. Gun laws around the world are a reflection of the lack of trust of governments in their people. The less stable a political system, the more laws regarding guns are passed and the more extreme penalties for gun possession become (and, ironically, the more guns become vital to either overthrow or stabilization). Governments ABSOLUTELY FEAR an armed citizenry. The United States staked its ground on an armed revolt. That spirit doesn't die in only two hundred fifty years, and it can't be squelched by the rote statistics or the inane logic of those who'd prefer that people like me be properly subjugated. With straight faces, these people fear for the safety of my children, simply because I own guns.
My kid is safe, I assure you, I see to it as his father. It's kind of my job. I assure you that you will do more damage to children by smoking in their presence than I will ever do to my child by owning a gun.
It seems odd to me that the "educated" of the world, the "nuanced," the "progressive thinkers" seem to concur on matters involving guns. Is it that their intelligence and righteousness know no bounds, or is it because they think exactly as they're expected to? Have they, in fact, ever given the subject anything more than cursory (read predictable) attention?
The "Canadian" is certainly wrong about one thing, at least as it pertains to America. Time and again, with the LONE exception of one defendant in one case decided by one court (which is currently under appeal), in every state in this country, lethal defense of one's domicile (rights that extend, in most U.S. states, to a car in which one is sleeping) has been upheld by every level of court. It is unadulterated gibberish to claim anything different. To refer to ONE SINGLE CASE is disingenuous at best, hyperbole at least.
But the "Canadian" is right about one thing, it's highly unlikely that I'll have to use my weapon in my own defense. In the United States, the percentage of "hot" burglaries (defined as burglaries in which the residents are in the home) is roughly 18% (a certain portion of that percentage must be homes in which it wasn't expected that the residents would be inside). In the UK, for example, the percentage of "hot" burglaries is nearly double that figure. What one single variable do you suppose accounts for that discrepancy? It's certainly not a fear of the grape smuggler (please see banana hammock).
My right to own guns serves a two-fold purpose. First, it's the final defense against tyranny. Don't believe me? Check here for a more eloquent explanation: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/ (federalist papers, numbers 41 and 43 to be exact, by James Madison, writing, of course, as "Publius"). Secondly, it prevents foreign armies from invading America. Think of your worst image of Americans with guns. Now, apply that image to the perspective of a foreign soldier preparing to invade. Exactly, nobody's coming. Individual ownership, by itself, is an international deterrent against invasion. Aside from an extremely erroneous decision by a lone Japanese submariner, the U.S. mainland has never been attacked, even before America had established its power in the world. Why is that? Individual gun ownership is certainly one component.
But, really, what is it about guns themselves that scare people? Who is more scared, me of a bogey man, or the "Canadian" of a gun? And what's a more realistic description of humanity, 10,000 years of brutality, or 60 years of moderate civility?
Because, let's remember, had the citizens of Europe, independently, risen up in arms against Hitler or Mussolini, well, history books would certainly contain very different chapters. Oh, but that was so long ago (yeah, right, eons and eons, huh?)...
The fact is that the world is filled with two distinct personality types: aggressive and passive-aggressive (yes, only two; show me a passive person and I'll show you a dead person or an institutionalized person). Guns make the passive-aggressives uncomfortable because there's no pretending that they're anything but the obvious; namely, the weapons that even they'd use if things truly went sour.
So stuff your common-denominator opinions of America and its guns right into your sausage sack (see grape smuggler), and in the process recognize that I'm no more ignorant than you solely on the basis of my gun ownership, citizenry, or even, gasp, my political choices.
If we wanted to be more like Europe, well, we NEVER WOULD HAVE REVOLTED in the first place.
One last thing about Canadians: What is it with the black socks and shorts? Is the black sock/short combination some kind of national movement? I tell you, you can take the Canadian out of the mullet, but you can't really take the mullet out of the Canadian. And they say "American's" lack style!
Appreciatively, and armed to the teeth,
"Daryl"
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Standards of Behaviour
...or "behavior" as my friend Matty likes to spell it.
Talking about a particular night out with Tommy in LA, I have described our state as “Prague drunk” which is completely different to LA drunk and entirely inappropriate when in LA. We started at 5 in the afternoon in downtown Santa Monica, went to a few different bars, never ate dinner, and drank until about 2 a.m. I am sure we were hilarious, but we must have totally shocked the locals who were not used to that level of unashamed drunkenness on a Tuesday night. Probably especially when our friendly and innocent kiss goodnight in front of the last bar went a bit further than either of us had anticipated.
Jono was in New York and went out with another limey for some beers. They had had only 2 pints each and when ordering a 3rd, the waitress asked them if they hadn’t already had enough. They looked at each other in disbelief and then proceeded to spend the rest of the afternoon in the pub and got properly British drunk, which was entirely inappropriate in New York.
I remember noticing very quickly when I first came over to Czech that people had a different attitude towards drunkenness. I think the Czechs think that drunkenness is a natural state, we all get into it from time to time, and it is therefore nothing to be ashamed of or to look down upon. Drinking is encouraged. The first time I went to visit a friend in Moravia, I learned that when your host takes the top off a bottle of homemade slivovice the top does not get put back on. You drink shot after shot until the bottle is empty. (As Monkey and Kirky and I did one day at work with a bottle of Albanian raki.)
Czechs also have a different attitude towards public displays of affection. People snog on the metro here, even during the day and while it's full. You see couples fully making out in bars and clubs all the time. No one pays any attention except for voyeurs and perverts.
Jono and I were talking about all of this, and about how sometimes we tell stories to friends and they are a bit shocked by our escapades. It seems that we simply forget that what is acceptable in our worlds may not always be normal in other people’s worlds.
I am not making excuses, just observations.
**************
AG and I were discussing a friend of mine whom I defended as being wonderful, although tiresome when drunk.
AG’s response to me was:
Most drunks are tiresome. You’re not – you become more brilliant.
Thanks, AG.
Talking about a particular night out with Tommy in LA, I have described our state as “Prague drunk” which is completely different to LA drunk and entirely inappropriate when in LA. We started at 5 in the afternoon in downtown Santa Monica, went to a few different bars, never ate dinner, and drank until about 2 a.m. I am sure we were hilarious, but we must have totally shocked the locals who were not used to that level of unashamed drunkenness on a Tuesday night. Probably especially when our friendly and innocent kiss goodnight in front of the last bar went a bit further than either of us had anticipated.
Jono was in New York and went out with another limey for some beers. They had had only 2 pints each and when ordering a 3rd, the waitress asked them if they hadn’t already had enough. They looked at each other in disbelief and then proceeded to spend the rest of the afternoon in the pub and got properly British drunk, which was entirely inappropriate in New York.
I remember noticing very quickly when I first came over to Czech that people had a different attitude towards drunkenness. I think the Czechs think that drunkenness is a natural state, we all get into it from time to time, and it is therefore nothing to be ashamed of or to look down upon. Drinking is encouraged. The first time I went to visit a friend in Moravia, I learned that when your host takes the top off a bottle of homemade slivovice the top does not get put back on. You drink shot after shot until the bottle is empty. (As Monkey and Kirky and I did one day at work with a bottle of Albanian raki.)
Czechs also have a different attitude towards public displays of affection. People snog on the metro here, even during the day and while it's full. You see couples fully making out in bars and clubs all the time. No one pays any attention except for voyeurs and perverts.
Jono and I were talking about all of this, and about how sometimes we tell stories to friends and they are a bit shocked by our escapades. It seems that we simply forget that what is acceptable in our worlds may not always be normal in other people’s worlds.
I am not making excuses, just observations.
**************
AG and I were discussing a friend of mine whom I defended as being wonderful, although tiresome when drunk.
AG’s response to me was:
Most drunks are tiresome. You’re not – you become more brilliant.
Thanks, AG.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
