As an avowed right winger and non-interventionist, I've always wrestled with the issue of gun control. I am inclined to have some sorts of controls on weapons and bans on other weapons. I find it hard to believe that owning an automatic rifle is critical for hunting. I also find the argument that "guns don't kill people - people kill people," a bit wanting. Guns make it easier for people to kill people. If you get angry and a gun is handy bad things are more likely to occur.
For example, a man in Ohio shot a 15 year old neighbor for walking on his immaculately groomed lawn. It was a shotgun and not a semi automatic weapon but I don't think the founding fathers were thinking about a suburban lawn when they included the right to bear arms to protect your turf. Whatever happened to the grumpy old neighbor who shook his rake at kids cutting the corner and walking on the lawn? Holy crap, I'm glad that Mr (anonymous) didn't have a shotgun when I lit that bag of poop on his front porch on fire when I was twelve.
This is simply ridiculous.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
No brain no gain
It seems that people continue to try to get ahead using short cuts but they just don't use their brains. One of these is a bit funny and the other simply sad.
1) A thief in Toronto broke into an SUV and stole a stereo. He then attempted to sell it to the owner of the same SUV. It is not clear from the report that he knew it was the same man (which would have made this especially brazen) but one would think that you might be better off moving to another neighborhood before trying to sell something you've just stolen. The victim chased the man down the street until police caught up to them and arrested the thief.
2) We've all heard about the lengths that hockey parents will go. We recall the Texas cheerleader's Mom who tried to arrange for the murder of a competitor. Recently in France, a father was found guilty of manslaughter, after a tennis opponent of his son died in a car crash. It seems the man had been putting a powerful antidepressant in the water bottles of his son and daugter's opponents. The drug causes drowsiness. The man who died withdrew from the match and attempted to drive home and was killed in crash. You wonder what people are thinking in these circumstances. How do you get satisfaction out of having your kids beat sedated opponents? How do you think you won't get caught? Why is it that important?
Strange days indeed.
1) A thief in Toronto broke into an SUV and stole a stereo. He then attempted to sell it to the owner of the same SUV. It is not clear from the report that he knew it was the same man (which would have made this especially brazen) but one would think that you might be better off moving to another neighborhood before trying to sell something you've just stolen. The victim chased the man down the street until police caught up to them and arrested the thief.
2) We've all heard about the lengths that hockey parents will go. We recall the Texas cheerleader's Mom who tried to arrange for the murder of a competitor. Recently in France, a father was found guilty of manslaughter, after a tennis opponent of his son died in a car crash. It seems the man had been putting a powerful antidepressant in the water bottles of his son and daugter's opponents. The drug causes drowsiness. The man who died withdrew from the match and attempted to drive home and was killed in crash. You wonder what people are thinking in these circumstances. How do you get satisfaction out of having your kids beat sedated opponents? How do you think you won't get caught? Why is it that important?
Strange days indeed.
Friday, March 10, 2006
The two faces of Stephen Harper
I think Stephen Harper has the right to appoint whomever he wants to his cabinet. He must understandably be a bit more careful as leader of a minority government but the membership is his perogative.
At the same time, however, the ethics czar (an admitedly Liberal appointee) has the right to look at the appointment of David Emerson. It seems a bit silly to look at this but he has the right to (and probably the responsibility if MP's complain).
I frankly don't understand the uproar about Mr Emerson but I am likely a good deal more cynical about politicians and their motives than most. Of course he crossed the floor because he could be in cabinet. It may be that he thought he could serve the interests of his constituents and the province of British Columbia. It is more likely (in my estimation) that he wanted to stay in cabinet and this gave him the opportunity. Its about the political game more than idealism.
What I think is really telling is that as shrill as Mr Harper was in opposition about ethics and the appearance of propriety, he is refusing to cooperate with Mr Shapiro. This sort of moral superiority (I can do what I want and trust me that its right) is just what makes Canadians cynical about politicians. He promised to be different. He promised to be transparent. It took him about 48 hours to show that he's just like all the others. He's the p'tit gars from Calgary.
Mr Harper - we believed you when you said it would be different. What we expected was that you would prove it. You assumed it was proven and then said "Trust me." Its clearly just more of the same.
At the same time, however, the ethics czar (an admitedly Liberal appointee) has the right to look at the appointment of David Emerson. It seems a bit silly to look at this but he has the right to (and probably the responsibility if MP's complain).
I frankly don't understand the uproar about Mr Emerson but I am likely a good deal more cynical about politicians and their motives than most. Of course he crossed the floor because he could be in cabinet. It may be that he thought he could serve the interests of his constituents and the province of British Columbia. It is more likely (in my estimation) that he wanted to stay in cabinet and this gave him the opportunity. Its about the political game more than idealism.
What I think is really telling is that as shrill as Mr Harper was in opposition about ethics and the appearance of propriety, he is refusing to cooperate with Mr Shapiro. This sort of moral superiority (I can do what I want and trust me that its right) is just what makes Canadians cynical about politicians. He promised to be different. He promised to be transparent. It took him about 48 hours to show that he's just like all the others. He's the p'tit gars from Calgary.
Mr Harper - we believed you when you said it would be different. What we expected was that you would prove it. You assumed it was proven and then said "Trust me." Its clearly just more of the same.
You can't make stuff like this up!
Some people just don't seem to get it.
Recently in Pittsburg a man walked up to the counter in a convenience store and asked if he could microwave something. The clerk saw what he/she thought was a severed penis in the man's hand and understandably freaked out.
Initial reports suggested that a man had cut his penis off in the washroom and then for some reason wanted to warm it up. "Would you like sour kraut with that sir?"
The truth is even sillier. Apparently a woman was required to take a drug test at work. Not confident that she would pass she acquired one of those fake penises that are specifically designed to use for drug testing. Apparently it didn't occur to her that a drug test supervisor might be alarmed when she exposed her "penis." She asked a male friend to pee into the penis (it is actually just a resevoir for pee) and he wanted to microwave it before she went for her test so the pee would be warm as expected. Nevermind that it came out of a penis!
This story by itself seems to prove the value of drug testing. Although IQ testing might achieve the same result in this case.
Recently in Pittsburg a man walked up to the counter in a convenience store and asked if he could microwave something. The clerk saw what he/she thought was a severed penis in the man's hand and understandably freaked out.
Initial reports suggested that a man had cut his penis off in the washroom and then for some reason wanted to warm it up. "Would you like sour kraut with that sir?"
The truth is even sillier. Apparently a woman was required to take a drug test at work. Not confident that she would pass she acquired one of those fake penises that are specifically designed to use for drug testing. Apparently it didn't occur to her that a drug test supervisor might be alarmed when she exposed her "penis." She asked a male friend to pee into the penis (it is actually just a resevoir for pee) and he wanted to microwave it before she went for her test so the pee would be warm as expected. Nevermind that it came out of a penis!
This story by itself seems to prove the value of drug testing. Although IQ testing might achieve the same result in this case.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
