My Quiet Life

After much debate here, and here, I’ve had a change of heart. Allow me to paraphrase the situation as I now understand it:

• Adam Kleinheider, blogger-cum-journalist for the Nashville Post, received a tip (from a neutral, disinterested third party, I’m sure — a concerned citizen, if you will) that one person (someone in this picture, at a private party) looked like another person (lobbyist Rose Cox).
• Bound by his journalistic duty, Kleinheider investigated, asking Rose Cox multiple times via Facebook if it was her.
• She said no, but also asked the Tennessean to remove the pictures, seemingly admitting guilt – and thus, being caught in a lie.
• Kleinheider posts a triumphant moral exposition, highlighting Cox’s despicable deception.

Initially I argued that this was a seemingly pointless exercise of creepy fixation and a disturbing use of journalistic authority towards public castigation. But I now realize that I was wrong. Not only am I wrong, but I’ve been remiss. You see, many times — recently and in the past, as well — I’ve seen someone, online or in person, and thought that they resembled another person. Not only did I not report it to the media on these occasions, it didn’t even occur to me. Think of all the opportunities to catch someone in a lie that have been lost because of my carelessness. Think of the hundreds, thousands, perhaps, of people out there — right now — that have pictures of themselves on the Internet which resemble other pictures of people on the Internet, with their veracity and likeness competely unchallenged.

Well, no more. From now on, in the interest of keeping the wheels of journalism (nay, democracy!) thoroughly greased, when I see someone that looks like another someone, I intend to report it to Kleinheider, post haste. To help kick things off, here is a short list of resemblances I’ve noticed:

• Check out the person in the bottom lefthand corner of this picture. Now look at lobbyist Betty Anderson. Hard to say if they are the same person, but hopefully the truth will come out.
• Now see this picture. The caption says that’s “Kelly Kupres” on the left. But, a quick google search for “kelly kupres” yields only one result. A fake name, perhaps? Can’t wait to see the fallout from this one.
• Lastly, there’s this gem. Call me crazy, but is that registered lobbyist Andrea Arnold?? It doesn’t really look like her, but that’s for rigorous journalistic confirmation to decide.

I hope that these stories and others get the rigor and investigation that they deserve — so that we see the truth come out, here. I encourage you all, as well, to send as many of these “coincidences” to Kleinheider, so that we can get the real scoop we all deserve.

** Apologies in advance to the random people I pulled out of a google search to make my banal, sarcastic point.

I gotta say, Mos Def comes off looking like a real dumbass in this video.. And if you’re gonna be a dumbass, you definitely don’t wanna do it in the same room as Salman Rushdie and Christopher Hitchens. I’m just sayin’.

NO GUNS

Oy, so I thought I could stay out of this debate. I consider myself a fairly opinionated person. There are tough issues I’m undecided on — there are complicated issues that I’m firm on, and all sorts of areas in between where there’s plenty of room for disagreement and reasoned debate. But man, I feel like I’m living in another universe reading the posts on this whole “Guns in Bars” issue. The vitriole coupled with the sheer disingenuousness is enough to drive a man mad. Or, at least, write a blog post.

So, where to start. First, a slightly petty annoyance that makes a good segue into the deeper issues: I find it irritating that people, when referring to “this legislation”, seem to be referring to it as an active change — or an exception — to an implicit, assumed prohibition. That the government is now “allowing” people to carry guns into bars. I don’t care what your particular take on the issue is, if we don’t at least agree on that, we have much larger problems. We live in an (ostensibly) free society, with limitations on our conduct and actions placed on us by our government. But our starting point is “I can do whatever I want”. They’re not “allowing” anything — technically, they are rolling back an exception. Or, more accurately, making an exception to an exception. From the text of the bill:

As enacted, allows person with handgun carry permit to carry in restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages

The implication here, is that somewhere in our books is a law that had made it illegal, previously. (I don’t know what it is — any readers care to illuminate me?) So, right off the bat, I think it’s important to clarify that this legislation is only rolling back a specific prohibition. An exception to an exception. So, then, is it any surprise that there is already confusion on how to enforce the law?

According to a lawsuit heard for the first time yesterday, the guns-in-bars law is so vague that you can’t really know whether you can carry your weapon inside many places. Does this business earn most of its revenue from the sale of food or booze? That’s the question, but who can tell?

Indeed. You know who can probably tell best? The proprietors of individual establishments, in the course of making their own decisions about behaviour they do or do not allow on their premises.

It doesn’t take a psychic to determine the rather predictable libertarian response to this legislation: I don’t want it to be up to the government to decide where I can and cannot carry my gun. The only argument you could possibly make for why it needs to be the government making this decision is an overwhelming inability or unwillingness on behalf of private establishments to make that decision on their own. That argument falls on its face, however, with the overwhelming evidence of restaurants and bars that do, in fact, ban guns on their premises. And it falls on its face now that it’s enacted here, as establishments begin to ban them as well. Curiously, proponents of a bar/gun ban seem to be using this as evidence to support their cause (albeit sometimes incomprehensibly):

In protest of the first official day of guns-in-bars, Johnson City bar owner Dan Numan is issuing his patrons water pistols, according to the News Sentinel. The first 100 patrons get the free water pistols, which will be followed by a massive and ironic battle. For all the gun nuts out there who might sneer at Numan and the other bar owners who plan to screen patrons for weapons, isn’t this totally libertarian?

The guv’ment enacted a law allowing people to carry guns into places where, like it or not, fights break out. You might get punched, or something. Last thing these guys want is some wiener with hurt pride, pulling out a concealed weapon in anger. So they’re just deciding for themselves. Isn’t this what y’all want? The little guy deciding he’s not going to let the government tell him how to run his bar? That’s individual liberty. Are gun rights people cool with this kind of liberty exercising?

I assume there’s some attempt at sarcasm going on here, but I am not really sure what the author (Brantley Hargrove) was going for. Upon reading this, I was unable to formulate a more verbose response than “… yes?” That is, in fact, exactly the sort of liberty that gun rights people want to see exercised. To be fair, there are some gun rights proponents that are saying they will boycott these restaurants (or simply won’t be able to get in, because they’re strapped) — but this has to do with them exercising their right to patronize an establishment or not. They’re not boycotting these places in the hopes that the government will mandate that they can carry their gun in there, or something. (Or, if they are, they’re hopelessly hypocritical, and possibly insane).

But this is precisely what any reasonable “libertarian”-minded person wants: the government staying out of business that the private sector can manage just fine on their own, thank-you-very-much. The overwhelming argument against this move is “Guns and Alcohol Don’t Mix”. If that’s the case, then the government has nothing to worry about — establishments serving alcohol would be well-served to ban firearms. And indeed, that appears to be what they’re doing. So, what’s the problem?

Then there’s the actual, practical ramifications of this legislation. As with most politics, the debate of hypotheticals around the changes reaches histrionics of truly epic proportions. If I could paraphrase the gist of most of what I’ve read, it’s that if we allow guns in bars, it’s only a matter of time before a drunken firefight ensues — and worse, it’s never the gunslingers that pay, but instead an innocent bystander, usually a sweet innocent child. Now let’s consider the actual change and the practical implications — how would they yield such an outcome?

Before:

• Legally registered carry permit-wielding gun owners (an infinitesimally small percentage, let’s be honest) cannot legally have their gun with them, but they probably could, in places that don’t check
• Illegally owned/carried gun owners (probably frighteningly similar or larger than legal owners, but also infinitesimally small) cannot legally have their gun with them, but they probably could, in places that don’t check

After:

• Legally registered carry permit-wielding gun owners (an infinitesimally small percentage, let’s be honest) can now have their gun with them in bars that haven’t banned it yet (a decreasing proportion, particularly in “hot spot” bars prone to fights/violence
• Illegally owned/carried gun owners cannot legally have their gun with them, but it’s now harder, because more places have banned them and actively check.

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing the case for pants-wetting panic. There’s a lot of derisive head-shaking about how it’s sad that we have places now that are “forced” to have metal detectors now. But it’s not like Metro PD was somehow mysteriously preventing these people from bringing guns into a bar before. It was hard-to-enforce legislation that really just manifests in an extra charge in a gun violence crime. “The defendant is charged with first degree murder, and oh, also, you totally weren’t supposed to have that gun in there!!”

There’s also past precedent we can look at. Georgia enacted similar legislation last year, in the face of dire predictions of violence on an epic scale.. What happened since then? Nothing.

Lastly, to deflect the most puerile and irritating attack, which is probably the first one I’ll get: I’m not a “gun nut”. I’m not a Republican. I’m not a conservative. I’ve never owned a gun. I don’t own a gun now, and I have no particular interest in owning a gun. I also agree that guns and alcohol don’t mix. None of these positions is required to believe that private citizens are capable of making decisions on their own, or to see that this legislation will have very little real impact.

Heh. Denim.

I really hope that emusic.com has some way to reset its idea of your musical taste. Because dudes, right now, it seems to have a very, very low opinion of mine. Which is a shame, because I used to rely on their recommendations fairly reliably to find interesting things. And it was a useful complement to the charts, which of course are driven by people, and thus flawed. Why? Well, let’s just say that people listen to some really, really shitty music. But that’s a blog post for another day. (Preview: “Just because you can’t sing doesn’t mean you should form an indie rock band.”)

Anyways. It started off innocuously enough. I went through an Ethiopian music phase, and a Brazilian music phase (both of which I suppose I’m still in), and this resulted in nothing but “World Music” recommendations for a while, but it tapered off. That’s excusable, I mean, I can see the mistake. Now, though, it’s gone off on some tangent of its own — a tangent leading down a treacherous, dark path. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not bad music, per se. I would never want to come across as the type of guy who would ever talk badly about someone on the Internet. But, let’s just say that it’s music that is not of a type that I like to listen to. And let’s also say that I, generally speaking, listen to the type of music that is “good”. Here’s a brief sampling of the wonders they have dropped in my recommendations:

For starters, there’re these guys. Matching black jeans and denim jackets. Always a good choice. From what I can tell (you may be shocked to learn that there’s not a lot of information on the internet about these guys), they are some sort of christian blues group. I was going to make a joke about how I wouldn’t even want to hang out with these guys, much less listen to their music, but then I remembered plenty of counterexamples. Wesley Willis. Kanye West. Prince. But, you know, you never want to judge a book by a cover — or a CD by its denim-adorned cover. I listened to it. Uh, yeah, well, judge for yourself. Can I also add that it was given one star on emusic. ONE STAR. Emusic, I thought we were friends?

Allow me to present “Platnum”, here with their hit song “Love Shy”. 7 different versions of it — each oontzier than the last:

Associated with the U.K. garage scene, in particular the bassline subgenre, Platnum is a vocal trio from Manchester, England, who emerged to mainstream success on the number two hit single “What’s It Gonna Be” by H Two O in 2008

ay dios mio

I can’t figure out for the life of me why emusic thought I’d like this. U.K Garage club music? Really? For years when I heard people talking about “ecstasy” I thought they were talking about the band. Just because I downloaded that ONE downtempo album doesn’t mean I’m sittin at home poppin’ pills and listening to anything with a drum machine. This album doesn’t have 1 star, it has no stars. Presumably because no one has downloaded it.

Lastly, there’s Gloria Trevi, who, according to emusic, is “often hailed as “the Mexican Madonna.” Let’s just stop there. I really can’t imagine what in the last 5 years I’ve ever downloaded on emusic that could be fed through ANY sort of recommendation engine that would announce, with fanfare (or perhaps a toaster-oven type “Ding!”), that what I really need to be listening to is “the Mexican Madonna”. I don’t even like the first Madonna.

There’s only one conclusion: Guys, emusic hates me.

This sign is anti-socialist … and FABULOUS

So, I went to the Tea Party Nation’s tea party thing at legislative plaza yesterday. These things tend to be a cornucopia of photographic opportunities — awesomeness and hilarity in general — regardless of the political persuasion. Obviously this particular segment of our political spectrum is not one that I have much in common with. In theory I am a libertarian, but not really of the same, er, strain as these folks. Anyways, so I went in with taking pictures in mind — the various speeches, which were almost entirely pointless rhetoric comparing Obama to King George (what?) and such. But during the last speech, I was up front taking pics, and I heard him start to talk about “calling in conservative” — basically they were suggesting they pick a day on which everyone calls in sick (”call in conservative”), to get their voices heard. Obviously, my ears picked up at this — I mean, I’d spent the last hour wandering around a crowd with anti-socialism signs. Did my ears deceive me? Did he really just call for a general strike? I turned to the people behind me and said, incredulously, “did he just call for a general strike?” “I think so,” the guy chuckled. Shortly after, I shouted “YOU SHOULD FORM A UNION!!” .. didn’t go over well.

So yeah. What? The libertarian pro-capitalist anti-leftist right-wing contingent is calling for a general strike. Surely I’m not the only one to see the irony in them adopting wholesale a leftist organizational tactic. I thought I must have misheard, so when I got home I went to their website — sure enough, it’s right there on the front page:

On July 30th, Conservatives are “Going Galt”. On that date, we are asking Conservatives all across the nation to “Call in Conservative”. On July 30th, Conservatives will not work, we will not buy. Instead, we will spend time with our families and friends. We will show President Obama and Congress who REALLY drives this economy. For more information on “A Day Without Conservatives , contact Judson Phillips at judson@teapartynation.com.

The mind reels. Political rallies: good for photographs, and also for massive cognitive dissonance. Rest of the pics are here.

So I finally got around to reading Arthur C Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, last night. I caught up with a friend over drinks last week, and during our conversation it dawned on me that I had read basically NO science fiction. Zero. Zilch. The closest I could think of was the Hitchhiker’s Guide . I did read Mars by Ben Bova when I was like 10 or so, but I remember essentially nothing about it. This is weird, because I am a pretty nerdy guy. I’m pretty well-versed in scifi movies. Bladerunner is one of my favorite movies ever. I’ve read fantasy stuff. I’ve even read the friggin Silmarillion. And yet, no sci-fi. So, this weekend I went to McKay’s and got 2001 and 2010, and Ender’s Game as well (which I got, because I’ve heard it’s good, despite the fact that its author is apparently a bit of a homophobic nutjob).

Predictably, I enjoyed 2001 quite a bit, and I’ve already started on 2010, since I got sorta sucked into that particular plotline. I like Clarke’s writing style — how he manages to be very epic and grandiose without sacrificing any scientific accuracy. I also like how his writing style addresses the reader as a resident of the present, and not a resident of the future he’s elaborately describing — rather like he’s writing a science textbook about the future for members of the present. And it happens to be fiction. I suppose this is probably rather common in scifi writing, but I found it amusing — particularly how this manifests in him heaping paragraphs upon paragraphs describing rather commonplace (from the perspective of the characters in the novel) actions. He’s all like “And Bob pressed the RG-1 actuator button, setting to work calculations of an advanced neural network, operating at a speed the human brain can hardly comprehend. This computer — infinitely more powerful than early prototypes dating to an arbitrary time in the past, say, for example, when I happen to be writing this book — by measuring and calculating the complex angles and momentum of the CCB (Closed Chamber Barrier) unit, aligned it precisely into place. This was completed in the blink of an eye — the work that would have taken hours for a human brain, this pinnacle of millions of years of evolution. With narry a whisper, the shielded unit whisked open, and a rush of fresh O2-infused air mingled briefly with the stale air of the cockpit. This invigorated Bob, and he considered the path that had led him — and the human race — to this point at the edge of the known universe.” Whereas, you know, if you were writing for an audience in that particular time, it’d be “Bob opened the door.”

Anyways, 2010 has already sorta sucked me in, so it seems like it’ll be pretty good. Maybe you nerds are right — sci-fi doesn’t seem half-bad.

Also, do you like my penchant for writing book reviews of well-accepted classics by authors that are considered masters of their time? “Yeah? Well, here’s what *I* think about this beloved classic of modern literature … … Um. It was pretty good, actually. I liked it — how it was good. and stuff.”

If anyone has any recommendations, feel free to toss them out below.. Quick list of things I already know about, cus I’m not a total dummy: Neal Stephenson (is this scifi or “cyberpunk”?), Ursula Leguin, Asimov (Foundation, in particular, which I used to have, but never read), Dune. What else?