Alright, jacked from Sigboy's blog: What song would you be, if you could be a song?
Fire and Fury, from the Starcraft soundtrack. Ohhhhhhhh yeah.
Des
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Cratering
I've been writing a lot more recently, but instead of writing in a straight line, I've been using a technique called 'cratering'. You pick a major plot point, or series of them. Expand them a bit, then fill in the space. It's turning out to be much easier to write something that you've had a recent idea about than try to force it.
Well, it's working for me. I hope m story doesn't come out, for a lack of a better word, soupy.
Des
Well, it's working for me. I hope m story doesn't come out, for a lack of a better word, soupy.
Des
Friday, October 1, 2010
To License, or Not to License?
So, I know I've been absent. I did a brief foray into the world of security work again, and it sucked. So, there I was, catching up on my blogs, when I saw Lawdog's series of gun control posts. I looked over the suggestions in his Background Checks post. As I did so, I thought to myself...this sounds a lot like a basic licensing program. It functions to separate those who can and can't own a firearm. Of course, it shouldn't tell you what kind you should have, but that's a different subject. So, back to the licensing idea, the people the state declares unfit fall into roughly two categories:
1. Criminals who have committed crimes sufficient for them to be barred the basic human right of self defense.
2. Those deemed mentally deficient by the state.
Some people wonder why those in category one are still alive or out of prison. What happens if they were simply deemed 'negligent with a firearm' or something similar? I mean, not like 'popping off rounds in suburbia for teh lulz', but how about something like 'I accidentally carried into a post office'. That might be grounds for other sanctions, but is it the sort of thing that should remove a person's right to firearms forever? I endorse it in cases of 'terminal stupidity', such as the case of people shooting friends while they wear bulletproof vests. That kind of idiocy should merit the penalty for both parties, should they survive.
Now, the second part is where things get tricky. People will scream bloody murder about suicide rates among gun owners, as if they couldn't be trusted. I read somewhere that almost everyone goes through a 'severe depressive episode' at least once in life. Really, it's understandable. Heartbreak, loss of a parent...but if you seek help for it, does this mean you should have your guns taken away? I don't think so. I mean, I had a real rough time in August once I got dumped. Spending ten days with Sigboy and getting my recoil therapy on was something that helped me a lot. But, back to the question, does being depressed at some point mean that you no longer have the right to self-defense? I definitely think people on the Mental Health Express (schizophrenics, etc who do the six months out of the hospital, six months in) shouldn't have access to firearms. But where do you draw the line? Does someone with a long term, chronic depression problem not have the right to self-defense?
In Canada, the recent dealbreaker on the death of the long gun registry was the fact that the brother of one of the MP's voting killed himself with a rifle two days before the vote. How do people expect to use a licensing system or the registry to prevent that? Sometimes, it just happens. Even if you roundly violate someone's right to medical privacy, sometimes you just can't prevent it. Case in point- a couple of years ago, a buddy of mine from the army got a medical discharge from the army. He's living free, fat stack from the government. Two weeks later, word comes back that one day, he walked into the back yard, and blew his brains out with his shotgun. No warning. No history of substance abuse or depression. Just walked outside and offed himself. No note, nothing. I'm not sure how common that is, but still. How in the name of God would this have been prevented by even the most invasive legislature?
Since I've mostly come up with a fistful of questions, I'm going to propose something of a solution that will, no doubt, be attacked as unconstitutional. Do a basic license, a lot like a driver's license. Hell, attach it to the driver's license, as a little 'G for gun-safe!' symbol on the back. You renew it whenever you renew your driver's license. Basic check: Violent criminal or deemed mentally unfit? No? Alright, go buy some guns! Declared unfit? Turn over your driver's license, because if I don't want you to have something that makes little pieces of metal go fast, I certainly don't want you to have something that makes a tonne of metal go fast. As far as faking a driver's license goes, have potential purchasers show two pieces of ID.
How's that for a slice of fried gold?
Des
1. Criminals who have committed crimes sufficient for them to be barred the basic human right of self defense.
2. Those deemed mentally deficient by the state.
Some people wonder why those in category one are still alive or out of prison. What happens if they were simply deemed 'negligent with a firearm' or something similar? I mean, not like 'popping off rounds in suburbia for teh lulz', but how about something like 'I accidentally carried into a post office'. That might be grounds for other sanctions, but is it the sort of thing that should remove a person's right to firearms forever? I endorse it in cases of 'terminal stupidity', such as the case of people shooting friends while they wear bulletproof vests. That kind of idiocy should merit the penalty for both parties, should they survive.
Now, the second part is where things get tricky. People will scream bloody murder about suicide rates among gun owners, as if they couldn't be trusted. I read somewhere that almost everyone goes through a 'severe depressive episode' at least once in life. Really, it's understandable. Heartbreak, loss of a parent...but if you seek help for it, does this mean you should have your guns taken away? I don't think so. I mean, I had a real rough time in August once I got dumped. Spending ten days with Sigboy and getting my recoil therapy on was something that helped me a lot. But, back to the question, does being depressed at some point mean that you no longer have the right to self-defense? I definitely think people on the Mental Health Express (schizophrenics, etc who do the six months out of the hospital, six months in) shouldn't have access to firearms. But where do you draw the line? Does someone with a long term, chronic depression problem not have the right to self-defense?
In Canada, the recent dealbreaker on the death of the long gun registry was the fact that the brother of one of the MP's voting killed himself with a rifle two days before the vote. How do people expect to use a licensing system or the registry to prevent that? Sometimes, it just happens. Even if you roundly violate someone's right to medical privacy, sometimes you just can't prevent it. Case in point- a couple of years ago, a buddy of mine from the army got a medical discharge from the army. He's living free, fat stack from the government. Two weeks later, word comes back that one day, he walked into the back yard, and blew his brains out with his shotgun. No warning. No history of substance abuse or depression. Just walked outside and offed himself. No note, nothing. I'm not sure how common that is, but still. How in the name of God would this have been prevented by even the most invasive legislature?
Since I've mostly come up with a fistful of questions, I'm going to propose something of a solution that will, no doubt, be attacked as unconstitutional. Do a basic license, a lot like a driver's license. Hell, attach it to the driver's license, as a little 'G for gun-safe!' symbol on the back. You renew it whenever you renew your driver's license. Basic check: Violent criminal or deemed mentally unfit? No? Alright, go buy some guns! Declared unfit? Turn over your driver's license, because if I don't want you to have something that makes little pieces of metal go fast, I certainly don't want you to have something that makes a tonne of metal go fast. As far as faking a driver's license goes, have potential purchasers show two pieces of ID.
How's that for a slice of fried gold?
Des
Friday, September 3, 2010
On Cop Hate, or Des Shits on Some Douche in a Systematic Manner
Why Some Douche Hates Cops
Let us break this shit down henceforth:
1. I hate cops because they don't do anything for me, and have a slim chance of doing so!
Well, that nice, Fat Douchebag Hipster. It's likely that most crimes against you wil be minor, or that you will be one of the lucky few who go their lives without being victimized by the criminal element. It's also likely you're not poor, so you don't live in a high crime area, so your crib don't get broke into every other month. You lack a vagina, so your likelihood outside of jail of being raped is almost nil. You are, in fact, one of the least likely persons to be victimized in society. What about everyone else? Or can you not comprehend the concept of 'good for people who aren't you'?
2. Cops jacked my weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed! I done bought it fair and square!
It's weed. Your misuse of your money is not their concern. Two points: Caveat Emptor, and Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
3. Ignorance is no excuse for criminal activity!
That's right, it's not. Be a responsible citizen, how's about?
4. The cops are the private army of the Establishment, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
Firstly, the Establishment is not out to get you. Secondly, it is not the police's job to be your personal advocate in whatever opinion you happen to hold. They aren't the arbiter of your personal beliefs. If you have a bone to pick with the Establishment...well, welcome to humanity. No one likes the way things are. Get your cope on. And another thing! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't bust up yo hood, and your protest won't get cracked down on.
5. The Poh works for the government, which is corrupt, which means THEY'RE corrupt!
Welcome to the real world, douche fag. There's graft in everything you do. Nothing's fair. Time to look beyond yourself and to the greater good. You don't like it? Then vote. Vote with your wallet and the ballot. Don't bitch on youtube because the cops jacked yo weed. Suck it up like a man, and carry on. Or, don't do stupid shit. Police are a fact of life, they're not going away. So limit the stupid shit you do, you self-entitled asshat.
Des
Let us break this shit down henceforth:
1. I hate cops because they don't do anything for me, and have a slim chance of doing so!
Well, that nice, Fat Douchebag Hipster. It's likely that most crimes against you wil be minor, or that you will be one of the lucky few who go their lives without being victimized by the criminal element. It's also likely you're not poor, so you don't live in a high crime area, so your crib don't get broke into every other month. You lack a vagina, so your likelihood outside of jail of being raped is almost nil. You are, in fact, one of the least likely persons to be victimized in society. What about everyone else? Or can you not comprehend the concept of 'good for people who aren't you'?
2. Cops jacked my weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed! I done bought it fair and square!
It's weed. Your misuse of your money is not their concern. Two points: Caveat Emptor, and Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
3. Ignorance is no excuse for criminal activity!
That's right, it's not. Be a responsible citizen, how's about?
4. The cops are the private army of the Establishment, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
Firstly, the Establishment is not out to get you. Secondly, it is not the police's job to be your personal advocate in whatever opinion you happen to hold. They aren't the arbiter of your personal beliefs. If you have a bone to pick with the Establishment...well, welcome to humanity. No one likes the way things are. Get your cope on. And another thing! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't bust up yo hood, and your protest won't get cracked down on.
5. The Poh works for the government, which is corrupt, which means THEY'RE corrupt!
Welcome to the real world, douche fag. There's graft in everything you do. Nothing's fair. Time to look beyond yourself and to the greater good. You don't like it? Then vote. Vote with your wallet and the ballot. Don't bitch on youtube because the cops jacked yo weed. Suck it up like a man, and carry on. Or, don't do stupid shit. Police are a fact of life, they're not going away. So limit the stupid shit you do, you self-entitled asshat.
Des
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Why the Ground Zero Mosque is a Bad Idea
How did anyone ever think this was a good idea? Seriously, I wonder about the soft heart (and headed) liberals some days. Let's go over this once again:
1) You are building a soft target in what some can arguably call an insulting place.
While everyone loves tolerance, I don't see a huge rush to put up a Serb embassy in Srebrenica. Or a statue of Stalin in Katyn. People are understandably upset about the murder of their loved ones. So, can someone please explain to me how putting up a symbol of the cause that butchered them next to the site of the massacre can be construed as anything but insulting or submissive?
2. You are building a soft target in a nest of very angry people.
As previously mentioned, this mosque is not only an affront to the memory of the people who died, but placed in the middle full of their friends and family. Do you really think that's a bright idea? Don't you get the concept that your parishioners and property will likely be subject to daily harassment and abuse?
3. You have made your mosque a very clear target for extremists.
Every Cletus, Jim Bob and Billy Bob Thorton in the continental US will want to see this mosque destroyed. It will be under constant threat. This may, of course, be what higher leadership wants, but the fact remains that peaceful Muslim Americans are still both civilians and Americans. Lack of sense aside, they deserve the same protections everyone else is afforded.
All in all, I oppose the mosque based on common sense- it'll be a punching bag for the city, will worsen relations between Muslims and New Yorkers, and quite frankly the downtown doesn't really need another crater.
Des
1) You are building a soft target in what some can arguably call an insulting place.
While everyone loves tolerance, I don't see a huge rush to put up a Serb embassy in Srebrenica. Or a statue of Stalin in Katyn. People are understandably upset about the murder of their loved ones. So, can someone please explain to me how putting up a symbol of the cause that butchered them next to the site of the massacre can be construed as anything but insulting or submissive?
2. You are building a soft target in a nest of very angry people.
As previously mentioned, this mosque is not only an affront to the memory of the people who died, but placed in the middle full of their friends and family. Do you really think that's a bright idea? Don't you get the concept that your parishioners and property will likely be subject to daily harassment and abuse?
3. You have made your mosque a very clear target for extremists.
Every Cletus, Jim Bob and Billy Bob Thorton in the continental US will want to see this mosque destroyed. It will be under constant threat. This may, of course, be what higher leadership wants, but the fact remains that peaceful Muslim Americans are still both civilians and Americans. Lack of sense aside, they deserve the same protections everyone else is afforded.
All in all, I oppose the mosque based on common sense- it'll be a punching bag for the city, will worsen relations between Muslims and New Yorkers, and quite frankly the downtown doesn't really need another crater.
Des
Monday, August 30, 2010
Long Gun Registry Madness
The Tories are, apparently, hiding the 'facts' on the gun registry. Well, not really. The Liberals are claiming that the Conservatives aren't releasing any 'positive' reports on the Long Gun Registry. This is a horrible symptom of mind poisoning- they assume that such reports exist. They are taking their opinions, and trying to make the facts fit them.
A major House of Commons vote to scrap the long gun registry is coming up close, and the Liberal Media is attempting to whip the legions of douchebag hipsters, bleeding hearts and greens in and effort to stop it. For instance, the Liberal Party recently secured the endorsement of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians to keep the registry, claiming that "As front-line physicians in emergency departments, we regularly witness the horrific injuries and deaths that result from firearms." So, is there an epidemic of rifle fights across the country? Did I miss something? Did Winnipeg suddenly become Fallujah Far North? Perhaps, while I wasn't looking, these physicians have become professionals in justice and common sense as well as medicine. They claim that "We treat patients on a regular basis who are suicidal and who are victims of domestic assault. We know that a long gun in the home puts both types of patients at a significantly higher risk of being killed" and that three quarters of spousal murders were committed with rifles and shotguns.
We'll pause a second and look at this before I continue. I'll put the obvious point out there: if you have a domestic violence charge, you are unable to obtain a firearms license. You get a domestic violence charge, your license should be revoked in theory. Apparently, this doesn't always happen. Point the second: if you are sufficiently enraged with your spouse that you go, unlock your gun cabinet, unlock your ammo cabinet, load and make ready your weapon and go shoot him/her/it to death, odds are you were sufficiently enraged to grab a knife from the kitchen, a bat from the den, or simply use your fists to get your murder on. Hell, grabbing the knife or bat would take about half the time. The tool used for murder should be immaterial. Which brings me to point the third: how can a doctor tell the difference between a shot fired from a non-restricted rifle from a restricted rifle? There are restricted rifles, like what few ARs we're allowed, and restricted shotguns. Do these ER docs have some sort of magic ray which determines which is which? And even if it does, how does a registry prevent some asshole from the criminal use of a legitimately owned and obtained firearm?
Fact is, it doesn't.
This is all straight up bullshit. As it is, we don't see too many bolt-action drive-bies. Registering a firearm does not magically prevent it from being used in crime. A registry doesn't affect the fact that we share the biggest unprotected border in the world with the country with one of (if not the highest) percentage of privately owned firearms in the world. No, I am not blaming America for being awesome. What I am saying is that illegal firearms are basically impossible to stop from getting into the country. Illegal firearms are available, and quite a cash cow for criminal groups.
If a criminal will act in a criminal manner, no registry will stop this.
Deschain
A major House of Commons vote to scrap the long gun registry is coming up close, and the Liberal Media is attempting to whip the legions of douchebag hipsters, bleeding hearts and greens in and effort to stop it. For instance, the Liberal Party recently secured the endorsement of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians to keep the registry, claiming that "As front-line physicians in emergency departments, we regularly witness the horrific injuries and deaths that result from firearms." So, is there an epidemic of rifle fights across the country? Did I miss something? Did Winnipeg suddenly become Fallujah Far North? Perhaps, while I wasn't looking, these physicians have become professionals in justice and common sense as well as medicine. They claim that "We treat patients on a regular basis who are suicidal and who are victims of domestic assault. We know that a long gun in the home puts both types of patients at a significantly higher risk of being killed" and that three quarters of spousal murders were committed with rifles and shotguns.
We'll pause a second and look at this before I continue. I'll put the obvious point out there: if you have a domestic violence charge, you are unable to obtain a firearms license. You get a domestic violence charge, your license should be revoked in theory. Apparently, this doesn't always happen. Point the second: if you are sufficiently enraged with your spouse that you go, unlock your gun cabinet, unlock your ammo cabinet, load and make ready your weapon and go shoot him/her/it to death, odds are you were sufficiently enraged to grab a knife from the kitchen, a bat from the den, or simply use your fists to get your murder on. Hell, grabbing the knife or bat would take about half the time. The tool used for murder should be immaterial. Which brings me to point the third: how can a doctor tell the difference between a shot fired from a non-restricted rifle from a restricted rifle? There are restricted rifles, like what few ARs we're allowed, and restricted shotguns. Do these ER docs have some sort of magic ray which determines which is which? And even if it does, how does a registry prevent some asshole from the criminal use of a legitimately owned and obtained firearm?
Fact is, it doesn't.
This is all straight up bullshit. As it is, we don't see too many bolt-action drive-bies. Registering a firearm does not magically prevent it from being used in crime. A registry doesn't affect the fact that we share the biggest unprotected border in the world with the country with one of (if not the highest) percentage of privately owned firearms in the world. No, I am not blaming America for being awesome. What I am saying is that illegal firearms are basically impossible to stop from getting into the country. Illegal firearms are available, and quite a cash cow for criminal groups.
If a criminal will act in a criminal manner, no registry will stop this.
Deschain
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Family History
Alas, brigands to a man, I am decended from. It's not quite surprising, though. My father's generation on both sides of teh family has made gret efforts to unravel the secrets, and here is what we know so far:
The Polish side of my family, through my dad's father, left Poland rather abruptly midway through the Russian Civil War. Apparently, they had made quite a profit helping smuggle Jews, intelligensia, and anyone else targetted by the NKVD or its predesessor from their side of the Russian border into Poland proper, and on to Europe proper. Obviously, this was not looked kindly upon by some of the worst torturers and butchers that the world has ever known. So, when a neighbor knocked in a panic one night, they rushed to the door. He explained as quickly as he could that said parties has politely questioned him at gunpoint as to his whereabouts. He had sent them two farms in the wrong direction, but they didn't have much time. They grabbed their ill gotten gains, the children, and loaded up the car. They dashed to the nearest port, and took off for the first place they saw: America. Now, between the ruination the Great Patriotic War brought and whatever means my great-grandfather used to dodge the secret police, the facts are shrouded in time. My dad grew up in Long Beach, CA, speaking Polish as a second language.
The French side of my family, through my mother's mother, was kicking it in the New World since the 1760's, maybe earlier. Parish records indicate that the first member of my family we can trace our lineage back to came over as a soldier in the service of the monarch. Essentially, from then up to the 1920s, my family was dirt-poor. As in, literally barely owning the dirt they lived in. However, all this rather abruptly changed in 1920s. My great-aunts and uncles recall tales of a 'Forbidden Barn' that smelt funny. My great-grandfather suddenly received a job in the local automobile licensing bureau, run by the local Liberal party member. Now, this may not seem odd...but it should, knowing the town numbered 200 odd souls. Suddenly, of a family of seventeen, all the girls under thirteen could afford to go to school. A few others were married off to an Irish family that shall remain nameless...and also basically runs the Montreal underground. My great-uncle Florian and a few others still repeat a a phrase that makes no sense without context whenever someone loses a game of cinq cent , the local version of bridge: "Awh, t'en va tu a CHICAGO!" For those of us who don't speak French, 'Looks like you're going to Chicago!'. Now, why would a hick from a place you can't find on a map say something like that? I mean, sure, they made regular trips down the St Lawrence weekly. And the year that Prohibition ended, somehow the local licensing place closed down.
Interesting the little facts that add up, isn't it?
Des
The Polish side of my family, through my dad's father, left Poland rather abruptly midway through the Russian Civil War. Apparently, they had made quite a profit helping smuggle Jews, intelligensia, and anyone else targetted by the NKVD or its predesessor from their side of the Russian border into Poland proper, and on to Europe proper. Obviously, this was not looked kindly upon by some of the worst torturers and butchers that the world has ever known. So, when a neighbor knocked in a panic one night, they rushed to the door. He explained as quickly as he could that said parties has politely questioned him at gunpoint as to his whereabouts. He had sent them two farms in the wrong direction, but they didn't have much time. They grabbed their ill gotten gains, the children, and loaded up the car. They dashed to the nearest port, and took off for the first place they saw: America. Now, between the ruination the Great Patriotic War brought and whatever means my great-grandfather used to dodge the secret police, the facts are shrouded in time. My dad grew up in Long Beach, CA, speaking Polish as a second language.
The French side of my family, through my mother's mother, was kicking it in the New World since the 1760's, maybe earlier. Parish records indicate that the first member of my family we can trace our lineage back to came over as a soldier in the service of the monarch. Essentially, from then up to the 1920s, my family was dirt-poor. As in, literally barely owning the dirt they lived in. However, all this rather abruptly changed in 1920s. My great-aunts and uncles recall tales of a 'Forbidden Barn' that smelt funny. My great-grandfather suddenly received a job in the local automobile licensing bureau, run by the local Liberal party member. Now, this may not seem odd...but it should, knowing the town numbered 200 odd souls. Suddenly, of a family of seventeen, all the girls under thirteen could afford to go to school. A few others were married off to an Irish family that shall remain nameless...and also basically runs the Montreal underground. My great-uncle Florian and a few others still repeat a a phrase that makes no sense without context whenever someone loses a game of cinq cent , the local version of bridge: "Awh, t'en va tu a CHICAGO!" For those of us who don't speak French, 'Looks like you're going to Chicago!'. Now, why would a hick from a place you can't find on a map say something like that? I mean, sure, they made regular trips down the St Lawrence weekly. And the year that Prohibition ended, somehow the local licensing place closed down.
Interesting the little facts that add up, isn't it?
Des
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
