Minutiae
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Chuck Norris doesn't read books; he stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them."
- ChuckNorrisFactsdotcom

Friday, January 09, 2004
This had me rolling on the floor laughing.

I'm reminded of trying to explain Lutherans to a non-christian friend whose main exposure to christianity had been Catholic. I ended up fumbling because Lutherans are so damned bland.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
Tee Hee. More on the "Listener's Law" right to self-defense issue in jolly old England:

I do have to say, I'm as disgusted with the whiners over there as I was with the whiners over here when the concealed carry bill passed. (Nearly a year later and the streets are still not flowing with blood. My phone calls have dropped off completely.) As Mark Steyn said: "But the beauty of this system is that I'm highly unlikely ever to have to blow your head off."

We do still have crime. But if you look at the proportion of property crimes versus crimes against the person you begin to see the difference. 12.7% of burglaries happen in occupied homes here. There it's 59%. As numerous studies show, criminals fear an armed victim more than they fear the police.

What the whiners don't seem to understand is that you can't just shoot someone.*

No. Not even if they're walking out your door with your DVD player. Not even if they're screaming and cursing and threatening you. Not even if they rear end you. Not even if they snatch your purse.

You may only shoot when you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily harm. (Yes that is the language of the law locally, and yes there is a statutory definition of grave bodily harm.)

If you shoot someone for any other reason you are going to go to jail.

Even if you shoot someone in your living room, even if that person is charging at you with a knife screaming "I'm going to kill you." Even if you are completely in the right. You may still go to jail for murder or manslaughter. Even if a jury finds you innocent you'll very likely be looking at tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills.

Knowing that, most people who keep a gun for self-defense will only pull the trigger if it's a choice of "me or them." The choice is death vs. life, possibly in prison for years, possibly bankrupt, likely with fewer friends. Very few people make that decision anywhere near as lightly as the people on the other side of the issue seem to believe.

As Dan commented on my earlier post on the subject:
"So you'd leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, just because you (and your neighbors) have guns? You'd kill someone for attempting to steal your car? Or your neighbors' cars?"

And I responded:
"No Dan. You're either trolling or deliberately misunderstanding the issue. Nowhere in the US is it legal to shoot someone over your car. Nowhere did the author or myself imply in any way that we would shoot someone over property.

The issue in england is burglaries of occupied homes and the fact that the law there prevents them from so much as whacking a burglar with bar of soap in a sock. Yes there was a case of a man imprisoned for just that. He was also sued for assault by the burglar." People have also been imprisoned for pepper spray because it's illegal there.



Those're the rules on this side of the pond. Those rules are consistent with the moral and ethical guidelines of most religions and schools of ethics. They're also derived from centuries-old english common law. Shouldn't be very difficult for the Brits to come up with something that works. If they have the will to do so.



* Disclaimer: Seek advice from a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. I am not responsible for your actions. If you are foolish enough to pull the trigger while relying on info from a website... then you deserve your prison sentence. Others may differ. Void where prohibited. Your actual milage may vary.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
Is anyone else puzzled by the milkshake song? I mean it's obviously sexual. The video has some of the most explicit food I've ever seen, (it's actually kind of clever,) but what exactly is being implied? It's kind of like unfamiliar opera. I get bits and pieces and I get the general theme but I don't really get the story.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
Well at least there's some objective
standards now. For 3 years it's been a question of local residents' subjective opinions. Of course, it is nice that the objective standards are validating the subjective opinions. I had read somewhere that this is the only ethanol plant located in an urban area. Wonder why?

Though I also have to say that while Gopher State is a bad neighbor they're not as bad as they could be. They're not poisoning us, they just stink.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
An interesting
post on downloading. My favorite quote: "Piracy (music or otherwise) is an economic issue 99% of the time. Copyright owners are free to charge whatever they like, of course. They just have to acknowledge the consequences. At $10,000 per CD they won't sell much music, and executing pirates in the public square won't change that."

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
A super interesting
article on some new research. (Registration required. I recommend registering with total nonsense. Gum up their intrusive database.)

Which made me remember this article. If this guy is correct then that explains some of why St. Paul is "The Biggest Small Town in America." Seems like we've got things going right however unintentional that may be.

There's also a Farm in the City garden directly across the street from my high school. It's the most ghetto school in the city (though pretty tame by some standards.) The garden's been there for years which argues for a high degree of the kind of civil society that the good Doctor seems to be discussing.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
Am I the only one who's sick of those UPN 29 commercials with the random (as in: not on the cast of the show being advertised,) dancing girl on the left side of the screen? Not to mention their irritating jingle and the fact that every show has the same ad.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
Waaaaay too
stupid for the office.

How many billions have we spent on this? (60) How much effort and fear and inconvenience? Yet we still have assholes getting on planes with boxcutters. Do you honestly believe that if the enemy were to send 20 wannabe martyrs today that you think the TSA would catch all 20? Take it a step further. If you knew the date they were going to try to hijack a plane, (and so did the TSA,) do you have enough confidence to fly on that date?

Yet that man promises that if we just vote for him and give him an additional 50 BILLION dollars that we'll all be safe. Asshole.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
Now
that is a brilliant judge and I think the family did exactly the right thing although it's obvious that the woman is so selfish that she'll never get it. How self-absorbed do you have to be to be driving that way in the first place? Then, rather than behave as though you feel guilty for destroying 3 lives, to whine and go to court because you don't like to look at the consequences of your actions? If I ran things she'd have the word Murderer tattooed on her forehead. If it was my family I might just be inspired to actually do something of the sort.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .
Yes.
Must watch.

posted by Rachel 1/09/2004
. . .


. . .

Disclaimer

web site traffic statistics