I work on the third floor of a 6-story building with separate offices on each floor. In the basement of the building, there are a few business, including a Chinese restaurant. Ever since I lived on the border of Chinatown in our nation's unrepresented capital, I have not been able to tolerate in the least the smell of Chinese food. It would permeate the air and choke all who wafted in its unsavory stench. After I moved, I thought that was over, but alas, I was wrong. Due to some completely incomprehensible reason, the smell of Chinese food from downstairs saturates the hallways outside our office. This is particularly onerous because I have to traverse these halls to get from one side of the office to the other, and to use our seriously wanting facilities. Fortunately, our lease is up in a year, and we're going to move. But until then, I will whine and cry and moan about it.
Update 4-6-10 - the Chinese Restaurant, "Kwans" has finally closed. Good riddance. Now to get rid of the crappy dry cleaning place that ruined my suitpants and the stupid barber who ruined my hair.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
"And if you really tick me off, I'm going to run you down with my car."
Holy crap, I agree with Mitt Romney. . . on the economy!
Saturday, November 15, 2008
"In theory. Communism works - in theory."
I hate Ronald Reagan. I hate him so much. One of the things I hate him for is how much credit he gets for ending the Cold War. Despite the fact that Soviet communism was dying before Reagan even came to office and that George Bush, Sr. was the instrumental figure in bringing down the Berlin Wall and reuniting Germany, it was more the inherent inability of communism to work that killed it - not Ronald Reagan. He was just lucky enough to be in charge when its collapse became imminent in the late 80's.
Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the Cold War and I have developed a theory. When Leninism first began to gain popularity in Russia, the United States became openly hostile to the idea of communism. We made arguments that it was godless, deprived people of their freedom, would lead to the downfall of humanity, etc., which all may be legitimate arguments. Nevertheless, we didn't do much about it on the international stage until after the Soviet Revolution. Even then, we didn't do that much until after WWII when Stalin took the spoils of war and built an empire.
That's what I think the Cold War was about - not communism, but empire. The United States had just won its second world war and was set to become the global power of the next century. After the defeat of Germany and Japan, the only thing that stood in the way of our total world domination was the Soviet Union - the only country left with the military resources to challenge us.
This is even more true in light of how world hegemony has developed since the 1980's. Think of the remaining communist nations in the world and how the U.S. deals with them. The big glaring omission from our "anti-communist" history is China. (We have continued our embargo on Cuba, but Cuba is insignificant. We don't lose all that much from the embargo and now it's taken on a more symbolic meaning than anything else.) China is the largest country on the earth, possesses the largest military, is close to developing the largest economy, and is openly Communist. Despite that fact, we still trade heavily with them (they have MFN status), ignore their horribly repressive government, and are increasing relations with them every day.
There are a lot of reasons for our continued love/hate relationship with China, but the point is that if the U.S. were really anti-communist, we would be fighting against Chinese expansion tooth and nail. My point is that we were not anti-communist, but anti-Soviet. Nowhere is this difference more clear than in the doctrine of Containment. (Containment is basically the idea that Soviet Russia wanted to expand and enact xenophobic policies and we should do everything we could to stop them.) Containment was about stopping Soviet power, not communism. If the Soviets had been monarchs, we still would have opposed their expansion into other countries because they spread xenophobia and believed in empire. Obviously, that's bad for business.
Clearly, I am making this argument as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to change America into a communist nation. We achieved a major victory in electing that socialist, Obama, and now it's only a matter of time before America finally becomes the worker's paradise we've always wanted. However, I am willing to abandon this pinko plot in exchange for a solemn oath never to name anything else after Ronald Reagan. Except maybe the border fence, which I suggest you style, "The Ronald Reagan Useless Barrier for American Xenophobia and Racism."
Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the Cold War and I have developed a theory. When Leninism first began to gain popularity in Russia, the United States became openly hostile to the idea of communism. We made arguments that it was godless, deprived people of their freedom, would lead to the downfall of humanity, etc., which all may be legitimate arguments. Nevertheless, we didn't do much about it on the international stage until after the Soviet Revolution. Even then, we didn't do that much until after WWII when Stalin took the spoils of war and built an empire.
That's what I think the Cold War was about - not communism, but empire. The United States had just won its second world war and was set to become the global power of the next century. After the defeat of Germany and Japan, the only thing that stood in the way of our total world domination was the Soviet Union - the only country left with the military resources to challenge us.
This is even more true in light of how world hegemony has developed since the 1980's. Think of the remaining communist nations in the world and how the U.S. deals with them. The big glaring omission from our "anti-communist" history is China. (We have continued our embargo on Cuba, but Cuba is insignificant. We don't lose all that much from the embargo and now it's taken on a more symbolic meaning than anything else.) China is the largest country on the earth, possesses the largest military, is close to developing the largest economy, and is openly Communist. Despite that fact, we still trade heavily with them (they have MFN status), ignore their horribly repressive government, and are increasing relations with them every day.
There are a lot of reasons for our continued love/hate relationship with China, but the point is that if the U.S. were really anti-communist, we would be fighting against Chinese expansion tooth and nail. My point is that we were not anti-communist, but anti-Soviet. Nowhere is this difference more clear than in the doctrine of Containment. (Containment is basically the idea that Soviet Russia wanted to expand and enact xenophobic policies and we should do everything we could to stop them.) Containment was about stopping Soviet power, not communism. If the Soviets had been monarchs, we still would have opposed their expansion into other countries because they spread xenophobia and believed in empire. Obviously, that's bad for business.
Clearly, I am making this argument as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to change America into a communist nation. We achieved a major victory in electing that socialist, Obama, and now it's only a matter of time before America finally becomes the worker's paradise we've always wanted. However, I am willing to abandon this pinko plot in exchange for a solemn oath never to name anything else after Ronald Reagan. Except maybe the border fence, which I suggest you style, "The Ronald Reagan Useless Barrier for American Xenophobia and Racism."
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"And Maggie is having fun in her swing-a-majig."
I am sometimes surprised by how badly things are designed. Mrs. Jerkface and I recently had our second child, and naturally, we had to buy all new stuff for her. Among the items we bought was a playpen that has a spinning mobile. The mobile is like all other mobiles, you wind it up and it spins around while playing a song. However, I have found at least three defects in the mobile that I think are serious enough that I will never use it.
First and foremost: it winds up. It's my understanding that a mobile is installed with the purpose of soothing the baby to sleep. It's also my understanding that babies are often startled awake by loud, grinding noises. So why for pete's sake would a mobile have a loud, grinding wind-up system as its only method of activation? In order to start it up, I have to wind it up, waking up the baby. This foolishness is grounds for public flogging.
Not only is the loudness of the windup feature an absolute bar to its use, the mobile only functions independently for about a minute and a half. Now, my experience with babies is very limited (I have a no-exceptions policy of not interacting with babies that aren't my own), but it seems to me that there are few, if any, babies that are soothed in a minute and a half, especially if mom or dad is looking for some baby down-time.
A simple solution to both of these problems would be to make the toy battery operated. Then, it can start without that irritating loud grinding and it can run continuously until baby is asleep. Again, more proof that I am smarter than everyone else.
My second problem with the mobile is that the bears that are hanging from it are attached at the neck. This gives the impression that the bears are all being hung...by the neck. It's more than a little creepy. (I'll include a picture if I remember.)
My final quarrel with the mobile applies to pretty much every toy I've encountered since the births of my children: it's too loud. The sound is nearly deafening to me, and I don't have sensitive baby ears. The same goes for all of Little Jerkface One's toys. I've had to open up several and muffle the speakers, or simply remove the batteries for me to feel comfortable with him playing with them. I understand that toy companies feel that when a child is looking at two toys side by side, they'll probably pick the louder one, but for crying out loud, does it have to be that loud?
I propose that the readers of this blog write a petition to Graco and Carter's asking them to. . . oh, I don't care enough to do anything about it. I'll just keep circumventing the design of the toys as part of my quest to slowly undermine society and turn my kids into weird anti-social outcasts.
First and foremost: it winds up. It's my understanding that a mobile is installed with the purpose of soothing the baby to sleep. It's also my understanding that babies are often startled awake by loud, grinding noises. So why for pete's sake would a mobile have a loud, grinding wind-up system as its only method of activation? In order to start it up, I have to wind it up, waking up the baby. This foolishness is grounds for public flogging.
Not only is the loudness of the windup feature an absolute bar to its use, the mobile only functions independently for about a minute and a half. Now, my experience with babies is very limited (I have a no-exceptions policy of not interacting with babies that aren't my own), but it seems to me that there are few, if any, babies that are soothed in a minute and a half, especially if mom or dad is looking for some baby down-time.
A simple solution to both of these problems would be to make the toy battery operated. Then, it can start without that irritating loud grinding and it can run continuously until baby is asleep. Again, more proof that I am smarter than everyone else.
My second problem with the mobile is that the bears that are hanging from it are attached at the neck. This gives the impression that the bears are all being hung...by the neck. It's more than a little creepy. (I'll include a picture if I remember.)
My final quarrel with the mobile applies to pretty much every toy I've encountered since the births of my children: it's too loud. The sound is nearly deafening to me, and I don't have sensitive baby ears. The same goes for all of Little Jerkface One's toys. I've had to open up several and muffle the speakers, or simply remove the batteries for me to feel comfortable with him playing with them. I understand that toy companies feel that when a child is looking at two toys side by side, they'll probably pick the louder one, but for crying out loud, does it have to be that loud?
I propose that the readers of this blog write a petition to Graco and Carter's asking them to. . . oh, I don't care enough to do anything about it. I'll just keep circumventing the design of the toys as part of my quest to slowly undermine society and turn my kids into weird anti-social outcasts.
Monday, November 10, 2008
"He prefers the company of men." "Who doesn't?"
I love me a good protest. When I lived in D.C., I used to see them all the time. But now that I live in the nation's most complacent state, I just don't get to see them that often anymore. However, last Friday I was treated to a great protest right outside my office. A group of upset opponents of California's Proposition 8 gathered on the corner opposite the LDS Church Office Building to protest the LDS Church's involvement in supporting Prop. 8. It was a pretty impressive protest (please take the time to ignore the almost 1,500 comments left on that story). As always, I have a few observations.
First, their initial chant was terrible! It was, "The people have voted - you are intolerant." I'm not sure who came up with it, but they made a couple of mistakes. First, it's not catchy nor memorable. Second, it's way too long - twelve syllables, for crying out loud! Finally, it doesn't make much sense. Yes, the people voted, however, the majority voted in line with the position the LDS Church took, so I don't see how the people's vote shows that the LDS Church is intolerant. I guess the Church could be labeled as intolerant, but it's not because the people voted.
Fortunately, by the time they started marching around Temple Square, they picked a new chant, "Se-pa-rate church and state!" Now, that's a good chant! It's on message, short, rhyming and memorable.
Second, I was pretty proud of the people who showed up in support of Prop. 8. They didn't have the usual signs reflecting the bigotry and intolerance usually espoused by religious folks who oppose gay marriage. Rather, the signs included phrases such as, "God loves you" and "Proud to be Mormon". It was much less charged than I expected. It goes to show that people can be good and reasonable. It was a real breath of fresh air.
Third, I was also pretty happy with the LDS Church's response to the passing of Prop. 8. I think it did a good job of stating why the Church supported the amendment and the extent of its position. I'm glad that the Church came out and stated what I believe to be the correct position: that we should not discriminate against homosexuals, but we must not back down when it comes to protecting male/female marriage.
Finally, I take issue with the Church's official statement on the protests (both in Utah and California). The relevant portion reads as follows:
On the other hand, I agree with the second part of the statement which condemns protests outside places of worship. Places of worship are sacred, no matter the religion, and I don't feel that it's appropriate to protest outside them. I'm glad that the Utah organizers chose to do it was after business hours so it didn't disrupt the normal operations there and in the surrounding buildings downtown.
In the end, I'm glad that I live in a country where these kinds of debates and protests can take place and I'm willing to take the bad with the good. Look at me, ending on an upbeat, philosophical note and stating an opinion that people couldn't possibly disagree with. Maybe I should write sitcoms.
First, their initial chant was terrible! It was, "The people have voted - you are intolerant." I'm not sure who came up with it, but they made a couple of mistakes. First, it's not catchy nor memorable. Second, it's way too long - twelve syllables, for crying out loud! Finally, it doesn't make much sense. Yes, the people voted, however, the majority voted in line with the position the LDS Church took, so I don't see how the people's vote shows that the LDS Church is intolerant. I guess the Church could be labeled as intolerant, but it's not because the people voted.
Fortunately, by the time they started marching around Temple Square, they picked a new chant, "Se-pa-rate church and state!" Now, that's a good chant! It's on message, short, rhyming and memorable.
Second, I was pretty proud of the people who showed up in support of Prop. 8. They didn't have the usual signs reflecting the bigotry and intolerance usually espoused by religious folks who oppose gay marriage. Rather, the signs included phrases such as, "God loves you" and "Proud to be Mormon". It was much less charged than I expected. It goes to show that people can be good and reasonable. It was a real breath of fresh air.
Third, I was also pretty happy with the LDS Church's response to the passing of Prop. 8. I think it did a good job of stating why the Church supported the amendment and the extent of its position. I'm glad that the Church came out and stated what I believe to be the correct position: that we should not discriminate against homosexuals, but we must not back down when it comes to protecting male/female marriage.
Finally, I take issue with the Church's official statement on the protests (both in Utah and California). The relevant portion reads as follows:
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right toI will concede that it's possible that this is just poor word choice. Their intent might have been to say, "it is wrong to target the Church's sacred places of worship." However, given the amount of thought that must of have been put into this, I presume that the wording is intentional. Therefore, I disagree with the first part of the statement. I believe that if a party ('party' in the legal sense of the word - meaning 'entity') decides to enter the public debate in this country, they must also live with the consequences. If you come out in support of a position, you must be ready to deal with democratic backlash, including the right of your opponents to exercise their freedoms of speech and assembly. The Church shouldn't feel as though it is being unfairly targeted for becoming involved in the debate. While the backlash they have received might be disproportionate to their invovlement, that doesn't change the fact that they opened themselves up to receive it.
make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred
places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
On the other hand, I agree with the second part of the statement which condemns protests outside places of worship. Places of worship are sacred, no matter the religion, and I don't feel that it's appropriate to protest outside them. I'm glad that the Utah organizers chose to do it was after business hours so it didn't disrupt the normal operations there and in the surrounding buildings downtown.
In the end, I'm glad that I live in a country where these kinds of debates and protests can take place and I'm willing to take the bad with the good. Look at me, ending on an upbeat, philosophical note and stating an opinion that people couldn't possibly disagree with. Maybe I should write sitcoms.
Friday, November 07, 2008
"I'm sorry, but all of the animals have been reserved for celebrities. But there are still rocks...thousand and thousands of rocks."
Two things:
First, I was searching for a quote to use as a title to this post, when I had quite a nice surprise. I ran a Google search for the quote, and my blog came up as the second hit! Look at me!:
I have to admit, I was very excited.
Second, I saw an hilarious take on the societal significance of Obama winning the presidency. Once again, Larry Wilmore hits the spot!
First, I was searching for a quote to use as a title to this post, when I had quite a nice surprise. I ran a Google search for the quote, and my blog came up as the second hit! Look at me!:
I have to admit, I was very excited.Second, I saw an hilarious take on the societal significance of Obama winning the presidency. Once again, Larry Wilmore hits the spot!
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
"I'm Ralph Wiggum, and I've been a good boy."
Good morning, Comrades!
I have a few thoughts about the election.
First, I am very happy with the results. I believe that Barack Obama will be a great president and that he will work to inspire Americans to become better and work harder so that we can once again become a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.
Second, John McCain was a real class act. His concession speech was well-written, centrist, inspiring, and sincere. He even quieted the boos and catcalls against his opponents. If he had given more speeches like that during the campaign, he might have won. Also, I think it's funny that while Obama had a huge outdoor public gathering that anyone could attend, McCain, in true Republican fashion, had a small gathering of invite-only guests at a fancy hotel.
Third, KSL is the second-worst news station in Utah. Not only did their break-aways add nothing to the coverage being provided, they also spent a half-hour interviewing nobodies and wasting time with meaningless reporter mumbo-jumbo while NBC national was calling the election for Obama. It took 10 minutes before we even heard which state pushed him over the top. I would have liked to have watched another station, but since I live in a dank cave, KSL is the only station I can get with a clear signal. Hey, KSL, if you're Utah's number one news source, then maybe you can afford some producers that have a clue!
Fourth, I was disappointed with the coverage provided by all the news outlets (that I could see) after they called the election. Once they called Virginia for Obama, they stopped reporting on the election and went straight into "perspective" mode, analyzing how "historic" and "ground-breaking" this election was. The election wasn't over! As of the time I'm posting this entry, it's still not over! Missouri and North Carolina are still reporting. Plus, I think it's fair to say that history will be the judge of what is historical.
Fifth, I have mixed feelings over whether or not this is a victory for African-Americans. Obama is only half black ("Tina, it's not half-black history month.") and in either event, his race didn't affect my vote at all. On the other hand, it does show that racism is dying in our country - especially since it appears that the polls were correct in showing him in the lead. My only worry is that people might attribute his victory to "white guilt" or some other phenomenon that forced people to vote for a black person over any other candidate. I believe that Obama's appeal came not from his race, but from his personality and party affiliation (Thanks to W., it's a tough time to be Republican). As far as I am concerned, Obama won it on his credentials as a politician and a person, despite anything Justice Thomas says or does to the contrary.
Sixth, I thought that Obama's acceptance speech was great. It ran about two minutes too long, but otherwise it was very well done. It was inspiring, energizing, reassuring, and showed us what Obama can really do. I'm looking forward to the next eight years. (That's right, EIGHT!)
Finally, I hope that SNL gets someone else to play Obama. There's a lot of comedy to be had there, and it's going untapped with Fred Armisen doing the character.
I have a few thoughts about the election.
First, I am very happy with the results. I believe that Barack Obama will be a great president and that he will work to inspire Americans to become better and work harder so that we can once again become a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.
Second, John McCain was a real class act. His concession speech was well-written, centrist, inspiring, and sincere. He even quieted the boos and catcalls against his opponents. If he had given more speeches like that during the campaign, he might have won. Also, I think it's funny that while Obama had a huge outdoor public gathering that anyone could attend, McCain, in true Republican fashion, had a small gathering of invite-only guests at a fancy hotel.
Third, KSL is the second-worst news station in Utah. Not only did their break-aways add nothing to the coverage being provided, they also spent a half-hour interviewing nobodies and wasting time with meaningless reporter mumbo-jumbo while NBC national was calling the election for Obama. It took 10 minutes before we even heard which state pushed him over the top. I would have liked to have watched another station, but since I live in a dank cave, KSL is the only station I can get with a clear signal. Hey, KSL, if you're Utah's number one news source, then maybe you can afford some producers that have a clue!
Fourth, I was disappointed with the coverage provided by all the news outlets (that I could see) after they called the election. Once they called Virginia for Obama, they stopped reporting on the election and went straight into "perspective" mode, analyzing how "historic" and "ground-breaking" this election was. The election wasn't over! As of the time I'm posting this entry, it's still not over! Missouri and North Carolina are still reporting. Plus, I think it's fair to say that history will be the judge of what is historical.
Fifth, I have mixed feelings over whether or not this is a victory for African-Americans. Obama is only half black ("Tina, it's not half-black history month.") and in either event, his race didn't affect my vote at all. On the other hand, it does show that racism is dying in our country - especially since it appears that the polls were correct in showing him in the lead. My only worry is that people might attribute his victory to "white guilt" or some other phenomenon that forced people to vote for a black person over any other candidate. I believe that Obama's appeal came not from his race, but from his personality and party affiliation (Thanks to W., it's a tough time to be Republican). As far as I am concerned, Obama won it on his credentials as a politician and a person, despite anything Justice Thomas says or does to the contrary.
Sixth, I thought that Obama's acceptance speech was great. It ran about two minutes too long, but otherwise it was very well done. It was inspiring, energizing, reassuring, and showed us what Obama can really do. I'm looking forward to the next eight years. (That's right, EIGHT!)
Finally, I hope that SNL gets someone else to play Obama. There's a lot of comedy to be had there, and it's going untapped with Fred Armisen doing the character.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
"Quoth the Raven, "Eat my shorts!"
This is still the absolute best interpretation of this classic work.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
"I am so dang Totally Awesome that satan encourages his angles to fight me every where he can as I am one of his greatest enemies."
Utah seems to be a haven for crazy politicians. We've got folks like Chris Buttars, Greg Hughes, and many more. Therefore, I shouldn't be surprised that we can produce what is quite possibly, the best candidate for governor ever seen in the history of our great state: Dell Schanze. This man has taken Utah politics to a new level, and I for one, invite his candidacy. His positions put into stark relief how utterly normal our current Governor is. Here are a few quotes from his website:
1.
2.
3.
I also encourage you to read his official statement from the voter information pamphlet because apparently, even according to SuperDell, I would be a better governor than him. Is there anything he isn't right about?
1.
The vast majority of media in Utah is controlled by satan.
2.
I'm SUPERDELL; don't even allow the dark side to put a spark of doubt as to my
intentions and goodness.
3.
The vast majority of Utah wants lower energy costs; running cars on water isI also took the title of this post from his website - verbatim. There are a number of errors, including capitalization, grammar, and word juxtaposition, all of which I left in place for your benefit!
legit and proven, I'm the candidate that will pull Huntsman out of our gas holes
and I believe I can lower energy costs by at least 90%. You have no choice but
to vote for me.
I also encourage you to read his official statement from the voter information pamphlet because apparently, even according to SuperDell, I would be a better governor than him. Is there anything he isn't right about?
Friday, September 26, 2008
"Wayne Jarvis, Attorney at Law. I have a responsibility to tell you there is no candy in this room."
Like all pundits and commentators, I make mistakes. However, unlike most pundits and commentators, I admit them. Here are two examples of times where I made a claim that came back to bite me in the butt:
1. Insignificant? Really?
In October 2007, I wrote a post about my favorite and least favorite Republican candidates, and I made the following statement:
So....I'm a moron.
2. Experience...who needs that?
In December 2007, I wrote this post about Ron Paul. No, I haven't decided that I like Ron Paul - he's still a raving lunatic. Rather, I made this criticism:
Oh, 2007 Daniel, if only could have seen into the...past. In November 2007 (3 weeks prior to my Ron Paul post), I wrote the following:
It looks like I not only missed the mark with Republican primary, but I also screwed myself over with the Democratic nomination. But, like all pundits, I will stubbornly stand by my choice despite all of the hypocritical statements I make to the contrary [cough Glenn Beck cough].
1. Insignificant? Really?
In October 2007, I wrote a post about my favorite and least favorite Republican candidates, and I made the following statement:
However, the middle candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Brownstreak, I mean Brownback,
Paul, etc.) are really too insignificant to make a difference, so screw 'em.
So....I'm a moron.
2. Experience...who needs that?
In December 2007, I wrote this post about Ron Paul. No, I haven't decided that I like Ron Paul - he's still a raving lunatic. Rather, I made this criticism:
Dr. Paul believes a lot of other crazy things like ending
natural birth citizenship, withdrawing from the WTO, lifting all limits on the Second Amendment, that only a few years of mediocre congressional service qualifies you to be president...
Oh, 2007 Daniel, if only could have seen into the...past. In November 2007 (3 weeks prior to my Ron Paul post), I wrote the following:
The candidate that I've started to get behind is Barack Obama. Man, I love thatCrapnuts. I'm a moron and a hypocrite. I guess I could say in my defense that Obama's four years in the Senate have been more productive than Paul's, and I would sound like a weasel.
guy.
It looks like I not only missed the mark with Republican primary, but I also screwed myself over with the Democratic nomination. But, like all pundits, I will stubbornly stand by my choice despite all of the hypocritical statements I make to the contrary [cough Glenn Beck cough].
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
"Let's hear that dirty word again: Socialism!"
Well, it's finally happened. No, I misspoke, it's happened again. President Bush has once again completely turned away from everything he promised in his campaign, rhetoric, platform, and doctrine.
I wonder if many Republicans feel awkward about supporting the President. How do you support the Party without supporting the President that has done such a good job of gutting it?
The real irony? That Republicans called John Kerry a flip-flopper.
I wonder if many Republicans feel awkward about supporting the President. How do you support the Party without supporting the President that has done such a good job of gutting it?
The real irony? That Republicans called John Kerry a flip-flopper.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
"And now, kicking ass and taking minds, it's Mentok, the Mind-taker!"
I had my first trial today. I was only a little nervous, but it faded away completely when I walked into the courtroom. I was arguing and objecting and cross-examining just like always. It was a load of fun.
I love this job. I love suing people, I love sending threatening letters, I love arguing with other attorneys, I love picking apart pleadings, and I especially love going to court. The only thing that would make it more rewarding is more money.
The irony of today's hearing is that while I feel that I did a good job defending my client, my professional judgment is that he'll probably still have to pay the fine. Unfortunately, I don't find out for at least 3 months. Nuts.
[Editor's note: I won.]
I love this job. I love suing people, I love sending threatening letters, I love arguing with other attorneys, I love picking apart pleadings, and I especially love going to court. The only thing that would make it more rewarding is more money.
The irony of today's hearing is that while I feel that I did a good job defending my client, my professional judgment is that he'll probably still have to pay the fine. Unfortunately, I don't find out for at least 3 months. Nuts.
[Editor's note: I won.]
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
"I'm sure they're very nice boys, but they're clearly nerds."
I am a self-proclaimed dork. I pride myself on my nerdiness and will often pit myself against other nerds in a nerd-off. I have rarely been beaten. Nevertheless, I find my nerdiness being challenged from all sides and by many unlikely people.
For my seventh grade class panoramic picture, I held my calculator (an HP 48G) up to my chest so it could be in the picture. When the picture was released to the student body, I was amazed at how many threats, including death threats, were made against me for my outrageous display of nerdiness. Of course, this only made me feel better about displaying my captivating mistress, Isabel.
Now, everyone from doctors and lawyers to real estate agents, construction workers and self-important mid-level nobodies in lame dead-end jobs carry a host of incredibly nerdy devices on themselves in ways that even I have to laugh at. I see people carrying giant pocket PCs in hip holsters. Holsters! Before, if I saw someone wearing their palm pilot or calculator in a holster, I had to suppress the urge to give them a wedgie. (I assume the holster is necessary to be competitive when facing off against other nerds-in-denial in quickdraw contests.) Even worse than the holster is the wireless headset. I'm not opposed to the idea of a wireless headset per se. However, I am opposed to people wearing them all of the time. I can think of nothing nerdier than walking around in public with a big ear/mouthpiece awkwardly sticking out of your head. Even I want to punch people like that, and not just for the rudeness factor. I wonder how many people would stop doing it if they realized that it is the realization of technology from Star Trek.
I suppose that I'm just bitter because my societal niche is being coopted. I define myself by my nerdiness and now I'm being surpassed by the same people that I resented for getting ahead in life by making fun of my nerdiness. Alas, being a nerd, I should have seen it coming. After taking away my joy, my security, my interests, and my self-esteem, it is only fitting that they should take away my identity. But I will press on, because in the end, my calculator is still way, way, way, way, better than my BlackBerry. Way better.
For my seventh grade class panoramic picture, I held my calculator (an HP 48G) up to my chest so it could be in the picture. When the picture was released to the student body, I was amazed at how many threats, including death threats, were made against me for my outrageous display of nerdiness. Of course, this only made me feel better about displaying my captivating mistress, Isabel.
Now, everyone from doctors and lawyers to real estate agents, construction workers and self-important mid-level nobodies in lame dead-end jobs carry a host of incredibly nerdy devices on themselves in ways that even I have to laugh at. I see people carrying giant pocket PCs in hip holsters. Holsters! Before, if I saw someone wearing their palm pilot or calculator in a holster, I had to suppress the urge to give them a wedgie. (I assume the holster is necessary to be competitive when facing off against other nerds-in-denial in quickdraw contests.) Even worse than the holster is the wireless headset. I'm not opposed to the idea of a wireless headset per se. However, I am opposed to people wearing them all of the time. I can think of nothing nerdier than walking around in public with a big ear/mouthpiece awkwardly sticking out of your head. Even I want to punch people like that, and not just for the rudeness factor. I wonder how many people would stop doing it if they realized that it is the realization of technology from Star Trek.
I suppose that I'm just bitter because my societal niche is being coopted. I define myself by my nerdiness and now I'm being surpassed by the same people that I resented for getting ahead in life by making fun of my nerdiness. Alas, being a nerd, I should have seen it coming. After taking away my joy, my security, my interests, and my self-esteem, it is only fitting that they should take away my identity. But I will press on, because in the end, my calculator is still way, way, way, way, better than my BlackBerry. Way better.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Tuesday night bar review
A few weeks ago, I had my first-ever court appearance. In spite of a whole host of things that went wrong, it was pretty educational. The most educational part was when I stepped into the hall to set up a schedule with opposing counsel. As we walked out, I smelled the distinct sifter of alcohol. I thought it might have been one of the non-bar individuals in the courtroom (who were a shady bunch since this was a criminal hearing), but realized I was mistaken when I sat down on a bench with no one else in the vicinity but my government counterpart. I have rarely smelled such a strong scent of alcohol as I smelled from Mr. Assistant Attorney General. I guess that’s why they call it the bar association. (Ha ha ha ha ha. I kill me.)
Note: The original title of this post wouldn't fit in the space alotted, so I am republishing it here:
“Honey, all this power of deduction stuff is cute, but I’ve got two lives in my hands here. Two souls depending on me giving the performance of my life in that courtroom tomorrow.” “Scotch?” “Hell, ya! Let’s get stinko!”
Thursday, July 10, 2008
"And I knew that you wouldn't take the bus because you always say that public transportation is for losers."
I have been commuting to work lately which requires me to take an hour and ten minute bus ride every day. This isn't the first time I've regularly taken the bus, but it has brought to light several things that I would change about public transportation.
First, all riders must be required to have taken a shower within 36 hours prior to boarding. Apparently, if you take public transportation you are less likely to have showered than not. Along this same line, I would also change the way the bus recirculates air. Currently, it sucks in the air near the front and blows it out the back. This causes the stinky air to be blown throughout the entire bus. There has to be a better way.
Second, there must be no talking. I don't know what it is about public transportation users that makes them think that they can talk to you, but they ignore the fact that I'm wearing headphones and looking out the window or reading when they start to tell me about where they're going and why. It's very annoying, especially when coupled with my first complaint. This rule also applies to conversations between people who are riding together and people on cell phones. Because buses are noisy, people tend to raise their voices when talking and it makes an already irritating behavior even worse.
Third, Utah needs more bus routes. I have to ride for over an hour one way and nearly an hour the other to make a trip that takes me 20 minutes each way by car. I wouldn't complain except that my car route goes from one major road, over another major road, to another major road, yet the only way for me to get from my stop to my work is to take an incredibly long back route.
Despite these complaints, I am still grateful for the public transportation system that exists. While I would like it to be more comprehensive and commuter-friendly, I really enjoy some parts of it. I love Frontrunner because there are few things in life more entertaining than riding along the Wasatch front looking out a second story window into the backyards of trailer parks and low-income housing tracts.
First, all riders must be required to have taken a shower within 36 hours prior to boarding. Apparently, if you take public transportation you are less likely to have showered than not. Along this same line, I would also change the way the bus recirculates air. Currently, it sucks in the air near the front and blows it out the back. This causes the stinky air to be blown throughout the entire bus. There has to be a better way.
Second, there must be no talking. I don't know what it is about public transportation users that makes them think that they can talk to you, but they ignore the fact that I'm wearing headphones and looking out the window or reading when they start to tell me about where they're going and why. It's very annoying, especially when coupled with my first complaint. This rule also applies to conversations between people who are riding together and people on cell phones. Because buses are noisy, people tend to raise their voices when talking and it makes an already irritating behavior even worse.
Third, Utah needs more bus routes. I have to ride for over an hour one way and nearly an hour the other to make a trip that takes me 20 minutes each way by car. I wouldn't complain except that my car route goes from one major road, over another major road, to another major road, yet the only way for me to get from my stop to my work is to take an incredibly long back route.
Despite these complaints, I am still grateful for the public transportation system that exists. While I would like it to be more comprehensive and commuter-friendly, I really enjoy some parts of it. I love Frontrunner because there are few things in life more entertaining than riding along the Wasatch front looking out a second story window into the backyards of trailer parks and low-income housing tracts.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
"Somebody please give me a job. I play nerd. I do nude scene. Don't make me punch your throat!"
Today's post is going to follow a less traditional format. That is, it won't be following a format. I have a few thoughts about some random subjects.
First, Hallelujah, Obama's clinched the win! Oh wait, that was premature. Now he's won. No wait, it's still unclear. Aw crap, let's just call it and make it a reality. The press coverage on today's primaries has been terrible. They should just wait until Clinton concedes because until she does, it's not over. Party hardliners, including most party leaders, would rather see her as the candidate than Obama so in my mind, it's not over until she says it is. If she does eventually concede, I hope Obama tells her where to stick her stinking, party-splitting, overlong and over-boring sorry sack. Obama should give the VP nod to Edwards who bowed out of the race early and with class. Besides, Edwards will help sway Southern voters, a crowd Obama will not win with Clinton as his running mate.
Second, Congratulations to my brother who just birthed his second spawn. He labored for a long time and it was a very difficult and physically demanding process for him. And I think his wife might have helped a bit.
Third, I love the Simpsons. I love the old stuff, the new stuff and the movie. I love most of the commentary and I love owning the DVD's. I just wish there were some technology that would allow me to watch the episodes I have in random order. I could, but there are a number of digital intellectual rights restrictions, a lack of available technology and generalized laziness (one of my more common maladies). As an aside, I really liked this season's, "Apocalypse Cow" and "Any Given Sundance".
Finally, if there were someone whose throat I could punch to get a job, I'd do it. I wouldn't even have to worry about the repercussions because I know a good lawyer who can represent me for free!
First, Hallelujah, Obama's clinched the win! Oh wait, that was premature. Now he's won. No wait, it's still unclear. Aw crap, let's just call it and make it a reality. The press coverage on today's primaries has been terrible. They should just wait until Clinton concedes because until she does, it's not over. Party hardliners, including most party leaders, would rather see her as the candidate than Obama so in my mind, it's not over until she says it is. If she does eventually concede, I hope Obama tells her where to stick her stinking, party-splitting, overlong and over-boring sorry sack. Obama should give the VP nod to Edwards who bowed out of the race early and with class. Besides, Edwards will help sway Southern voters, a crowd Obama will not win with Clinton as his running mate.
Second, Congratulations to my brother who just birthed his second spawn. He labored for a long time and it was a very difficult and physically demanding process for him. And I think his wife might have helped a bit.
Third, I love the Simpsons. I love the old stuff, the new stuff and the movie. I love most of the commentary and I love owning the DVD's. I just wish there were some technology that would allow me to watch the episodes I have in random order. I could, but there are a number of digital intellectual rights restrictions, a lack of available technology and generalized laziness (one of my more common maladies). As an aside, I really liked this season's, "Apocalypse Cow" and "Any Given Sundance".
Finally, if there were someone whose throat I could punch to get a job, I'd do it. I wouldn't even have to worry about the repercussions because I know a good lawyer who can represent me for free!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem!"
My state is home to a minor league baseball team, the Bees. They're pushing their season through a series of television ads naming the teams they will be playing against. I didn't pay much attention to the ads until I heard the name of one of the teams they'll be playing against: the Albuquerque Isotopes. Sound familiar? It should. Some of you may remember that Homer Simpson staged a week-long hunger strike protesting the relocation of his beloved Springfield Isotopes to Albuquerque! For a second I thought it might just be the result of poor research or keen irony on the part of the 'Topes owners. However, the Simpson's episode featuring Hungry, Hungry Homer (which is, coincidentally, the title of the episode) first aired on March 4, 2001, almost three years before Albuquerque acquired and named their team. (I apologize for the Wikipedia link, I couldn't find anything better.) I think that the Albuquerque team should show some class and change the name of their team to something more original! It just goes to show what kind of morons actually like minor league baseball.
Oh, wait. I just finished reading the Wikipedia article. I guess the team name was chosen by fans through a television poll. Okay, that actually makes it pretty cool. That, and I recently attended a Bees game and it was great fun.
Crap.
Oh, wait. I just finished reading the Wikipedia article. I guess the team name was chosen by fans through a television poll. Okay, that actually makes it pretty cool. That, and I recently attended a Bees game and it was great fun.
Crap.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
"Jerkface killed YourMom"
Star Wars Battlefront II: Great game or greatest game?
I love Battlefront II. I just can't express enough how much I love it and here's why:
First, Battlefront I was great. It was fun to get into full-scale combat in the Star Wars universe. In Battlefront II, they took the great things about I and expanded them. They added more maps, more characters, more units, and more options. A lot of people were disappointed that it was so much like the first version, but I disagree; I think it was great that they stayed so true to the original. My only complaint is that they left out the Rhen Var and Bespin levels. Let us pray they either release an expansion or include them in BF III.
Second, I love the frenzy of battle. I love how crazy battles can be, with grenades going off all around you, people falling to the left and the right, troops running frantically around the map, and the sheer volume of units on the ground - especially during the campaign. The game's ability to simulate battle is, in my opinion, unparalleled in the video game world.
Third, I love the heroes. I know that I might be alone here, but I love running around as Anakin or Obi-Wan or even Yoda or Boba Fett (but not Leia. What a loser!) and just blasting or slicing the heck out of everyone. Just today I got a 61 killing spree as Darth Maul. 61! It was awesome.
Fourth, I love the campaign. Not only is the gameplay just awesome, but the story is also way above par for a video game. Granted, it's coming from pretty good source material, but they did a very good job of finding a new and unique way of exploring the Star Wars universe. Plus there are no irritating accents to deal with (R6V, when will you learn?).
Fifth, I love killing Jawas. It's one of the most difficult scenarios in the game, but hunting Jawas is almost the most gratifying thing I can do in any video game.
Sixth, I love the control. I love that you can play all of the maps in different ways with different eras. I love that you can change the scores, who gets the hero, etc. I also love how much you can customize your controls (Infantry, Hero, Vehicle, Starfighter, etc.). It's unheard of!
I don't care what other people say, releasing a sequel that is very similar to an already near-perfect original is not a mistake - it's smart. Let's just hope that if they do decide to wide release another sequel that it will be at least as good as this one.
In conclusion, I love Battlefront so much, I want to take it out behind the middle school and get it pregnant. Maybe our love child will be a great third installment that includes the missing maps from I and hero starships to boot.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
"Charlton Heston Is My President"
No, he's not. I did however have another great shooting experience. This time I took my little sister and my wife shooting in the foothills behind my house. We started by shooting the .22 rifle which was an old pump action Winchester rifle (I can't even find a picture of it) and it was super good fun. I really enjoy shooting the .22 because it's like shooting a high-power pellet gun - it's all about precision rather than power. We had a little marksman contest and my little sister beat me but I feel no shame. If you knew my little sister, you wouldn't be surprised nor would you feel that I had been humiliated. She's actually quite good. While we were shooting the .22, my little sister said to me, "I don't see where the power trip comes from." I told her to wait.
We next fired the AR-15. It is so choice. While the actual bullet is little bigger than the .22 (it's only a .223 caliber, so 3/1000ths of a millimeter bigger - I think), there is about 5 times the powder behind it. That's a gun that lets you feel the power trip. It feels so sleek in your hands and its firing mechanism is just a work of art. We shot at an international law textbook that I couldn't sell back and we confirmed one of my theories: that if someone were to shoot at me with a handgun, the textbooks in my backpack would probably be able to stop a bullet. From about 50 feet, the bullet didn't even make it through the table of contents. On the other hand, it obliterated the pink lady apples we brought along. At one point, I was demonstrating how to fire it and I thought, "I'm only shooting one round, I'm not going to need ear protection." Nope. I felt like my ears had been punched, hard. It's a very loud gun.
After that, we shot a 12 gauge shotgun. Both of my chromosonally uniform companions had the same problem - it almost knocked them over. It also obliterated the pink lady apples, as well as the small bottles, the big can, and it blew this hole in Carter's International Law:
It would have blown out the entire back of the book had it not been on the ground. Clearly, my book would not have done much against a shotgun at close range.
Once again, this experience taught me some valuable lessons. First, the killing power of the AR-15 is incredible. On the marquee at the gun store they had the following two phrases:
Second, shotguns are much more deadly than I previously gave them credit for. If you're buying a gun to stop intruders in your house, I recommend getting a shotgun. You can both stop the intruder and repaint your walls at the same time! Win-win! It's no surprise that it's so effective against the Flood, but I digress. My point is that if you're worried about home intruders or the government taking your food, a shotgun is a pretty good way of stopping them. It's not as kill-y as the AR because of it's limited ammo capacity and range, but it's still a very effective close range weapon capable of protecting you and your loved ones from the bloated socialist government that so greedily wants to take away your guns and rights. But mostly your guns.
Rest in peace, Moses.
We next fired the AR-15. It is so choice. While the actual bullet is little bigger than the .22 (it's only a .223 caliber, so 3/1000ths of a millimeter bigger - I think), there is about 5 times the powder behind it. That's a gun that lets you feel the power trip. It feels so sleek in your hands and its firing mechanism is just a work of art. We shot at an international law textbook that I couldn't sell back and we confirmed one of my theories: that if someone were to shoot at me with a handgun, the textbooks in my backpack would probably be able to stop a bullet. From about 50 feet, the bullet didn't even make it through the table of contents. On the other hand, it obliterated the pink lady apples we brought along. At one point, I was demonstrating how to fire it and I thought, "I'm only shooting one round, I'm not going to need ear protection." Nope. I felt like my ears had been punched, hard. It's a very loud gun.
After that, we shot a 12 gauge shotgun. Both of my chromosonally uniform companions had the same problem - it almost knocked them over. It also obliterated the pink lady apples, as well as the small bottles, the big can, and it blew this hole in Carter's International Law:
It would have blown out the entire back of the book had it not been on the ground. Clearly, my book would not have done much against a shotgun at close range. Once again, this experience taught me some valuable lessons. First, the killing power of the AR-15 is incredible. On the marquee at the gun store they had the following two phrases:
Barak says you don't need high capacity mags - get some quick(I know, they spelled 'Barack' wrong); and
Hillary says you don't need an AR - get one while you still canThey're right. We shot an AR-15 with 30 round magazines. The AR has an incredible range, is very accurate, and firing off 30 rounds in rapid succession wouldn't do too much to decrease your accuracy. If I wanted to kill a whole bunch of people really fast, that would be a pretty effective way of doing it. Unless you're hunting one of nature's super animals like the flying squirrel or the electric eel, you don't need one and you probably shouldn't have one. The potential for violent, illegitimate use is too great to justify allowing everyday people to own such a powerful weapon.
Second, shotguns are much more deadly than I previously gave them credit for. If you're buying a gun to stop intruders in your house, I recommend getting a shotgun. You can both stop the intruder and repaint your walls at the same time! Win-win! It's no surprise that it's so effective against the Flood, but I digress. My point is that if you're worried about home intruders or the government taking your food, a shotgun is a pretty good way of stopping them. It's not as kill-y as the AR because of it's limited ammo capacity and range, but it's still a very effective close range weapon capable of protecting you and your loved ones from the bloated socialist government that so greedily wants to take away your guns and rights. But mostly your guns.
Rest in peace, Moses.
Friday, April 04, 2008
"Soy un perdador. I'm a loser, baby..."
I hate Glenn Beck. I hate him so much. I hate him for the same reason I hate most pundits: they spew ideas that rile people up just so they can keep a job. Mr. Beck is just the latest incarnation of Rush Limbaugh and he doesn't provide any new ideas or real insight. Here's the example that got me so riled up.
Today on CNN.com, Mr. Beck authored the following comment:
Mr. Beck falls into one of the common rhetorical traps: use the word 'sure' and people will dismiss the negative statement that is to follow. A more correct rendering of the offending sentence would be:
2. Tax and spend, baby!
Beck's second argument is that the government makes a huge amount of money with gas taxes and doesn't do anything with it. With some due respect, Mr. Beck, you are wrong. Gas taxes are reinvested by the state (including Feds) in roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects. I think that Mr. Beck should also note that while gas prices have gone up, the tax has remained relatively constant. Gas taxes are a fixed dollar amount per gallon rather than a percentage of the total cost. When gas prices go up, the government still gets the same amount of money - oil companies get the rest. Check your facts, jerk!
If Mr. Beck wants to start making real arguments instead of mere pandering, he's welcome to visit this website which provides some rather intelligent (and almost persuasive) arguments as to why the system is the way it is and why it should stay that way. There is an interesting article on the history of the gas tax. They also argue that oil companies are not mere profit machines. I disagree, but I'll save that for another day.
Today on CNN.com, Mr. Beck authored the following comment:
Yes, times are tough for many. Sure, oil companies make a lot of cash. But, for that money, they get us to work, get ambulances to the hospital, keep our homes warm, and employ thousands of our friends and neighbors while financing their retirement, paying their health care, and providing energy to millions. Because of capitalism, they have the incentive to do that. I've yet to see what our government does for us with their rather large chunk of each gallon of gas we buy, and I've yet to see them offer to return it or suggest a gas-tax-windfall-tax-tax.1. Sure, but your argument is still bogus.
Mr. Beck falls into one of the common rhetorical traps: use the word 'sure' and people will dismiss the negative statement that is to follow. A more correct rendering of the offending sentence would be:
Oil companies make a lot of cash.Yes they do, Mr. Beck. Mr. Beck here is making the argument that it's okay that oil companies make huge profits because they are providing the country with an essential service. I disagree. I feel that it is precisely because they provide and essential service that their profits should be regulated. They have the ability to hold the country hostage and demand more profits. Because they essentially have a monopoly, the only thing standing between them and milking Americans for every penny they can get is governmental regulation.
2. Tax and spend, baby!
Beck's second argument is that the government makes a huge amount of money with gas taxes and doesn't do anything with it. With some due respect, Mr. Beck, you are wrong. Gas taxes are reinvested by the state (including Feds) in roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects. I think that Mr. Beck should also note that while gas prices have gone up, the tax has remained relatively constant. Gas taxes are a fixed dollar amount per gallon rather than a percentage of the total cost. When gas prices go up, the government still gets the same amount of money - oil companies get the rest. Check your facts, jerk!
If Mr. Beck wants to start making real arguments instead of mere pandering, he's welcome to visit this website which provides some rather intelligent (and almost persuasive) arguments as to why the system is the way it is and why it should stay that way. There is an interesting article on the history of the gas tax. They also argue that oil companies are not mere profit machines. I disagree, but I'll save that for another day.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
"Increase my killing power, eh?"
Today I had the most fun I've ever had shooting guns. My little brother and I went to Impact Guns in Ogden and took advantage of their in-store shooting range and inventory of guns for rent - including machine guns. We rented the MP5 - a submachine gun (fully auto, just with smaller ammo). The clerk kindly explained how to use it. He explained that it fires up and to the left (to hit your target, aim down and to the right of it). He also showed us the three settings - "safe, single fire, rock and roll".
It was incredible. There are few things in life quite as much fun as holding a sleek, comfortable gun in your hands, butting it up against your shoulder, gently squeezing the trigger and then having bullet after bullet fly out of the barrel in rapid sequence. On auto, one quick squeeze of the trigger releases around 3 shots. Holding it down releases oh so many more. It is so choice.
The cost isn't bad. You can call them to get their current rates, but for about $50, you can fire about 100 rounds, but I recommend getting more. I really enjoyed the staff, the facility was nice, and if you pay to rent one machine gun, you can trade it for any other machine gun or pistol for free. (You can always trade a pistol for another without additional cost.) In addition to the MP5, we shot a Sig Sauer, a Beretta, and a Glock. The Glock has a laser sight which was incredibly fun.
That being said, I have a number of other observations about my experience.
The Store
The first thing I noticed about the store even as I pulled into the parking lot was that every store employee was armed. Not only were they armed, but their weapons were all ready to fire (i.e. there was a round in the chamber and the hammer was cocked). This struck me as both a sensible precaution (I mean, they do let people rent machine guns inside the store) and crazy. It might just be all the liberal brainwashing I've been through, but it doesn't seem to me that there are any places outside a war zone where such a precaution is necessary. Even if they wanted to remain armed, keeping their weapons in ready-fire mode seems excessive.
Gun Control
Now that I have fired an automatic weapon, I am even more certain of my belief that they should be absolutely illegal. No private citizen should ever own an automatic weapon. Ever. They are deadly, dangerous, and powerful. The amount of damage that such a weapon can do in the hands of a skilled user is staggering. My little brother and I - amateurs at best - were more accurate with the machine gun than with any of the pistols. I cannot imagine how the VTech or any of the recent mall shootings would have been had the shooter been wielding the gun I held today. Even on single shot, the ability to quickly squeeze off rounds makes this class of weapon frighteningly deadly.
I also believe that handguns should be much harder to get and much less prolific. I fired three different handguns today (all of the same caliber - 9mm) and was in awe of the power of each one in my hands. We were shooting at a paper target and just left little holes. That makes it hard to imagine what it would do to flesh and bone, but the kick, the heat and the weight of each one made them intimidating weapons. I don't trust most people to be able to use that power responsibly.
Today's experience also cemented something that I've believed for a long time about gun control legislation. I believe that before people take a stand on the Second Amendment, they should either fire a gun or be in the immediate presence of a gun while it is being fired. Some of the guns the other patrons were shooting today were frighteningly powerful. Not only were they loud, but we could feel the compression of the shot (the air moved by the bullet) from several feet away. People should heft the weapon in their hands, hear the blast from the cartridge, and
feel its kick as the shot is fired before they decide whether it should or should not be in the hands of citizens.
Not only should people fire a gun, but members of Congress should have to fire the guns that they are trying to legalize or outlaw. I imagine that many of them would have a different opinion if they saw the weapons in action.
Silencers
The store sold silencers for a wide variety of pistols. Although they were expensive (ranging between $300 and $2000), they were nevertheless available for public purchase because the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 is no longer in effect. I have said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no legitimate reason for a private citizen (or even many law enforcement officers) to own a silencer. None whatsoever.
Rainbow Six Vegas
Readers of my blog should know that I love this game. Love, love, love it. It was this game that inspired me to plan this little outing since the MP5 is one of the weapons available in the game. So also are the Beretta and Glock pistols that we fired. I really enjoyed seeing these weapons in action. I also know why the MP5 is not more prolific [in the game]. While it does have a high rate of fire, it is a wussy, wussy gun. It fires a 9mm round that has the same stopping power as a marshmallow. Maybe next time we'll fire the G36.
It was incredible. There are few things in life quite as much fun as holding a sleek, comfortable gun in your hands, butting it up against your shoulder, gently squeezing the trigger and then having bullet after bullet fly out of the barrel in rapid sequence. On auto, one quick squeeze of the trigger releases around 3 shots. Holding it down releases oh so many more. It is so choice.
The cost isn't bad. You can call them to get their current rates, but for about $50, you can fire about 100 rounds, but I recommend getting more. I really enjoyed the staff, the facility was nice, and if you pay to rent one machine gun, you can trade it for any other machine gun or pistol for free. (You can always trade a pistol for another without additional cost.) In addition to the MP5, we shot a Sig Sauer, a Beretta, and a Glock. The Glock has a laser sight which was incredibly fun.
That being said, I have a number of other observations about my experience.
The Store
The first thing I noticed about the store even as I pulled into the parking lot was that every store employee was armed. Not only were they armed, but their weapons were all ready to fire (i.e. there was a round in the chamber and the hammer was cocked). This struck me as both a sensible precaution (I mean, they do let people rent machine guns inside the store) and crazy. It might just be all the liberal brainwashing I've been through, but it doesn't seem to me that there are any places outside a war zone where such a precaution is necessary. Even if they wanted to remain armed, keeping their weapons in ready-fire mode seems excessive.
Gun Control
Now that I have fired an automatic weapon, I am even more certain of my belief that they should be absolutely illegal. No private citizen should ever own an automatic weapon. Ever. They are deadly, dangerous, and powerful. The amount of damage that such a weapon can do in the hands of a skilled user is staggering. My little brother and I - amateurs at best - were more accurate with the machine gun than with any of the pistols. I cannot imagine how the VTech or any of the recent mall shootings would have been had the shooter been wielding the gun I held today. Even on single shot, the ability to quickly squeeze off rounds makes this class of weapon frighteningly deadly.
I also believe that handguns should be much harder to get and much less prolific. I fired three different handguns today (all of the same caliber - 9mm) and was in awe of the power of each one in my hands. We were shooting at a paper target and just left little holes. That makes it hard to imagine what it would do to flesh and bone, but the kick, the heat and the weight of each one made them intimidating weapons. I don't trust most people to be able to use that power responsibly.
Today's experience also cemented something that I've believed for a long time about gun control legislation. I believe that before people take a stand on the Second Amendment, they should either fire a gun or be in the immediate presence of a gun while it is being fired. Some of the guns the other patrons were shooting today were frighteningly powerful. Not only were they loud, but we could feel the compression of the shot (the air moved by the bullet) from several feet away. People should heft the weapon in their hands, hear the blast from the cartridge, and
feel its kick as the shot is fired before they decide whether it should or should not be in the hands of citizens.
Not only should people fire a gun, but members of Congress should have to fire the guns that they are trying to legalize or outlaw. I imagine that many of them would have a different opinion if they saw the weapons in action.
Silencers
The store sold silencers for a wide variety of pistols. Although they were expensive (ranging between $300 and $2000), they were nevertheless available for public purchase because the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 is no longer in effect. I have said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no legitimate reason for a private citizen (or even many law enforcement officers) to own a silencer. None whatsoever.
Rainbow Six Vegas
Readers of my blog should know that I love this game. Love, love, love it. It was this game that inspired me to plan this little outing since the MP5 is one of the weapons available in the game. So also are the Beretta and Glock pistols that we fired. I really enjoyed seeing these weapons in action. I also know why the MP5 is not more prolific [in the game]. While it does have a high rate of fire, it is a wussy, wussy gun. It fires a 9mm round that has the same stopping power as a marshmallow. Maybe next time we'll fire the G36.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"Hey, you guys!"
The first time I saw this, I found it mildly amusing. Then, I couldn't stop thinking about it. Now, I'm laughing my head off just thinking about it. I love it.
Leeroy Jenkins!
(Warning: some of the language is not work appropriate - use headphones.)
Leeroy Jenkins!
(Warning: some of the language is not work appropriate - use headphones.)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
"Why are we doing it?" "Liberal guilt!"
If no one has attempted to give you liberal guilt today, have a look at one of the more heavy-handed guilt trips I've seen in awhile:
Miniature Earth
Even though it is true, the facts alone are staggering. They didn't need to be dressed up.
Miniature Earth
Even though it is true, the facts alone are staggering. They didn't need to be dressed up.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
"We let a cripple be president? A cripple?"
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
"Fear me, if you dare!"
This is what a Huckabee presidency will look like:
Who says the Washington Post doesn't have a liberal bent? (As you can see from the source caption, that is Mike Huckabee and his lovely wife. I wonder if he landed her before or after he lost all that weight.)
Who says the Washington Post doesn't have a liberal bent? (As you can see from the source caption, that is Mike Huckabee and his lovely wife. I wonder if he landed her before or after he lost all that weight.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
