My brother Sneaky Weasel ('SW' hereinafter; as mentioned, we all have code-names) lives in a small town in the pacific northwest. It's nice up there. Green. I don't think I could ever live there (the nearest "civilization" is Eugene, OR, and if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand), but it's good for his outdoorsy lifestyle, and only moderately damaging to his kids. This way, he can be fairly sure that his kids are fucked up because of their family and upbringing, instead of their friends, school, or other societal factors. But it's good having him up there, since visiting is essentially a vacation in the woods, and about as stark a change from the Las Vegas deserts as can be imagined. It's fun sledding over the winter visits, and paintballing over of the summer visits. While it's (VERY) far from perfect, it does okay for SW and his family.
But at some point along the way, SW got volunteered or otherwise talked in to being a city councilman. For my other brother (GL), a government position would be endless schmoozing and having a good time, devoid of actual responsibility. But not so much for SW, who kinda likes to get things done expediently. Here's a little anecdote.
There is a cracked water main beneath one of the streets in SW's very small town. Not a gusher mind you, but still serious enough that there are standing puddles in the area, and as might eventually lead to some sort of subsidence, which is never a good thing in a downtown area. For most rational people, including SW, this seems like a pretty clear issue with a pretty clear solution. Unfortunately, it turns out that Oregon is essentially Massachusetts West in it's political leanings: SO FAR TO THE LEFT, THEY'RE BACK AROUND TO THE RIGHT. After all, this is the place where the modern tree-hugger was born. With such liberals calling the shots and making the laws, it is pretty much impossible to get anything done. Here's a dramatized account:
SW: "Hey, how about if we get someone to fix that cracked water main? We're losing money, and it would be good if we dealt with it before it gets worse."
Drone(s): "We'll need to get a licensed contractor."
SW: "Okay. How about if we get a licensed contractor to fix that cracked water main? We're losing money, and it would be good if we dealt with if before it gets worse."
Drone(s): "Well, to pick a contractor, we need to put the job out for bidding. Then we have to wait a period while bids are submitted. Then there's a review period for for the bids, and a vetting process. Then we'll have to address the bids and bid selection in a publicly noticed City Council meeting, so the public has a chance to comment and express their concerns. In the meantime we can get started on requesting the construction permits from the county and the state. Also get started on an environmental impact report, which we'll need to farm out to a state-certified inspector. Once we have a contractor selected, we can get in touch with OSHA so they can come out and look at the site for safety reasons, since the leak is beneath a public street..."
SW: "The city is losing money EVERY day from water just seeping into the ground. How long is all this going to take?"
Drone(s): "About three or four months to select a contractor. That should be long enough to get the permits lined up as well, so long as we pay the 'rush' fees in addition to the usual rates. I don't know how long the OSHA waiting list is at the moment. They won't even talk to us until we have a contractor selected."
SW: "And I guess that OSHA is not going to do their part for free, are they?"
Drone(s): "Nope."
SW: "Okay. So we have to pay peoples' tax-dollars to have all this contractor selection process. We have to pay more to get the permits. Then pay for the environmental impact study. Then pay OSHA for them to rubber-stamp the project. Probably a few other people to pay for rubber-stamps. We also have to pay for all the water we're losing while all this is happening. Then, of course, we still have to pay to get the work done."
Drone(s): "By a licensed contractor, yes."
(Several seconds of silence.)
SW: "How about if we just ignored all that shit. Have somebody go out there some night, dig up the street and fix the pipe?"
Drone(s): "That's illegal. The state would fine us."
SW: "How much is the fine? Is it less than the cost of doing it legally? Crunch the numbers. Be sure to include the value of the lost 300,000 gallons we'll have to pay for if we wait four months to start digging."
Our government bureaucracy has actually reached the point where corruption and blatant disregard for the law is the only way to get things done efficiently and cost effectively. Every lawyer in the country gets taught in law school about the theory of "efficient breach," which is the idea that sometimes it's more efficient to ignore a legal obligation (and bear the consequences) than it is to adhere to the obligation. That's what happens when a pro sports team fires a coach who is under contract: the team is still bound to the contract terms requiring them to pay the coach, which contractual obligation is unaffected by the firing. But when a coach really is that bad, and you're already on the hook for his salary anyway, sometimes it's better to just eat the loss of his ongoing salary and go in a different direction than it is to continue to let the guy 'work.' In situations like that, "efficient breach" has a long-standing tradition.
But it depresses the hell out of me that municipalities in this country are considering "efficient breach" arguments regarding the laws that theoretically govern their own actions and functions. Because things should not reach the point where those sort of de facto insurrections should be necessary just to repair a fucking leaking pipe.
But don't worry. Barack is going to fix everything. He's going to pass some legislation. Call for reform. Appoint a Czar and commission a special committee to perform a six-month study of the matter, and make recommendations. Don't worry. The matter is being addressed, but you really can't expect results overnight. Just give us time. Don't call us, we'll call you.
And that health care thing? Don't worry about that. Once that's under government control, it will be model of efficiency...
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Dilemmas
As I trust is clear from various prior posts, I'm neither shy nor even a little apologetic that I own and enjoy shooting firearms. I think being an avid shooter goes a long way towards enjoying American heritage, as well as being a good skill to have when the undead start climbing from their graves. That was a joke. But a joke with a point: I will almost certainly never be in a position where being able to shoot is important, but if shooting is ever important, it's probably going to be REALLY important. And is a fun hobby in the meantime.
Since my own firearm aspirations are pretty much satisfied (with one exception), the only firearm shopping I really do these days is with (or for) other people, with varying results, and with the best results occasionally coming when people ignore my advice. But whatever. Then this morning, an old friend asked me about the merits of 9mm vs. 45.
Oh boy.
This is a subject that sees extended debate. Seriously; you would not believe the amount of discussion and arguments (which often devolve into flame-wars) online over something as simple as one-tenth of an inch of slug diameter. But there is heated debate, with the semi-traditionalists extolling the virtues of the Most Holy .45 to young whippersnappers in the 9mm mafia, who retort by criticizing weight, recoil, and ammunition capacity.
To be fair, both sides have their points. The generally accepted .45 gold standard is the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) round, fired by the universally recognized Colt .45 automatic pistol. Which is actually called the Model 1911, after the year of first production. Yes, the Colt .45 design is about a hundred years old, and is still in MASSIVE production by at least six major manufacturers.
The design was created in response to a specific challenge that was being faced by the United States Army, which was at the time in the process of "pacifying" various islands in the South Pacific, notably including the Philippines. The problem was that GIs were getting killed by crazed Philippino freedom fighters, who would charge the GIs through a hail of pistol fire to attack with machetes. At the time, the standard US Army pistol was a .38 caliber revolver. Although the .38 was fully capable of killing people, it sometimes took people minutes or hours to die from the fairly small holes it made in them. This just didn't work for the soldiers who, for machete-attack based reasons, really couldn't wait that long for results to come through. They kinda needed the 'bad guys' to go down as soon as they were shot.
Enter the Colt .45. Although there are some semi-exotic rounds in circulation (.454 Casull, .50 AE, etc.) the .45 ACP is by far the most common large-caliber pistol in the world. For day to day use by The Common Man, it is simply as big as it gets. This means several things. First, ammo capacity tends to be limited, since the cartridges are big, and the main design (the Colt 1911) pre-dates double-stack magazine designs. A 1911 will only hold 8 rounds in the magazine (but newer designs like the Glock 21 will hold 13). Second, both the ammo and the pistol firing it are fairly heavy. A 1911 weighs 2.5 pounds empty. Third, despite the heavy platform, recoil is fairly fierce, and even a guy my size can have problems keeping the thing reigned in, in event that several shots need to be fired in rapid succession. It is a fucking beast of a pistol. Finally, and most importantly, a center-mass hit with a .45 will in fact stop a crazed guy who's charging at you with a machete, whereas history indicates that a smaller round might serve only to further annoy him.
There is absolutely nothing subtle about .45 pistols, much the same way there's nothing subtle about a Harley, or a '69 Camaro. And in a similar vein, all of those things have an intrinsic amount of class and/or sexiness, regardless of age or circumstance.
Turning to the 9mm, it is first important to point out that the modern 9mm Parabellum round (the universally accepted "9mm," although there are actually a few different chamberings of 9mm) is ballistically very similar to the .38 US Army round that was replaced by the .45. The 9mm round does have a lot going for, primarily that it is a lot smaller and lighter than a .45. Whereas a .45 is a beast of a handgun, which places sizable physical demands on the shooter, a 9mm can be managed by just about anyone. Being much more user-friendly, it takes less strength, less practice, and thus less training time to learn to use a 9mm, all of which are important.
Whereas you need to practice at least occasionally to get and maintain the ability to really use a .45 (especially if you plan on firing more than one shot), even a casual shooter can reliably get good results with a 9mm. The US Army's switch to the M9 (the current-issue U.S. service pistol, which is essentially a 9mm Beretta 92F - think Mel Gibson in 'Lethal Weapon') was based at least in part on the fact that lots of soldiers (including many women, in the modern Army) don't have the physical strength to qualify with the 1911. Incidentally, this was not a new problem with the 1911; one of the reasons for the WWII-era development of the M1 Carbine to compliment the M1 Garard rifle was that officers and support personnel who didn't need a Garand and who couldn't qualify with the 1911 still needed a weapon to carry.
While the 9mm lacks the raw power of the .45, it is still fully capable of killing people, as evidenced by the fact that it is historically the most common combat pistol caliber in the world. While it might not stop a man in his tracks with a single pull of the trigger, it absolutely has the power to kill. And that acceptable killing power (while less than the .45) is compounded by the fact that the 9mm is easy to shoot. This means that a lot of people can shoot it, which means a lot of manufacturers build them, which in turn means that most modern pistol-design improvements are centered on the caliber. A lot of people believe (with good justification) that the best overall handguns in the world are made by Glock, which got its start by satisfying an early-80s German military design contract for a combat pistol to replace the WWII-era P38. Since that time, the original production model (the Glock 17) has become standard issue for many NATO armies, and is also the most widely used police pistol in the world. Glock has spun off multiple (mechanically identical) pistols in all sorts of other calibers, incidentally including the .45 caliber Glock 21, 37, and 38. (They're great guns; do a search on youtube for 'Glock torture test.' Fun stuff.) But in keeping with discussion of the 9mm, there is no denying that it is much MUCH more mainstream than the .45, especially in the global market, for ergonomic reasons. Besides being easier to shoot, the smaller round also leads to big benefits like a lighter pistol that will hold more bullets. A Glock 17, for example, weighs about 22 oz. empty, and will fit 17 rounds in the standard magazine. That's more than twice the ammo that a 1911 holds. If you have to shoot a lot, 9mm is definitely the way to go.
But this doesn't change the inherent problem that was faced back in 1911: small caliber handguns are easy to use, and fully capable of killing people. But if you're facing crazed people charging at you with sharp instruments (or similar dire circumstances), you will probably wish you had something bigger to shoot them with. (There's really no such thing as a 'minor wound' from a .45.) Unfortunately, larger bullets means fewer bullets, and a heavier, harder-to-use-well handgun. Like any other highly evolved field, choosing one or the other comes down to which design compromise works best for you. So maybe it's time to consult some experts, of which there are plenty, it turns out.
The modern structure of warfighting means that, in addition to the regular grunts who go out in the field with equipment that is issued to them whether they like it or not, there are now all sorts of people who go into battle with their own choices of weapons. Besides semi-mercenaries attached to NGOs, high-end special forces guys like SEALS and related units have broad discretion to choose for themselves what gear they are going to use. This actually leads to all sorts of interesting points. Take for example, vehicles. A SEAL team headed across the desert to blow some shit up can choose anything they want to get the job done. The standard U.S. military vehicle is the ubiquitous Hummer. But when they have their own druthers, SEAL teams tend to ride into combat not in Hummers, but in 4-door V8 Toyota Tundra pickups. They don't break, a little work gets AMAZING performance out the V8 engines, and the air-conditioning is much MUCH better than in a Hummer. Toyota cannot BUY press like that, which essentially asserts that the top-shelf special-ops truck in the world today is in fact a Toyota.
But the point is that if you really want to know what the best overall gear in the world it, the wonders of the internet means that you can just simply ask the best guys in the world what they use. They're not shy; they'll tell you. And, having looked into the matter, it strikes me that a lot of those guys carry 9mm Glocks, with the semi-compact Glock-19 at or near the top of the list. Likewise USAF pilots; they can choose what pistol to pack as a survival weapon, should they get shot down. The Glock 19 is the overwhelming favorite. I'm really not a Glock fanboy, since they just feel wrong in my hand. But I have recently partaken of the Glock Kool-Aid, and honestly speaking, if you're going to own just one handgun, it should probably be a 9mm Glock.
Unless, of course, you live in California. In which case, you'll need to go to a gunstore, and find out the current state of the law in that State, especially since there are all new laws restricting firearm sales. Those new laws - IIRC - mean that you can't own a 1911 OR a Glock 19. In terms of caliber choice, one of the principal high points of the 9mm round is that you can carry a lot of ammo. But California bans magazines which carry more than 10 rounds, thus obviating one of the biggest benefits of 9mm. Absent a lot of ammo, it's probably a good idea to make the ammo you have count, and lean towards a larger slug. With California's laws taking away most of the benefit of 9mm pistols, anyone living there would probably do better with something larger, meaning a .45. It's much more powerful, can carry about as many rounds as a CA-legal 9mm, and ammo is only slightly more expensive these days. It is absolutely NOT as easy and user-friendly to shoot, but is still quite manageable, and even fun to shoot.
So, if you're allowed to have one, get yourself a Glock 19. If you live in California, see if you can find a Glock 37 or 38.
Since my own firearm aspirations are pretty much satisfied (with one exception), the only firearm shopping I really do these days is with (or for) other people, with varying results, and with the best results occasionally coming when people ignore my advice. But whatever. Then this morning, an old friend asked me about the merits of 9mm vs. 45.
Oh boy.
This is a subject that sees extended debate. Seriously; you would not believe the amount of discussion and arguments (which often devolve into flame-wars) online over something as simple as one-tenth of an inch of slug diameter. But there is heated debate, with the semi-traditionalists extolling the virtues of the Most Holy .45 to young whippersnappers in the 9mm mafia, who retort by criticizing weight, recoil, and ammunition capacity.
To be fair, both sides have their points. The generally accepted .45 gold standard is the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) round, fired by the universally recognized Colt .45 automatic pistol. Which is actually called the Model 1911, after the year of first production. Yes, the Colt .45 design is about a hundred years old, and is still in MASSIVE production by at least six major manufacturers.
The design was created in response to a specific challenge that was being faced by the United States Army, which was at the time in the process of "pacifying" various islands in the South Pacific, notably including the Philippines. The problem was that GIs were getting killed by crazed Philippino freedom fighters, who would charge the GIs through a hail of pistol fire to attack with machetes. At the time, the standard US Army pistol was a .38 caliber revolver. Although the .38 was fully capable of killing people, it sometimes took people minutes or hours to die from the fairly small holes it made in them. This just didn't work for the soldiers who, for machete-attack based reasons, really couldn't wait that long for results to come through. They kinda needed the 'bad guys' to go down as soon as they were shot.
Enter the Colt .45. Although there are some semi-exotic rounds in circulation (.454 Casull, .50 AE, etc.) the .45 ACP is by far the most common large-caliber pistol in the world. For day to day use by The Common Man, it is simply as big as it gets. This means several things. First, ammo capacity tends to be limited, since the cartridges are big, and the main design (the Colt 1911) pre-dates double-stack magazine designs. A 1911 will only hold 8 rounds in the magazine (but newer designs like the Glock 21 will hold 13). Second, both the ammo and the pistol firing it are fairly heavy. A 1911 weighs 2.5 pounds empty. Third, despite the heavy platform, recoil is fairly fierce, and even a guy my size can have problems keeping the thing reigned in, in event that several shots need to be fired in rapid succession. It is a fucking beast of a pistol. Finally, and most importantly, a center-mass hit with a .45 will in fact stop a crazed guy who's charging at you with a machete, whereas history indicates that a smaller round might serve only to further annoy him.
There is absolutely nothing subtle about .45 pistols, much the same way there's nothing subtle about a Harley, or a '69 Camaro. And in a similar vein, all of those things have an intrinsic amount of class and/or sexiness, regardless of age or circumstance.
Turning to the 9mm, it is first important to point out that the modern 9mm Parabellum round (the universally accepted "9mm," although there are actually a few different chamberings of 9mm) is ballistically very similar to the .38 US Army round that was replaced by the .45. The 9mm round does have a lot going for, primarily that it is a lot smaller and lighter than a .45. Whereas a .45 is a beast of a handgun, which places sizable physical demands on the shooter, a 9mm can be managed by just about anyone. Being much more user-friendly, it takes less strength, less practice, and thus less training time to learn to use a 9mm, all of which are important.
Whereas you need to practice at least occasionally to get and maintain the ability to really use a .45 (especially if you plan on firing more than one shot), even a casual shooter can reliably get good results with a 9mm. The US Army's switch to the M9 (the current-issue U.S. service pistol, which is essentially a 9mm Beretta 92F - think Mel Gibson in 'Lethal Weapon') was based at least in part on the fact that lots of soldiers (including many women, in the modern Army) don't have the physical strength to qualify with the 1911. Incidentally, this was not a new problem with the 1911; one of the reasons for the WWII-era development of the M1 Carbine to compliment the M1 Garard rifle was that officers and support personnel who didn't need a Garand and who couldn't qualify with the 1911 still needed a weapon to carry.
While the 9mm lacks the raw power of the .45, it is still fully capable of killing people, as evidenced by the fact that it is historically the most common combat pistol caliber in the world. While it might not stop a man in his tracks with a single pull of the trigger, it absolutely has the power to kill. And that acceptable killing power (while less than the .45) is compounded by the fact that the 9mm is easy to shoot. This means that a lot of people can shoot it, which means a lot of manufacturers build them, which in turn means that most modern pistol-design improvements are centered on the caliber. A lot of people believe (with good justification) that the best overall handguns in the world are made by Glock, which got its start by satisfying an early-80s German military design contract for a combat pistol to replace the WWII-era P38. Since that time, the original production model (the Glock 17) has become standard issue for many NATO armies, and is also the most widely used police pistol in the world. Glock has spun off multiple (mechanically identical) pistols in all sorts of other calibers, incidentally including the .45 caliber Glock 21, 37, and 38. (They're great guns; do a search on youtube for 'Glock torture test.' Fun stuff.) But in keeping with discussion of the 9mm, there is no denying that it is much MUCH more mainstream than the .45, especially in the global market, for ergonomic reasons. Besides being easier to shoot, the smaller round also leads to big benefits like a lighter pistol that will hold more bullets. A Glock 17, for example, weighs about 22 oz. empty, and will fit 17 rounds in the standard magazine. That's more than twice the ammo that a 1911 holds. If you have to shoot a lot, 9mm is definitely the way to go.
But this doesn't change the inherent problem that was faced back in 1911: small caliber handguns are easy to use, and fully capable of killing people. But if you're facing crazed people charging at you with sharp instruments (or similar dire circumstances), you will probably wish you had something bigger to shoot them with. (There's really no such thing as a 'minor wound' from a .45.) Unfortunately, larger bullets means fewer bullets, and a heavier, harder-to-use-well handgun. Like any other highly evolved field, choosing one or the other comes down to which design compromise works best for you. So maybe it's time to consult some experts, of which there are plenty, it turns out.
The modern structure of warfighting means that, in addition to the regular grunts who go out in the field with equipment that is issued to them whether they like it or not, there are now all sorts of people who go into battle with their own choices of weapons. Besides semi-mercenaries attached to NGOs, high-end special forces guys like SEALS and related units have broad discretion to choose for themselves what gear they are going to use. This actually leads to all sorts of interesting points. Take for example, vehicles. A SEAL team headed across the desert to blow some shit up can choose anything they want to get the job done. The standard U.S. military vehicle is the ubiquitous Hummer. But when they have their own druthers, SEAL teams tend to ride into combat not in Hummers, but in 4-door V8 Toyota Tundra pickups. They don't break, a little work gets AMAZING performance out the V8 engines, and the air-conditioning is much MUCH better than in a Hummer. Toyota cannot BUY press like that, which essentially asserts that the top-shelf special-ops truck in the world today is in fact a Toyota.
But the point is that if you really want to know what the best overall gear in the world it, the wonders of the internet means that you can just simply ask the best guys in the world what they use. They're not shy; they'll tell you. And, having looked into the matter, it strikes me that a lot of those guys carry 9mm Glocks, with the semi-compact Glock-19 at or near the top of the list. Likewise USAF pilots; they can choose what pistol to pack as a survival weapon, should they get shot down. The Glock 19 is the overwhelming favorite. I'm really not a Glock fanboy, since they just feel wrong in my hand. But I have recently partaken of the Glock Kool-Aid, and honestly speaking, if you're going to own just one handgun, it should probably be a 9mm Glock.
Unless, of course, you live in California. In which case, you'll need to go to a gunstore, and find out the current state of the law in that State, especially since there are all new laws restricting firearm sales. Those new laws - IIRC - mean that you can't own a 1911 OR a Glock 19. In terms of caliber choice, one of the principal high points of the 9mm round is that you can carry a lot of ammo. But California bans magazines which carry more than 10 rounds, thus obviating one of the biggest benefits of 9mm. Absent a lot of ammo, it's probably a good idea to make the ammo you have count, and lean towards a larger slug. With California's laws taking away most of the benefit of 9mm pistols, anyone living there would probably do better with something larger, meaning a .45. It's much more powerful, can carry about as many rounds as a CA-legal 9mm, and ammo is only slightly more expensive these days. It is absolutely NOT as easy and user-friendly to shoot, but is still quite manageable, and even fun to shoot.
So, if you're allowed to have one, get yourself a Glock 19. If you live in California, see if you can find a Glock 37 or 38.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Recently, I was given a copy of the infamous 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,' (hereinafter 'PPZ') and I'm most of the way through it, which is probably the reason for my recent zombie comments. For those who have never heard of the book (PPZ), it's a revision of the classic Jane Austen novel, with added fight scenes and plot-line based on a nationwide zombie-uprising in 18th century England. It is essentially the same story Austen wrote, with the same female lead and her four sisters (and other family) pursing love in rural England. Except material has been added and changed, to reflect the aforementioned story-line of an ongoing zombie apocalypse surrounding the same central plot events written by Austen. Notably, Liz and her sisters are all Shaolin-trained (think Kane from Kung Fu) zombie hunters.
I read 'Pride and Prejudice' (and some other Jane Austen stuff) back in the dark drunk days in Davis, and suffice to say that I'm NOT a fan. One of Austen's contemporaries called her writing "the glorification of the trivial," which fits EXACTLY. That's also the reason that I can't stand Jerry Seinfeld or (to a lesser degree) shows like 'Friends.' No matter what spin you put on it, and no matter how you try to dress it up, what it comes down to is people over-reacting to every-day events, and trying to sell it as drama. Not passing judgment on people who are fans, but I live all day every day in the same world as those characters (except that I have to occasionally leave the coffee shop and go to work), and when I want entertainment, I'm really not interested in a recap of trivial events we all face, no matter what spin and commentary are attached. Seriously, isn't entertainment supposed to be ENTERTAINING?!
So Austen has never held much interest for me, and I think it moderately amazing that 'Pride and Prejudice' was in 2003 judged by a BBC survey to be England's second-best-loved book (behind only 'Lord of the Rings'). WTF? Don't people read Bram Stoker any more? Or Shakespeare? England has shit-bags of great books to it's credit before you get to Austen. My theory is that it was a multiple-choice poll, with options arranged alphabetically by author, administered to people who were in too much of a hurry to read the whole list of options and really think about their selections. Hell, even the modern works of Rowling and Terry Pratchett beat the hell out of Austen's 'classic' stuff.
In any rate, Jane Austen's works were essentially the forerunners of modern mindless soap-operas, albeit presented with the literary skill of someone who should have been able to come up with a better storyline. The end result is that the writing is good, yes, but the plotline is UNBEARABLE. It's easy to APPRECIATE Austen's works as art, but boring as hell to actually read them.
So enter co-author Seth Grahame-Smith, who wrote the zombie portions of PPZ, while at the same time leaving Austen's general writing and story-line largely intact. He's an author I'd acutally like to meet, for a few reasons. First of all, the portions of the book written by him might have been written by a 15-year old boy who's knowledge of weapons, fighting, and martial arts is drawn solely from comic-books and anime graphic novels. It really is pretty bad, complete with all sorts of comments that even a passing knowledge of military history would have prevented. The Brown Bess was a single-shot muzzle-loader, Seth; they kinda can't manage a hail of bullets. And if you're going to make your main characters Chinese-trained - and then highlight a rivalry between Chinese and Japanese martial arts - you DON'T give your main (Chinese-trained) characters distinctively Japanese weapons. Maybe I'm just demonstrating my super-geek status, but still. I half expected to read that the handle of Liz's katana was wrapped in telephone cord. (A case of beer to anyone who knows this reference.) So I'd like to meet Grahame-Smith, to try to get a feel for whether the comic-book errors were intentional as part of the over-the-top outlandishness of the zombie theme, or included because he really didn't know any better.
Regardless of being intentional or incidental, the additions made by the 21st century co-author are - from a high literature perspective - really, REALLY bad. Again, we're talking cheap comic-book scenes and ideas, presented in cheap comic-book fashion. Aside from pure entertainment value, there is NOTHING redeeming about the additions made to the book, and everything between the covers that might legitimately be called 'art' or 'literature' come from the parts written by Jane Austen, circa 1815 (iirc). So I think it's hugely ironic that all the quality, admirable, tip-of-the-hat worthy ART of PPZ is from the original Austen book, which was TOTALLY unreadable until it included outlandish and amateurishly written battles with the undead, and mis-citations to Japanese and Chinese systems of honor and combat.
Go figure, but everything GOOD is from Austen, who's writing is not at all entertaining. But everything ENTERTAINING is from Grahame-Smith, who's work is not only not 'good,' but is downright BAD. Not sure what it says about me that I plan on getting the other collaborative work between these two authors: 'Sense and Sensibility and Sea-Monsters.' And no, I did not just make that up.
But it does suggest that there's money to be made by revising the classics (which are legally in the public domain) with addition of lowest-common-denominator action scenes, without even bothering to overmuch change the title of the book. That might be something worth looking in to, although I don't think I'd be able to pull off the over-the-top outlandishness of Grahame-Smith. He's got that market pretty well cornered. But maybe there's a middle-ground to be exploited...
I read 'Pride and Prejudice' (and some other Jane Austen stuff) back in the dark drunk days in Davis, and suffice to say that I'm NOT a fan. One of Austen's contemporaries called her writing "the glorification of the trivial," which fits EXACTLY. That's also the reason that I can't stand Jerry Seinfeld or (to a lesser degree) shows like 'Friends.' No matter what spin you put on it, and no matter how you try to dress it up, what it comes down to is people over-reacting to every-day events, and trying to sell it as drama. Not passing judgment on people who are fans, but I live all day every day in the same world as those characters (except that I have to occasionally leave the coffee shop and go to work), and when I want entertainment, I'm really not interested in a recap of trivial events we all face, no matter what spin and commentary are attached. Seriously, isn't entertainment supposed to be ENTERTAINING?!
So Austen has never held much interest for me, and I think it moderately amazing that 'Pride and Prejudice' was in 2003 judged by a BBC survey to be England's second-best-loved book (behind only 'Lord of the Rings'). WTF? Don't people read Bram Stoker any more? Or Shakespeare? England has shit-bags of great books to it's credit before you get to Austen. My theory is that it was a multiple-choice poll, with options arranged alphabetically by author, administered to people who were in too much of a hurry to read the whole list of options and really think about their selections. Hell, even the modern works of Rowling and Terry Pratchett beat the hell out of Austen's 'classic' stuff.
In any rate, Jane Austen's works were essentially the forerunners of modern mindless soap-operas, albeit presented with the literary skill of someone who should have been able to come up with a better storyline. The end result is that the writing is good, yes, but the plotline is UNBEARABLE. It's easy to APPRECIATE Austen's works as art, but boring as hell to actually read them.
So enter co-author Seth Grahame-Smith, who wrote the zombie portions of PPZ, while at the same time leaving Austen's general writing and story-line largely intact. He's an author I'd acutally like to meet, for a few reasons. First of all, the portions of the book written by him might have been written by a 15-year old boy who's knowledge of weapons, fighting, and martial arts is drawn solely from comic-books and anime graphic novels. It really is pretty bad, complete with all sorts of comments that even a passing knowledge of military history would have prevented. The Brown Bess was a single-shot muzzle-loader, Seth; they kinda can't manage a hail of bullets. And if you're going to make your main characters Chinese-trained - and then highlight a rivalry between Chinese and Japanese martial arts - you DON'T give your main (Chinese-trained) characters distinctively Japanese weapons. Maybe I'm just demonstrating my super-geek status, but still. I half expected to read that the handle of Liz's katana was wrapped in telephone cord. (A case of beer to anyone who knows this reference.) So I'd like to meet Grahame-Smith, to try to get a feel for whether the comic-book errors were intentional as part of the over-the-top outlandishness of the zombie theme, or included because he really didn't know any better.
Regardless of being intentional or incidental, the additions made by the 21st century co-author are - from a high literature perspective - really, REALLY bad. Again, we're talking cheap comic-book scenes and ideas, presented in cheap comic-book fashion. Aside from pure entertainment value, there is NOTHING redeeming about the additions made to the book, and everything between the covers that might legitimately be called 'art' or 'literature' come from the parts written by Jane Austen, circa 1815 (iirc). So I think it's hugely ironic that all the quality, admirable, tip-of-the-hat worthy ART of PPZ is from the original Austen book, which was TOTALLY unreadable until it included outlandish and amateurishly written battles with the undead, and mis-citations to Japanese and Chinese systems of honor and combat.
Go figure, but everything GOOD is from Austen, who's writing is not at all entertaining. But everything ENTERTAINING is from Grahame-Smith, who's work is not only not 'good,' but is downright BAD. Not sure what it says about me that I plan on getting the other collaborative work between these two authors: 'Sense and Sensibility and Sea-Monsters.' And no, I did not just make that up.
But it does suggest that there's money to be made by revising the classics (which are legally in the public domain) with addition of lowest-common-denominator action scenes, without even bothering to overmuch change the title of the book. That might be something worth looking in to, although I don't think I'd be able to pull off the over-the-top outlandishness of Grahame-Smith. He's got that market pretty well cornered. But maybe there's a middle-ground to be exploited...
Friday, November 6, 2009
Smokin' the Ganj
As I sat down at my desk today, tacitly to do some work, I happened to glance at ESPN online, where I noticed that Giant's ace (and 2008 Cy Young Award winner) Tim Lincecum had been busted for pot possession.
For me, the only real surprise this held was that anyone was surprised.
He's a career west-coast guy, grew up in pot-country, and went to UW as an undergrad. Besides which, have you seen the guy? Long hair. Squinty eyes. Fairly consistent goofy smile. He reminds me of That Guy from high school. You know; the guy who had been high since the 7th grade? He was probably at your school, too. He got around.
I'm not a huge believer one way or the other on the whole lets-legalize-marijuana thing, much the same way that I'm not a big believer one way or the other about the Jets vs. the Dolphins thing. Both sides have their attractions and selling points. Both sides have more than their fair share of zealous adherents. Both sides sometimes care more about hating the people on the other side than they care about the actual dispute, but I guess that's just human nature. And in the long run, I don't think either side of the argument is as strong as the proponents state. So I understand and accept that people are going to smoke the ganja in pursuit of a good time, and I think that such people should understand and accept that doing so is, in fact, still illegal, and that getting caught having such a good time means a criminal record, fines, and jail time. Or at the very least that the guys who caught you are going to give you a stern talking to, and a warning not to do it again as they confiscate your greenery for their own use.
All that having been said, I do think that the way this country handles the Mary Jane issue is nothing short of idiotic, based primarily on inter-/intra-governmental bullshit.
Generally speaking, enforcement of criminal codes within their jurisdiction is the exclusive purview of the individual states. States are free to make their own laws about personal conduct, and to enforce those laws, and are not bound by standards employed in other jurisdictions. For example: in California, it is possible to legally be a pothead, but you cannot legally purchase most firearms. In contrast, Arizona takes a hard line on the ganja, but you can legally own pretty much any firearm you want. Those states, as is their prerogative, take different stances on those issues, and within their boundaries, set their own laws accordingly, as they see fit.
But then, enter the Federal government. Historically speaking, the Federal government had almost no authority to prosecute criminal activity whatsoever, because the Consitution and Amendments thereto left the Federal government virtually no jurisdiction in which to exercise that authority. The Federal government's job was primarily to regulate trade and interaction between states, NOT within states, and so the primary job of the Fed's law-enforcement arm (the FBI), was to address crimes which crossed state lines: chasing criminals who moved from state to state either in the course of, or in between commissions of, their criminal endeavors.
Of course, history and human nature dictated that the Federal government therefor would be taking the lead in substance control, since their broad, multi-state purview placed on the Federal Government the burden of stopping interstate bootlegging and other smuggling operations. Necessarily so. As a matter of law, local cops cannot follow a criminal over state lines: their authority is limited to laws they enforce, which in turn are limited to the bounds of their own jurisdiction. It takes legal process (extradition) to forcibly move a person from one state to another, since neither state has authority within, or even jointly with, any other state. Cops have no jurisdiction across state lines. The jurisdiction of the Feds, on the other hand, is entered specifically BECAUSE state lines are crossed.
Slippery slopes being what they are, we progressed over the years to where Feds are now prosecuting all sorts of criminal conduct, which - in theory at least - should be the responsibility of individual states. Since the Fed and the states occasionally have different agendas, this leads to conflict. For example: so long as you have the right paperwork filled out and have gained all the right approvals and certifications, you can legally operate a pot plantation in California and under California law. Or Nevada. Or some other states as well. You can grow it, you can smoke it, you can sell it, and local law enforcement will leave you alone, even if they don't have anything else to do. The state - which is the primary doer when it comes to law enforcement - has decreed that so long as formalities are observed and taxes are paid, you are within the bounds of the law.
Of course, should you engage in that sort of behavior (or even substantially less offensive behavior, like smoking a doobie in your living room), your door might be kicked in at any moment by guys with guns coming to arrest you. Because even though California (or Nevada, or where ever) says it's okay, the Federal government says that what you are doing is illegal, and has it's very own branch of law enforcement to get you: the DEA.
So we have an interesting situation: local law says conduct is legal, while national law says that the same conduct is illegal. Federal cops will drag you away, while local cops are offended only insofar as you being busted means they will need to find someone else to buy from. But where the problem really arises is in the operation of the prosecutorial and punitive stages.
The Federal government has courts and prisons completely independent of the states. If you are busted by the DEA, you don't go in front of a state judge and then into a state prison, you go in front of a Federal judge, and into a Federal prison. And the Federal institutions are MILITANT. They were built to deal with serious interstate criminals: kidnappers, bank-robbers, serial killers, major drug traffickers, and so forth. The purview of the Federal criminal system was apprehension of interstate offenders, and interstate offenders tended to be Big Time. The Courts are strict, because they are used to dealing with serious crimes. The prisons are rough, because they are meant for and filled with serious criminals.
Now then. Federal efforts to police relatively minor drug crimes means that this same militant criminal system is being employed on less-than-hardened criminals. Think back to That Guy from high school; the one who had been blazing daily for the last three years, at least. Imagine him thrown into the shark-tank of a Federal prison. Or, more germane to today's discussion, rest assured that even a few grams' possession in front of a Federal judge would have landed Tim Lincecum a bit more than a $622 fine and a speeding ticket.
That's the part that I kind of have a problem with. Don't get me wrong; like I said above, I'm a believer that the laws are the laws, that people break them at their own peril, and having broken them and gotten caught, lawbreakers are not really allowed to complain at having been caught. But still. Besides that fact that That Guy probably doesn't deserve Federal levels of incarceration (or even any incarceration, depending on whether he was busted with an eighth of kush instead of an acre of clones), I really don't see the need to spend millions of taxdollars keeping mostly-harmless potsmokers in Federal levels of incarceration.
But what can you do. I like to think that the situation is going to resolve itself with time (which is probably going to mean eventual national legalization, although probably not in my lifetime), and expect that we'll just plod along in the meantime, doing the same stupid shit we've always done. Just like healthcare, pollution control, and the finance industry, I guess we just don't have time for a rational solution.
For me, the only real surprise this held was that anyone was surprised.
He's a career west-coast guy, grew up in pot-country, and went to UW as an undergrad. Besides which, have you seen the guy? Long hair. Squinty eyes. Fairly consistent goofy smile. He reminds me of That Guy from high school. You know; the guy who had been high since the 7th grade? He was probably at your school, too. He got around.
I'm not a huge believer one way or the other on the whole lets-legalize-marijuana thing, much the same way that I'm not a big believer one way or the other about the Jets vs. the Dolphins thing. Both sides have their attractions and selling points. Both sides have more than their fair share of zealous adherents. Both sides sometimes care more about hating the people on the other side than they care about the actual dispute, but I guess that's just human nature. And in the long run, I don't think either side of the argument is as strong as the proponents state. So I understand and accept that people are going to smoke the ganja in pursuit of a good time, and I think that such people should understand and accept that doing so is, in fact, still illegal, and that getting caught having such a good time means a criminal record, fines, and jail time. Or at the very least that the guys who caught you are going to give you a stern talking to, and a warning not to do it again as they confiscate your greenery for their own use.
All that having been said, I do think that the way this country handles the Mary Jane issue is nothing short of idiotic, based primarily on inter-/intra-governmental bullshit.
Generally speaking, enforcement of criminal codes within their jurisdiction is the exclusive purview of the individual states. States are free to make their own laws about personal conduct, and to enforce those laws, and are not bound by standards employed in other jurisdictions. For example: in California, it is possible to legally be a pothead, but you cannot legally purchase most firearms. In contrast, Arizona takes a hard line on the ganja, but you can legally own pretty much any firearm you want. Those states, as is their prerogative, take different stances on those issues, and within their boundaries, set their own laws accordingly, as they see fit.
But then, enter the Federal government. Historically speaking, the Federal government had almost no authority to prosecute criminal activity whatsoever, because the Consitution and Amendments thereto left the Federal government virtually no jurisdiction in which to exercise that authority. The Federal government's job was primarily to regulate trade and interaction between states, NOT within states, and so the primary job of the Fed's law-enforcement arm (the FBI), was to address crimes which crossed state lines: chasing criminals who moved from state to state either in the course of, or in between commissions of, their criminal endeavors.
Of course, history and human nature dictated that the Federal government therefor would be taking the lead in substance control, since their broad, multi-state purview placed on the Federal Government the burden of stopping interstate bootlegging and other smuggling operations. Necessarily so. As a matter of law, local cops cannot follow a criminal over state lines: their authority is limited to laws they enforce, which in turn are limited to the bounds of their own jurisdiction. It takes legal process (extradition) to forcibly move a person from one state to another, since neither state has authority within, or even jointly with, any other state. Cops have no jurisdiction across state lines. The jurisdiction of the Feds, on the other hand, is entered specifically BECAUSE state lines are crossed.
Slippery slopes being what they are, we progressed over the years to where Feds are now prosecuting all sorts of criminal conduct, which - in theory at least - should be the responsibility of individual states. Since the Fed and the states occasionally have different agendas, this leads to conflict. For example: so long as you have the right paperwork filled out and have gained all the right approvals and certifications, you can legally operate a pot plantation in California and under California law. Or Nevada. Or some other states as well. You can grow it, you can smoke it, you can sell it, and local law enforcement will leave you alone, even if they don't have anything else to do. The state - which is the primary doer when it comes to law enforcement - has decreed that so long as formalities are observed and taxes are paid, you are within the bounds of the law.
Of course, should you engage in that sort of behavior (or even substantially less offensive behavior, like smoking a doobie in your living room), your door might be kicked in at any moment by guys with guns coming to arrest you. Because even though California (or Nevada, or where ever) says it's okay, the Federal government says that what you are doing is illegal, and has it's very own branch of law enforcement to get you: the DEA.
So we have an interesting situation: local law says conduct is legal, while national law says that the same conduct is illegal. Federal cops will drag you away, while local cops are offended only insofar as you being busted means they will need to find someone else to buy from. But where the problem really arises is in the operation of the prosecutorial and punitive stages.
The Federal government has courts and prisons completely independent of the states. If you are busted by the DEA, you don't go in front of a state judge and then into a state prison, you go in front of a Federal judge, and into a Federal prison. And the Federal institutions are MILITANT. They were built to deal with serious interstate criminals: kidnappers, bank-robbers, serial killers, major drug traffickers, and so forth. The purview of the Federal criminal system was apprehension of interstate offenders, and interstate offenders tended to be Big Time. The Courts are strict, because they are used to dealing with serious crimes. The prisons are rough, because they are meant for and filled with serious criminals.
Now then. Federal efforts to police relatively minor drug crimes means that this same militant criminal system is being employed on less-than-hardened criminals. Think back to That Guy from high school; the one who had been blazing daily for the last three years, at least. Imagine him thrown into the shark-tank of a Federal prison. Or, more germane to today's discussion, rest assured that even a few grams' possession in front of a Federal judge would have landed Tim Lincecum a bit more than a $622 fine and a speeding ticket.
That's the part that I kind of have a problem with. Don't get me wrong; like I said above, I'm a believer that the laws are the laws, that people break them at their own peril, and having broken them and gotten caught, lawbreakers are not really allowed to complain at having been caught. But still. Besides that fact that That Guy probably doesn't deserve Federal levels of incarceration (or even any incarceration, depending on whether he was busted with an eighth of kush instead of an acre of clones), I really don't see the need to spend millions of taxdollars keeping mostly-harmless potsmokers in Federal levels of incarceration.
But what can you do. I like to think that the situation is going to resolve itself with time (which is probably going to mean eventual national legalization, although probably not in my lifetime), and expect that we'll just plod along in the meantime, doing the same stupid shit we've always done. Just like healthcare, pollution control, and the finance industry, I guess we just don't have time for a rational solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)