Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Garden State


I saw Garden State the other night (when I should have been studying...) What a great movie. I'm ambivalent about the whole indy-movie thing, but sometimes those films just get the feeling right. Garden State got it right. The way the scenes were composed totally drew me in. Who knew Zach Braff was that talented, and why didn't I get the memo?


No, my unending infatuation with Natalie Portman has nothing to do with it ...


So, through the speakers tonight, Let Go by Frou Frou, from the soundtrack.

Damn, I should be studying... I have a final on Thursday!

Friday, July 18, 2008

Chore day

Nothing like a day with heat in the 90s for mowing the yard.


Other than that, it's chores and studying for me today. I'll be up at 0-dark-thirty in the AM to go to clinicals. Yay (this is me being sarcastic...)

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Taking a breath...


I made a 100 on Tuesday's ECG test ... whew!

That came after Saturday's IDPA match ... the first match I've been able to attend this calendar year.

I worked Tuesday night after the test, and I've had today off. PBR time!

The coming weeks will be hectic. I have class Thursday, clinicals Saturday, work in the ER Sunday. The Mighty HODAR will be coming up Sunday evening, though I'm not sure how much time we'll have to hang out. I have class the following Tuesday and an exam that Thursday. The final exam is the next Thursday.

Coming through the speakers tonight: Alice in Chains "Would?"

Monday, July 14, 2008

Stir Fry

Since Miss Fluffy's gone for nearly two weeks, I've got to find something to do with the metric ton of zucchini and squash coming out the garden. Oh, and I've also gotta eat. Soooo...

Kentuckistan Stir Fry

Have a beer.

Make brown rice. I guess this is for one big serving, since I'm a temporary bachelor. Set the rice aside.

Stir fry with olive oil:
One small/medium squash, cut up as you like
One small/medium zucchini, cut up as you like
One small/medium onion, also cut up as you like
2 of my friend/co-worker Brandi's farm-fresh eggs

Add rice and soy sauce to taste and drink another beer while you stir fry some more.

Enjoy!

I like to think the meal is healthy enough to offset some of the beer...

Bon Voyage!!

Miss Fluffy and her family are off on their adventure. Here's a health...




Bon voyage!!!

Friday, July 04, 2008

Independence Day

Declaration of
Independence

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United
States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Read the whole thing. Refresh your memory with regards to the risks our forefathers were willing to take for their liberty.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Double standard

Why are we supposed to go into panties-soiling hysterics over this, but this is OK?

Heller and 30 Days ... Flame On

OK, I lied. I watched another episode of Morgan Spurlock's warm, steaming pile of TV excrement also known as 30 Days, though I swore I'd never do so again after watching about an episode and a half when the show premiered. I should have known, after watching Supersize Me -- what a turd of a movie that was. I thought I understood the term "flawed premise..."

Hey, it was the gun episode ... what was I gonna do, turn the channel?

Like so many contrived arguments over guns in American society, the pseudo-discourses the characters ... er, I mean, participants in the show had concerning guns barely scratched the surface of the argument. It was the whole "guns are bad" versus "it's my riiiiiiight" (insert stereotypical "redneck" accent here) argument, recycled ad nauseum. In the episode I just watched, the girl who hates guns was like, "guns cause people to die, so we shouldn't have guns." He makes a nice, simplistic case for your average nice, simplistic TV viewer.

Don't question what you're being spoon-fed, Mr. and Mrs. TV Viewer ... what Mr. Spurlock is presenting is all you need to know about the gun argument...

I have the same misgivings about the recent DC vs. Heller decision. Sure, SCOTUS affirmed my riiiiiiiiight (insert redneck accent) to have a gun. I'd be thrilled, except the court and the entire argument around the case missed the point, as did Mr. Spurlock in his show.

It's generally acknowledged that our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they feared what would happen if the Federal Government had the power that came with a standing army. Relying on state militias for the nation's defense kept power nice and decentralized, which is a common theme in our government. The problem is, people seem to jump from that acknowlegement straight into, "well, they couldn't have forseen that we'd have .50 calibers or assault rifles, and if they did, they would have worded the amendment differently..." Oh, and they go to town on the word "regulated". "The Second Amendment clearly states that guns should be regulated!"

Like hell.

Let me get to the whole "regulated" part first. "A well regulated militia..." What, you think that means the militia was supposed to be limited in the kinds of weapons they could have? "No cannon for you, militia ... those things are dangerous!" "You don't need a handgun, minuteman! That serves no military purpose!" See how stupid that argument is? The militia was supposed to be "regulated" in the sense that they were supposed to maintain a state of readiness. They were supposed to be "regulated" in the sense of, "Is your rifle clean, Minuteman?" "When was the last time you sighted that rifle in, Minuteman?" "Do you have enough powder for your guns, Minuteman?"

"Regulation" didn't mean "restrict", you morons, it meant to make sure things were ship-shape so that the citizen/soldier would be ready to fight and kill his enemy - the one who threatened the security of his free state - at a moment's notice. It didn't mean, "your gun is dangerous and should be locked up." Rather, it meant, "your gun needs to be ready for the time when you'll use it for the common defense."

To get to the rest of the argument, sure ... our forefathers couldn't have forseen lots of the problems we have today. They probably couldn't conceive of an AK-47 or a Glock. So what? They could never have conceived of 9/11, either. Nor the modern suicide bomber. They probably never could have conceived of the evil on the scale of Hitler or the slaughter in Rwanda.

The specifics of what they could or couldn't have predicted is irrelevant ... what they understood was Machiavelli, and that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They had suffered under an all-powerful British king. That same understanding applies to the power the Nazis had over the German people when they took power of the German government. It applies to the power the Catholic Church had when religion controlled government and they went hog-wild with the Inquisition. It applies to the horrors the Soviet government heaped on its own people. It applies to how the all-powerful, two-term Bush administration uses our standing army, with the consent of our government ...

See what happens when the government has the guns, instead of "the people?"

It's not about self-defense in the home (though I wouldn't argue that it's a convenient by-product of the inherent right...) The argument specifically for self-defense misses the point. The argument that "guns = crime" misses the point.

The point is that the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms because if we totally cede that power to the government - if they're the only ones with the guns - that power will be abused to a degree that no homicide rate or suicide rate will ever touch. Look at how the Bush administration uses our standing army. You want to give him all the guns? Really? Why? Because the government is doing such good things with the guns? Because the government is doing such a good job at protecting its citizens (ask anyone who rode out Katrina in New Orleans ... "looter" is just a word to most of us...) Right ... the cops will protect us. Just like the N.O.P.D. did... Dick Cheney should have a gun ... because he can handle it?

Only cops and soldiers and Dick Cheney should have guns ... right?

I don't want or need the government to speak for me. I don't want or need the government to control the press. I don't want or need the government to be the sole provider for my needs. And I don't want or need the government to be my sole means of protection.

A government of, for and by the people isn't about government ... it's about the people. Just because we have a representative republic doesn't mean we forefit our rights... any of them. We speak for ourselves, because if the government is the only one with the power to speak, that power will be abused. We'll handle the press, thanks very much - we're capable of making a mockery of it on our own, aparently, and we don't need any help. If only the government runs the press, they abuse that power (or did you believe the things the Soviet-run press was saying?)

And we'll keep the guns. That's a power we don't need the government to abuse any more than it already has.

That's what the Second Amendment is about, Supreme Court. That's what it's about, Mr. Spurlock.

Flame off.