Here's a nice story about a guy who risked his life jumping over subway tracks to save a man who had fallen off the platform.
It really is a nice story. The guy who saved the other guy, he had some really insightful thoughts about why he did what he did.
The sad part of the whole thing is at the end of the story, the article says, "A NYC Transit spokesperson said the victim was reportedly intoxicated and taken to a local hospital."
So, some stupid drunk falls off the subway platform and someone else has to risk their life to save him?
I know, the stupid drunk doesn't necessarily deserve to die just because he's a stupid drunk, and it would be wrong to just let someone die because they're a stupid drunk. ... But, at the same time, seeing as we in today's age don't have many wild animals and whatnot to contend with, wasn't this just some strange form of survival of the fittest? Stupid drunks die off because they do things like fall of subway platforms. ...
Some people are probably going to get angry at the repeated use of the term "stupid drunks," but I'm not really that sympathetic toward alcoholics. I had my own bout with the bottle back in the day, and stopped because it wasn't worth the toll it was taking, so I consider it a choice. Yes, a difficult choice, but a choice nonetheless.
Anyway. It's a nice story, and I hope I can someday be the kind of person that would take a risk to help a stranger. I would now, to an extent, but not necessarily jumping over tracks like that ...
Friday, March 21, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Gun 'Control' in D.C.
Here's the latest story about the proposed ban on handguns in D.C.
I'm pleased the justices are being intelligent about this issue, rather than reactionary.
This seems like such a simple issue, I cannot understand why people have such a hard time just accepting it -- gun ownership is a right. Just because some people abuse that right, which leads to various crime problems, doesn't mean the government should just automatically take that right away from everyone.
The key is to severely punish the people who abuse the right to have a gun -- especially those people, like felons, who have because of their past actions are no longer legally allowed to own a gun.
There are lots of things that a person can abuse to the point of it having negative consequences. A car with a moron behind the wheel can be just as dangerous a weapon as a firearm, but no one would think of banning cars.
How many stories from around the country have you seen where elderly drivers run people over and crash into buildings? But where is the legislation that bans the elderly from driving, or at least makes them get retested at certain points?
How many times do you see idiots on cell phones endangering others as they cruise down the street? So the legislature creates a toothless law to stop people from physically holding the phone, which did nothing but drive up the sale of hands-free headsets while giving the cell phone idiots with the ability to talk and drive and still have a free hand for something else, like playing with their GPS unit or putting on makeup.
But there is no ban on 'doing other things' while driving.
There is no ban on overeating or obesity.
There is no ban on alcohol, even though a host of crimes can be attributed to people abusing the right to consume it.
I can put a hammer into someone's skull, but no one would ever ban hammers.
Marijuana and cocaine and PCP are banned, but there's plenty available. Prostitution is banned, but people still participate in it.
I know, I know ... it's because a gun is made for only one purpose, and that purpose is violent, and that freaks people out.
But, banning anything only affects the people who voluntarily obey laws, and those are not the people spurring the perceived need for a ban. The only thing that achieves is giving criminals -- who would still have guns -- even more of an advantage as long as they prey on the law abiding folks and not other criminals who may be armed.
I'm pleased the justices are being intelligent about this issue, rather than reactionary.
This seems like such a simple issue, I cannot understand why people have such a hard time just accepting it -- gun ownership is a right. Just because some people abuse that right, which leads to various crime problems, doesn't mean the government should just automatically take that right away from everyone.
The key is to severely punish the people who abuse the right to have a gun -- especially those people, like felons, who have because of their past actions are no longer legally allowed to own a gun.
There are lots of things that a person can abuse to the point of it having negative consequences. A car with a moron behind the wheel can be just as dangerous a weapon as a firearm, but no one would think of banning cars.
How many stories from around the country have you seen where elderly drivers run people over and crash into buildings? But where is the legislation that bans the elderly from driving, or at least makes them get retested at certain points?
How many times do you see idiots on cell phones endangering others as they cruise down the street? So the legislature creates a toothless law to stop people from physically holding the phone, which did nothing but drive up the sale of hands-free headsets while giving the cell phone idiots with the ability to talk and drive and still have a free hand for something else, like playing with their GPS unit or putting on makeup.
But there is no ban on 'doing other things' while driving.
There is no ban on overeating or obesity.
There is no ban on alcohol, even though a host of crimes can be attributed to people abusing the right to consume it.
I can put a hammer into someone's skull, but no one would ever ban hammers.
Marijuana and cocaine and PCP are banned, but there's plenty available. Prostitution is banned, but people still participate in it.
I know, I know ... it's because a gun is made for only one purpose, and that purpose is violent, and that freaks people out.
But, banning anything only affects the people who voluntarily obey laws, and those are not the people spurring the perceived need for a ban. The only thing that achieves is giving criminals -- who would still have guns -- even more of an advantage as long as they prey on the law abiding folks and not other criminals who may be armed.
Iranians Ready for Change
Here's a great little story from Breitbart.com:
This is interesting to me. It makes me wonder if Bush erred not only in invading Iraq, but in not invading Iran instead. The people there, it seems, would have done exactly what the U.S. thought -- and hoped -- what the Iraqis would have done, but haven't.
The Iraqi people seem too tied up in religious domination, and the ones that aren't are too easily led by those that do. The Iranians, however, seem much more ready for democracy.
TEHRAN, March 19 (UPI) -- Many Iranian youths rallied in streets across the country, shouting "Death to Ahmadinejad," in celebrations marking the end of the Persian calendar year.
The last Wednesday of the Persian calendar is celebrated as the Fire Festival in Iran, with bonfires and firecrackers marking the occasion.
In the western city of Ahvaz, angry mobs declared "Freedom is our legitimate right" while demonstrators in the western city of Sanandaj shouted "Death to (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad," Ynetnews reported Wednesday.
The police in Tehran were out in force and, though they were met with a barrage of firecrackers, the situation didn't escalate beyond what is typical for the Fire Festival, local reports cited in the news report said.
Ahmed Raza-Radan, the police chief in Tehran, warned demonstrators against violating the rule of law in a news conference.
"The police force has resolved to detain any party-goers who break the law. The secret police will have full control, and will not hesitate to photograph citizens for evidence," he said.
This is interesting to me. It makes me wonder if Bush erred not only in invading Iraq, but in not invading Iran instead. The people there, it seems, would have done exactly what the U.S. thought -- and hoped -- what the Iraqis would have done, but haven't.
The Iraqi people seem too tied up in religious domination, and the ones that aren't are too easily led by those that do. The Iranians, however, seem much more ready for democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)