Exam Day Musings: Pro-Gun Argument, Iowa, The Chemical Morality of Bush and Clinton, Fast Food Gyps, and Maximum Leader Re-Education
As the soul of brevity, I have another short post for you today. We have finished the semester at my high school. Since I teach Standards of Learning courses, my kids do not have a school-administered exam. They are off, my grades are done, my papers for the new classes coming Thursday are prepared, and I have some serious blog-surfing time on my hands.
Kim Du Toit has an excellent post today. The second in-defense-of-Norway letter is interesting reading. Gun control advocates typically point to Europe as examples of how firearm prohibition reduces violence. Norway seems to refute that thesis; they have even more guns than we do and still have a low crime rate. Lest you think I have joined the gun-nut bandwagon (though I’m sure the Foreign Minister smiles every-single-frickin’-time that I extol the virtues of my scoped 306), I should also point out that the pro-gun group also makes the asinine argument that many states in America with lenient gun laws have lower crime than stricter jurisdictions like D.C. Perhaps areas with higher crime have responded to that crime by passing gun control measures. Additionally, outlawing gun-purchases in D.C. when everyone can hop across the border to gun-friendly Virginia is going to be ineffective. It seems to me that crime levels are a function of several variables in society such as (but not limited to) economic opportunity, freedom, individuality, assimilation, and level of homogeneity. In general, I believe that the availability of firearms is not a causal factor. That said, if crime exists, I believe that drive-by-knifings are a) less effective and b) unlikely to result in innocent sleeping children catching ricochets with their skulls.
I was highly entertained by the Iowa results last night. As other commentators have noted, Dean came across as a lunatic in his “concession” speech. (UPDATE from ML: Thanks to Allah and All-Emcompassing for link.) Both Kerry and Edwards showed class. I have blogged here before about this Democrat’s Dean problem. It looks like I may be cured by Iowans’ elective surgery on the doctor.
I’m not that excited about either Kerry or Edwards. I saw Edwards on an interview show a year or so ago and he came across as vapid. Dismissing him, I haven’t paid much attention to his campaign. Maybe I should take another look; perhaps my first impression was inaccurate. At least the Des Moines Register thinks so.
I have a buddy who thinks a Kerry-Clark ticket destroys Bush on the national security ticket. I actually thought of a rather pithy campaign statement” “V.P. candidate Clark WON a war. Bush has dragged us into a quagmire. During the last quagmire, while Bush was using his family connections to dodge danger, Kerry was saving lives and serving his country in Vietnam.” Of course, Clark’s war was in no way comparable to either Vietnam or Iraq. The Serbs were like gnats to our modern military. The real crime is that both Bush Senior and Clinton dithered for YEARS while genocide was raging in the Balkans. Once we got serious and started dropping bombs, the Serbs came to heel quickly. Think of all the lives we could have saved if we hadn’t listened to modern day Chamberlains and the Cliveden-set “give peace of chance” nimrods. I don’t really blame Bush for dodging Vietnam; if you knew that a war was hopeless, would you want to die for no particular reason? Had I been old enough, I would have served if drafted, but you can be darn sure I would have worked assiduously to keep my education deferment in play. And if I wasn’t a scholar and my dad had political juice, I sure as hell would have used connections to get into the guard. But the military service thing seems to matter to a lot of people. Remember when the Republicans kept bashing away at Clinton’s educational deferments? But they got strangely quiet about the sin of dodging Vietnam when their candidate was a former (AWOL) member of the Texas Air Guard. I ask you, putting aside partisan rhetoric, which is more disturbing: the guy who took advantage of the educational deferments available to everyone, or a guy who dodged the war by using Dad’s political connections, taking the spot of people who had been in line for the Guard appointment for a longer period of time.
Now I’m really rambling.
Also think about how indignant the Republicans were that Bill smoked a joint in college (breaking no American law since he was in Jolly Olde England), but then were not bothered by the never-refuted allegations that their boy had snorted coke as an adult. I was bothered more by Clinton’s refusal to take responsibility and stupidity when the Mary Jane allegations surfaced. The whole “I didn’t inhale” thing was a big red flag warning of his troubling personal ethics that plagued his whole administration. If he would have just said “I was a stupid college kid in the SEVENTIES. I smoked a little dope and I regret it and hope my daughter will make wiser choices than I did,” the Minister of Agriculture would have applauded. But the “I didn’t inhale” thing – ARGH! How stoooopid do you think we are. Of course you inhaled. That’s the point of smoking dope. I do have a problem with Bush’s cocaine use (alleged, but never denied), particularly when he sponsored mandatory sentences for first time drug offenders. Even granting that he made mistakes (youthful ones like Henry Hyde’s “youthful” affair when he was forty?), he should really explain why he should be forgivin’ for hell-raisin’ ‘fore he came to the Lord and other people should do a decade in the joint.
While I’m on the whole drug morality topic, I’m not sure sitting around with buddies and altering your consciousness is a sin, as long as you don’t endanger anybody. The Maximum Leader, Foreign Minister and I have been known to drink a little beer now and again - though I only get drunk when the ML or FM are around – I blame their bad influence on my otherwise exemplary character. I’m not sure how smoking pot is MORALLY different than drinking beer. The argument against pot-smoking, to me at least, is that it is STUPID. When I am sitting at home and drink a few beers, or drink a few beers at a bar and have a designated driver, I endanger nothing – not innocent bystanders or my own freedom. If I get caught smoking dope, I’m in the legal system. My property may be seized. As a convicted criminal, I wouldn’t be able to coach my daughter’s pee-wee soccer team. I wouldn’t be able to get a job holding public trust (we teachers are on the list of drug-tested professions). I never even did a Bill Clinton in college; one positive test would have jeopardized my ROTC scholarship. But I can’t say my lack of acquaintance with the doobie is a moral stand.
Cocaine may be another animal, but the only real moral objection to snow I can think of right now is its more addictive nature. Still, if Bush wanted to get stoned at a party and someone else drove him home, the stupidity rankles me more than his “youthful” moral lapses.
But someone else did not always drive George home. He drove drunk several times, endangering the lives of other people. He even lied about being arrested for it – under oath on a jury questionnaire – but the morality police don’t seem troubled. But if Clinton lies about a hummer, it’s an impeachable offense. Disclaimer: while I don’t think he should have been impeached, I think that if he had any decency or really cared about his political agenda, Willy should have resigned.
Inquiring minds want to know: What happened with the Foreign Minister’s tribute to Popeye’s? (Perhaps the ML will insert the appropriate trackback link here)
Did Popeye’s admit their misdeeds and compensate the FM in some way? Or has FM funneled his Chicken-shack-fueled-rage into his new thespian career?
In my blog-o-sphere trek I have noted that the Maximum Leader frequently leaves comments on other people’s blogs. Yet he has no comments on his own. Since I find that sometimes the comment threads are highly entertaining and/or educational, I urged him to add the feature, but, alas and alack, the ML cares not for the insights of his minions. For my unforgivable boldness, I was shipped off to a “Clockwork Orange” style re-education center.
I will never question the Maximum Leader again. The Maximum Leader is always right. The Maximum Leader is a benevolent despot. I do not need to think because the Maximum Leader thinks for me. The Maximum Leader can spend my income more wisely than I ever would. The Maximum Leader is a wise and handsome man.
I’m signed up for graduate-level re-education courses next week, so watch this space for Maximum Leader haikus.
Kim Du Toit has an excellent post today. The second in-defense-of-Norway letter is interesting reading. Gun control advocates typically point to Europe as examples of how firearm prohibition reduces violence. Norway seems to refute that thesis; they have even more guns than we do and still have a low crime rate. Lest you think I have joined the gun-nut bandwagon (though I’m sure the Foreign Minister smiles every-single-frickin’-time that I extol the virtues of my scoped 306), I should also point out that the pro-gun group also makes the asinine argument that many states in America with lenient gun laws have lower crime than stricter jurisdictions like D.C. Perhaps areas with higher crime have responded to that crime by passing gun control measures. Additionally, outlawing gun-purchases in D.C. when everyone can hop across the border to gun-friendly Virginia is going to be ineffective. It seems to me that crime levels are a function of several variables in society such as (but not limited to) economic opportunity, freedom, individuality, assimilation, and level of homogeneity. In general, I believe that the availability of firearms is not a causal factor. That said, if crime exists, I believe that drive-by-knifings are a) less effective and b) unlikely to result in innocent sleeping children catching ricochets with their skulls.
I was highly entertained by the Iowa results last night. As other commentators have noted, Dean came across as a lunatic in his “concession” speech. (UPDATE from ML: Thanks to Allah and All-Emcompassing for link.) Both Kerry and Edwards showed class. I have blogged here before about this Democrat’s Dean problem. It looks like I may be cured by Iowans’ elective surgery on the doctor.
I’m not that excited about either Kerry or Edwards. I saw Edwards on an interview show a year or so ago and he came across as vapid. Dismissing him, I haven’t paid much attention to his campaign. Maybe I should take another look; perhaps my first impression was inaccurate. At least the Des Moines Register thinks so.
I have a buddy who thinks a Kerry-Clark ticket destroys Bush on the national security ticket. I actually thought of a rather pithy campaign statement” “V.P. candidate Clark WON a war. Bush has dragged us into a quagmire. During the last quagmire, while Bush was using his family connections to dodge danger, Kerry was saving lives and serving his country in Vietnam.” Of course, Clark’s war was in no way comparable to either Vietnam or Iraq. The Serbs were like gnats to our modern military. The real crime is that both Bush Senior and Clinton dithered for YEARS while genocide was raging in the Balkans. Once we got serious and started dropping bombs, the Serbs came to heel quickly. Think of all the lives we could have saved if we hadn’t listened to modern day Chamberlains and the Cliveden-set “give peace of chance” nimrods. I don’t really blame Bush for dodging Vietnam; if you knew that a war was hopeless, would you want to die for no particular reason? Had I been old enough, I would have served if drafted, but you can be darn sure I would have worked assiduously to keep my education deferment in play. And if I wasn’t a scholar and my dad had political juice, I sure as hell would have used connections to get into the guard. But the military service thing seems to matter to a lot of people. Remember when the Republicans kept bashing away at Clinton’s educational deferments? But they got strangely quiet about the sin of dodging Vietnam when their candidate was a former (AWOL) member of the Texas Air Guard. I ask you, putting aside partisan rhetoric, which is more disturbing: the guy who took advantage of the educational deferments available to everyone, or a guy who dodged the war by using Dad’s political connections, taking the spot of people who had been in line for the Guard appointment for a longer period of time.
Now I’m really rambling.
Also think about how indignant the Republicans were that Bill smoked a joint in college (breaking no American law since he was in Jolly Olde England), but then were not bothered by the never-refuted allegations that their boy had snorted coke as an adult. I was bothered more by Clinton’s refusal to take responsibility and stupidity when the Mary Jane allegations surfaced. The whole “I didn’t inhale” thing was a big red flag warning of his troubling personal ethics that plagued his whole administration. If he would have just said “I was a stupid college kid in the SEVENTIES. I smoked a little dope and I regret it and hope my daughter will make wiser choices than I did,” the Minister of Agriculture would have applauded. But the “I didn’t inhale” thing – ARGH! How stoooopid do you think we are. Of course you inhaled. That’s the point of smoking dope. I do have a problem with Bush’s cocaine use (alleged, but never denied), particularly when he sponsored mandatory sentences for first time drug offenders. Even granting that he made mistakes (youthful ones like Henry Hyde’s “youthful” affair when he was forty?), he should really explain why he should be forgivin’ for hell-raisin’ ‘fore he came to the Lord and other people should do a decade in the joint.
While I’m on the whole drug morality topic, I’m not sure sitting around with buddies and altering your consciousness is a sin, as long as you don’t endanger anybody. The Maximum Leader, Foreign Minister and I have been known to drink a little beer now and again - though I only get drunk when the ML or FM are around – I blame their bad influence on my otherwise exemplary character. I’m not sure how smoking pot is MORALLY different than drinking beer. The argument against pot-smoking, to me at least, is that it is STUPID. When I am sitting at home and drink a few beers, or drink a few beers at a bar and have a designated driver, I endanger nothing – not innocent bystanders or my own freedom. If I get caught smoking dope, I’m in the legal system. My property may be seized. As a convicted criminal, I wouldn’t be able to coach my daughter’s pee-wee soccer team. I wouldn’t be able to get a job holding public trust (we teachers are on the list of drug-tested professions). I never even did a Bill Clinton in college; one positive test would have jeopardized my ROTC scholarship. But I can’t say my lack of acquaintance with the doobie is a moral stand.
Cocaine may be another animal, but the only real moral objection to snow I can think of right now is its more addictive nature. Still, if Bush wanted to get stoned at a party and someone else drove him home, the stupidity rankles me more than his “youthful” moral lapses.
But someone else did not always drive George home. He drove drunk several times, endangering the lives of other people. He even lied about being arrested for it – under oath on a jury questionnaire – but the morality police don’t seem troubled. But if Clinton lies about a hummer, it’s an impeachable offense. Disclaimer: while I don’t think he should have been impeached, I think that if he had any decency or really cared about his political agenda, Willy should have resigned.
Inquiring minds want to know: What happened with the Foreign Minister’s tribute to Popeye’s? (Perhaps the ML will insert the appropriate trackback link here)
Did Popeye’s admit their misdeeds and compensate the FM in some way? Or has FM funneled his Chicken-shack-fueled-rage into his new thespian career?
In my blog-o-sphere trek I have noted that the Maximum Leader frequently leaves comments on other people’s blogs. Yet he has no comments on his own. Since I find that sometimes the comment threads are highly entertaining and/or educational, I urged him to add the feature, but, alas and alack, the ML cares not for the insights of his minions. For my unforgivable boldness, I was shipped off to a “Clockwork Orange” style re-education center.
I will never question the Maximum Leader again. The Maximum Leader is always right. The Maximum Leader is a benevolent despot. I do not need to think because the Maximum Leader thinks for me. The Maximum Leader can spend my income more wisely than I ever would. The Maximum Leader is a wise and handsome man.
I’m signed up for graduate-level re-education courses next week, so watch this space for Maximum Leader haikus.
posted by Anonymous at 1/20/2004 02:27:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home