Category: Personal

It’s a (relatively) Free Country

Though a lot of people seem to think otherwise.
I’m referring, specifically, to the controversy over the construction of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, about three blocks from where the World Trade Centers once stood.
To be precise, I’m not really sure why it’s a controversy at all: the people involved bought the property (an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory store) and wish to construct a religious community center on the property. So long as they’re in compliance with zoning and whatnot, they should be able to construct whatever they please there. The fact that it’s to be used for religious purposes should have no bearing whatsoever on its construction — people have a First Amendment right to believe (or not) as they choose (( Personally, I’m not religious in the slightest, and think that religion in general is somewhat silly. Even so, I respect people’s right to hold whatever beliefs they want, regardless of what I think of them.)). What’s the big deal?
All the arguments I’ve heard against the Islamic community center would make perfect sense…if “Muslim” was synonymous with “terrorist”. Of course, this isn’t the case: there’s over a billion Muslims worldwide and the vast majority are ordinary, decent people. Those within the US (and, indeed, anywhere else in the world) should not have their religious freedoms trampled on because of baseless opposition. Yes, some Islamic extremists have done terrible things to the US, but that should have no bearing whatsoever on Muslims as a group, the particular individuals wishing to build this center, nor on the construction of religious buildings.
Do I think it’s unwise or ill-advised for the owners to want to construct their facility so near the former World Trade Center? Not at all; it’s a free country, it’s their property, they can build whatever they want there.
Don’t like it? Don’t go there. Problem solved.

Why is it always SF?

A few of the blogs I read have mentioned this epic smackdown, in which an actual SF soldier smacks down a wannabe.
Why is it that all the wannabes always claim to be Special Forces, Rangers, Marine Recon, snipers, or some other “elite” subset of the military? They’re never humvee mechanics, radio repairmen, or the like.
Sure, I was in the military. I drove tanks. I needed a break from the hum-drum life of fixing computers and twiddling around in college without knowing what I wanted to do with life, and tanks seemed to be sufficiently different to interest me. I accomplished exactly zero acts of valor in my service, and managed to avoid any dishonorable deeds. I did my job, kept my head down, and stayed out of trouble. When my unit was training up to deploy to Iraq, a medical issue developed (( Bones in my feet started making fun happy grinding sounds. )) that prevented me from deploying. The army and I agreed that, due to this medical issue, it wasn’t in our mutual best interests for me to stay in, and I was discharged (( Honorably, for what it’s worth, though I don’t really think I did anything that justifies such a lofty adjective. )).
After I got out, I went back to college, got my degree, got a job, got married, and am looking to go to grad school (after which I’ll probably end up in a lab for the rest of my life, which is just fine with me). Not terribly exciting, which is why I suppose most of these poseurs never claim to be a lowly PFC who drove tanks around for a few years.

Mixed Feelings

I’ve got mixed feelings on Wikileaks, particularly when it comes to ongoing military action.
On one hand, Wikileaks seeks to bring unethical behavior by governments and corporations to light. I respect and support this.
On the other hand, there’s some information that should not be published, such as information detailing or identifying sources, as it can put people at great risk. I think that such information should have been redacted to protect the innocent. In addition, there’s the ethical issue of the whistleblower breaking an oath to reveal classified information to the public. Where does one draw the line?
Hopefully he made the right choice, and innocent people are not harmed as a result. I can only hope that I never face such a dilemma.

That’s Unpossible

I have no idea how I managed to seriously scuff up my wedding band, being made out of extremely hard tungsten carbide that is supposedly unscratchable, in a bit over a month of married life, but I have. Now, to see if the jeweler will replace it.
I promise I’ve not been trying to gnaw it off, honey.

Ow.

In the span of the last two weeks, I have walked more than I have during any two week span of time in my life other than when I was in the army. All this while wearing a pair of Doc Martens or, when wearing shorts (and Docs would look odd), running shoes.
Even with such comfy shoes, my feet hurt.
As fantastic as this honeymoon has been, it’ll be nice to get back home.

Married

As of yesterday, I’m now a married man. Things went off excellently, and I’m now married to who I consider to be the most wonderful woman in the world.
As previously mentioned, I’ll be a bit out of the loop for the next few weeks due to being on my honeymoon.

A Novel Approach to Self-Defense

It’s an oft-used cliche that anti-gun-rights people are fixated on the relative size of men’s…ahem, packages ((I still have yet to understand why this is the case, as essentially all of the gun owners I know personally, both male and female, seem to have satisfactory sex lives with no complaints about penis size. How did this cliche come about?)). This is usually phrased in a way similar to “Gun owners have small penises, and thus own firearms to compensate for this shortcoming ((Pun very much intended.)).”
However, an online comment on a recent article in the local rag proposed an interesting approach to self-defense:

I don’t need to carry a gun everywhere I go. All the real men in my family have a real penis.

My reading of this comment is that, due to its magnitude, the commenter would be able to fend off a criminal attacker with his (( Based on the posted name, the commenter is male.)) penis. I admit this is a rather novel idea, and one I haven’t considered before. This might be plausible, as several gunbloggers (including myself and Robb) are known for not liking pants. Intriguing. I would consider experimenting with such a tactic, but I’m a bit deterred by potential public indecency charges that such…uh…”open carry” might lead to. I think that it might be wiser to keep the junk and the gun concealed (or perhaps the gun carried openly, based on the situation and the weather).
On a more serious note, unless one is attacked while naked by an extremely self-conscious criminal, it’s unlikely that the size of one’s wibbly bits will have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of a violent confrontation. It’s probably far better to rely on training and weapons designed for the purpose. To quote Breda, “Carry your gun – it’s a lighter burden than regret.”