From Winnie-The-Pooh:
"Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you suddenly know everything there is to be known."
Truer words have rarely been said, in my opinion. Generally speaking, there is such a thing as too much knowledge. There are things that should never be seen, never be heard, or never be known. Trouble is, you can't un-know something. It never pays to look into dark corners unless you're willing to see what is to be seen there.
Or so the average American would believe. I happen to agree, but I'm ready to see what there is to be seen. I don't mind not being able to un-know something, which is why I question authority. Why I like to be idealistic. I will not throw up my hands and turn my back because it seems useless to try. If you don't try, you don't do, and NOTHING happens.
The opposite of change, contrary to common belief, isn't lack of change, it's change in a different direction. The status-quo is NOTHING. Period. It's a non-entity.
What I'm trying to say is: we (people, Americans, Texans, Men, Women, whatever) need to tilt at windmills, otherwise nothing happens. Don Quixote had it right. Envision the world you want, and then make it that way. Rail against the gods. Tilt at windmills that appear to you as giants. Do NOT listen to those who would tell you you're being foolish, because they know nothing. Worse, they are HAPPY knowing nothing.
It is us, the visionaries, who see how things COULD be, or OUGHT to be, and strive to make it be that make this world a better place today than it was yesterday.
That is all for now. Later, I will rail against the gods of customer no-service a bit. What are they thinking?
January 18, 2005
January 11, 2005
Roadblocks and spot checks..
I think I've mentioned before that I live in Austin, TX. Recently, two cops were killed (no, amend that. Killed themselves) when they decided to get on a motorcycle and drive away from a bar. The problem? The driver had a BAC of 0.27 and his wife has a BAC of 0.33. Stupid. Very stupid. What could be stupider? How about the bar they left had over 60 cops in it. Not one cops apparently stopped them from leaving. Is that stupid enough for you?
The reason that I bring this up is that just yesterday, one of our state representatives introduced a bill into the state congress to allow for routine quasi-random road blocks to check for drunk drivers. I'm more than a little pissed about this, just like I'm pissed about car searches approaching the airport, which they do here too.
Here's why I'm pissed. This is a personal property issue more than anything else. I own my car, I drive my car. As long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights, I can do whatever I want with my car. This idea is "Guilty until proven Innocent" mentality.
"But" you say, "When you go to the airport, they search all of your belongings, give you a pat down and otherwise invade your space, but you're okay with that?" Yes, I am, and here's why.
When I go to the airport, I get searched because I'm about to get on someone else's plane, with 150 other customers, and fly with them. Yes, I paid for the ticket, but I don't own the plane. They are protecting their property, both capital and intellectual. Their plane, their pilots, their good name. If I blew up their plane, they would lose, so they have the right to make sure I'm not going to do anything with their plane that they didn't agree to. Just like I have the right to search anyone who wants to ride in my car. I can always say "If you don't let me search you, you can't ride in my car." It's my property. I have rights.
"Okay" you agree "but what should we do about drunk drivers, then?" Thanks for asking. This is really simple. We live in a country that doesn't have a justice system, it's a system of jurisprudence. A body of law. Basically, what it means is that we would much rather let somebody who is guilty of a crime go free than lock somebody up who might be innocent. So, that said, here's the only thing we CAN do. Lock them up AFTER they've commited a crime. You drive drunk, the cop sees you driving drunk, he has probable cause, he pulls you over, you blow a solid .5 on the lush-o-meter and you go to jail. That's it. If you cause an accident because you're s-faced, you go to jail. That's it!
The Supreme Court has ruled that a cop cannot detain you or pull you over just because he feels like it. Without probable cause, he has no grounds. So, road blocks are the same way. In your car, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They can't search you or your car without probable cause or without asking for your permission. Bottom line, this is unconstitutional.
"But, but," you stammer "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide! Why is this such a big deal for you?" Guess what? I am not engaged in any illegal activity at all. I'm not even involved in objectionable behavior (as long as you don't count this blog...). I STILL have EVERYTHING to hide from the Government. Why? Because it's none of their business what I do unless I infringe on the rights of others, or give unusual evidence that I'm likely to. Driving my car is not unusual evidence. This is such a big deal because it is unconstitutional.
If I get caught in one of these roadblocks, it's a lawsuit. When the cop asks for my driver's license and proof of insurance, I'll give it to him. Then I will sue the city for every dime I can get.
The reason that I bring this up is that just yesterday, one of our state representatives introduced a bill into the state congress to allow for routine quasi-random road blocks to check for drunk drivers. I'm more than a little pissed about this, just like I'm pissed about car searches approaching the airport, which they do here too.
Here's why I'm pissed. This is a personal property issue more than anything else. I own my car, I drive my car. As long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights, I can do whatever I want with my car. This idea is "Guilty until proven Innocent" mentality.
"But" you say, "When you go to the airport, they search all of your belongings, give you a pat down and otherwise invade your space, but you're okay with that?" Yes, I am, and here's why.
When I go to the airport, I get searched because I'm about to get on someone else's plane, with 150 other customers, and fly with them. Yes, I paid for the ticket, but I don't own the plane. They are protecting their property, both capital and intellectual. Their plane, their pilots, their good name. If I blew up their plane, they would lose, so they have the right to make sure I'm not going to do anything with their plane that they didn't agree to. Just like I have the right to search anyone who wants to ride in my car. I can always say "If you don't let me search you, you can't ride in my car." It's my property. I have rights.
"Okay" you agree "but what should we do about drunk drivers, then?" Thanks for asking. This is really simple. We live in a country that doesn't have a justice system, it's a system of jurisprudence. A body of law. Basically, what it means is that we would much rather let somebody who is guilty of a crime go free than lock somebody up who might be innocent. So, that said, here's the only thing we CAN do. Lock them up AFTER they've commited a crime. You drive drunk, the cop sees you driving drunk, he has probable cause, he pulls you over, you blow a solid .5 on the lush-o-meter and you go to jail. That's it. If you cause an accident because you're s-faced, you go to jail. That's it!
The Supreme Court has ruled that a cop cannot detain you or pull you over just because he feels like it. Without probable cause, he has no grounds. So, road blocks are the same way. In your car, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They can't search you or your car without probable cause or without asking for your permission. Bottom line, this is unconstitutional.
"But, but," you stammer "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide! Why is this such a big deal for you?" Guess what? I am not engaged in any illegal activity at all. I'm not even involved in objectionable behavior (as long as you don't count this blog...). I STILL have EVERYTHING to hide from the Government. Why? Because it's none of their business what I do unless I infringe on the rights of others, or give unusual evidence that I'm likely to. Driving my car is not unusual evidence. This is such a big deal because it is unconstitutional.
If I get caught in one of these roadblocks, it's a lawsuit. When the cop asks for my driver's license and proof of insurance, I'll give it to him. Then I will sue the city for every dime I can get.
January 10, 2005
All of my "Plan B"'s are moving...
What is a "Plan B"? Simple. I'm married. When my wife divorces me (which is somewhat likely, in the grand scheme of things), I'll move to one of my "Plan B's". The latest is Heidi Klum. She's going to get married to Seal. Bastard. So, she's off the list.
Who else is on my B list?
Drew Barrymore. Ever since she played "Sugar" in 1995's "Batman Forever", she's been on my list. Even though she took a hit when she married Tom Green, she's just gotten better and better. Ever After. Oh yeah. Charlie's Angels. You betcha! Who WOULDN'T want a chick that'll wear leather and then lick the steering wheel of a Bentley Arnage Convertible? Very hot. Fantasy time.
Sara Rue. For some reason, the character she plays in "Less Than Perfect" is my kind of woman. And check out the funbags on her! Besides, I bet she's a freak in bed.
Renee Russo. I just love her and her characters, never mind that she's just plain smoking hot!
(honorable mention) Jennifer Aniston. Okay, she's kind of hot. She's also suddenly availble. I don't know who dumped who, but you just KNEW this would never last. Unending supply of hot babes, and Brad Pitt is just going to come home for dinner? Every night? That, my friends, is the very definition of Denial.
Of course, given my choice of all of these, I'll take my wife. Any day of the week. Twice on Wednesdays. On the kitchen counter. With a jar of honey. And I say that knowing that my wife doesn't read my blog.
Quick joke for the Techies out there:
Simon Durst is a 60 years old software developer, and he makes a KILLING during the whole Y2K scare. Just bundles of money. As his life comes closer to the end, he decides he's going to put himself in suspended animation and put a little money on the side to live on when he comes back.
When he goes to set up the arrangements, he puts in a directive to be revived in the year 3000 because he wants to see what it's going to be like a thousand years hence. Three years later, he get hits by a bus. They come and take him away, drop him in the deep freeze and wait.
The next thing he knows, he's staring up at a white light, and a guy is standing over him.
"What happened?" he asks
"Well, that's kind of a long story," the man replies "You were struck by a vehicle and placed in suspended animation..."
"So, this is the year 3000?!?!"
"Well, first let me tell you that your investments have done very well while you weren't here, and laws were passed that guarantee your citizenship when you came back, which you've done. So you've got plenty of money and lots of opportunity to spend it. The thing is, someone lost your revival directive and we had no idea when you wanted to be awakened. I mean, sure you didn't want to be awakened before we could FIX the damage, so we didn't, but after that, we didn't know when to wake you up."
"So, this isn't the year 3000?
"I'm afraid not. The year is ninety nine ninety three." the man told him
"So if you didn't know when to wake me up, why did you wake me up now?"
"That's the other thing. We woke you for a specific reason."
"Which is?"
"We understand you know COBOL"
(rimshot)
Until later....
Who else is on my B list?
Drew Barrymore. Ever since she played "Sugar" in 1995's "Batman Forever", she's been on my list. Even though she took a hit when she married Tom Green, she's just gotten better and better. Ever After. Oh yeah. Charlie's Angels. You betcha! Who WOULDN'T want a chick that'll wear leather and then lick the steering wheel of a Bentley Arnage Convertible? Very hot. Fantasy time.
Sara Rue. For some reason, the character she plays in "Less Than Perfect" is my kind of woman. And check out the funbags on her! Besides, I bet she's a freak in bed.
Renee Russo. I just love her and her characters, never mind that she's just plain smoking hot!
(honorable mention) Jennifer Aniston. Okay, she's kind of hot. She's also suddenly availble. I don't know who dumped who, but you just KNEW this would never last. Unending supply of hot babes, and Brad Pitt is just going to come home for dinner? Every night? That, my friends, is the very definition of Denial.
Of course, given my choice of all of these, I'll take my wife. Any day of the week. Twice on Wednesdays. On the kitchen counter. With a jar of honey. And I say that knowing that my wife doesn't read my blog.
Quick joke for the Techies out there:
Simon Durst is a 60 years old software developer, and he makes a KILLING during the whole Y2K scare. Just bundles of money. As his life comes closer to the end, he decides he's going to put himself in suspended animation and put a little money on the side to live on when he comes back.
When he goes to set up the arrangements, he puts in a directive to be revived in the year 3000 because he wants to see what it's going to be like a thousand years hence. Three years later, he get hits by a bus. They come and take him away, drop him in the deep freeze and wait.
The next thing he knows, he's staring up at a white light, and a guy is standing over him.
"What happened?" he asks
"Well, that's kind of a long story," the man replies "You were struck by a vehicle and placed in suspended animation..."
"So, this is the year 3000?!?!"
"Well, first let me tell you that your investments have done very well while you weren't here, and laws were passed that guarantee your citizenship when you came back, which you've done. So you've got plenty of money and lots of opportunity to spend it. The thing is, someone lost your revival directive and we had no idea when you wanted to be awakened. I mean, sure you didn't want to be awakened before we could FIX the damage, so we didn't, but after that, we didn't know when to wake you up."
"So, this isn't the year 3000?
"I'm afraid not. The year is ninety nine ninety three." the man told him
"So if you didn't know when to wake me up, why did you wake me up now?"
"That's the other thing. We woke you for a specific reason."
"Which is?"
"We understand you know COBOL"
(rimshot)
Until later....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
