10.06.08
10/06/2008
Barack Obama, John McCain, and Joseph Biden, you are all god damn retards.
What in fuck were you honestly expecting by voting yes on a $700 billion handout?
06.26.08
District of Columbia v. The English Language
The results of DC v. Heller are finally in, and it seems to be a momentous victory for owners of both firearms and a sound understanding of the English language. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed the Second Amendment of the Constitution as an individual right to bear arms rather than a collective, a distinction that Justice Antonin Scalia outlines in a rather unsubtle verbal jab at fellow Justice John Stevens in his writing of the majority opinion.
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners
and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes)
idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a
hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the
actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an
idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No
dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have
been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried
that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy
to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the
hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning
would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of
the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase
“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word
“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:
“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of
“bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying
“He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled
the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
04.01.08
Dropping eaves in the computer lab
So there’s this girl who was sitting next to me not 5 minutes ago, and she was on the phone with her friend, complaining about an email that her [former] boyfriend sent her. She reads a passage from the piece, something about her not being mature and how he doesn’t want to be in a relationship with someone who’s immature. Oh, and that he never asked her what her mother did for a living because she had told him that she didn’t make much money… whatever that means. All I know is that she was apparently too self-centered to realise his intentions (this according to the email). I don’t know the girl, but if the phone conversation I overheard was any indication, the guy certainly has a case. Putting aside whatever foibles I may have observed in my brief sidelong encounter with this young lady, what kind of person yammers on over her cell phone about private matters in the middle of a crowded computer lab? Surely only an immature sort!
Anywho, the take home lesson is this: if your boyfriend sends you a scathing email, don’t get all indignant and start venting on your cell while in the middle of a quiet computer lab. The jerk sitting next to you will write about you on his friend’s blog, saying how you’re immature and that your boyfriend was right: you’ve got some growing up to do.
Isn’t it fascinating though? The concept of sending mean break-up letters? I mean sure, that girl was probably not worth your time, but you didn’t have to be such a jerk about it. Take the high road, friend.
12.01.07
A Quick Dose of POSITIVE ENERGY!
It has occurred to me that my recent posts regarding the games of Tetris and Billiards have been characterized by anger, angst, vengefullness, and angstervengefullness. Where once I contributed to the lighter side of this otherwise mellow and deep blog, I have now become a source of one of its many woes! Hence, this post will be nothing more than a quick, heroin-like shot-in-the-arm of pure POSITIVE ENERGY! That’s right! I’ma quickly give each of you posters compliments! Here we go!