Favorite Priest Joke

A priest is walking down the street when he sees a child throwing a temper tantrum while his mother tries desperately to calm him. The priest asks the boy's mother if he can say a few words to the child. The mother agrees and the priest whispers something into the child's ear. Immediately, the boy becomes silent. 

The mother is shocked. She asks the priest what he told the child to make his quiet down. The priest replies, "I told him that if he didn't shut the hell up I'd kick his fucking ass to the moon."

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=22052&page=2

Just some personal notes on rights and firearms

the question posed, why not have the government confiscate everything that's bad for us such as potential poisons? Poisoning deaths for 2010 according to the CDC: 42,917. Motor Vehicle Traffic: 33,687 Firearm: 31,672 Poisonings > Motor Vehicle Deaths > Firearm Deaths Argument as put forward, because more people die from poisonings and motor vehicle deaths, and because we don't regulate poisons (though we do regulate poisons to some extent but apparently not enough), and because cars kill more people than guns, guns should not be regulated. That's one style of argument. One counter is that, as relates to poisons, it is difficult to predict how and when a poisoning will occur. Chemicals, poisons, are not intended to be ingested. Some people might use them for suicide. Motor vehicles are tied strongly to one's livelihood, so although cars are dangerous, they're so necessary for commerce and for society as a whole to function that banning their use would produce great injury on the society as a whole. Guns are designed to kill (this is arguable I suppose, i.e. skeet shooting). A gun, even when accidentally fired, fulfills its purpose when someone is killed through its use (this is too narrow). However, when compared to the amount of disruption a restriction of firearms would produce on the daily functioning of a society, a restriction (not ban) on guns shouldn't likely produce too much discomfort and interruption. < Guns are not poison (or chemicals). Guns are not motor vehicles. > Therefore if a society can at least reduce the mayhem produced by one of these sources, the objective outcome would be considered desirable. There are over 31k people killed by guns every year. If placing restrictions on their access can reduce this number, then why not? Probably because some consider it an abridging of freedom and rights. But is it not the case that we as a society concede that absolute freedom results in social instability? Perhaps. Therefore to advance social stability and security, some rights must be given up wholly or at least selectively and intelligently. Retrieved: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf Accessed: 09-27-2013

New Year's Eve 2012, Armageddon?

It's an unseasonal warm afternoon in Claremont, California. The sunlight is as clear as on any summer's day. The air is still, rich, and warm. The sound of the cars passing on the freeway is indistinguishable from the sound of rustling leaves. A crow in fight caws.

The apartment is a little dusty.

Tomorrow is 2012 and I'm pretty sure that humanity will endure long enough to see January 2 without catastrophic incident. I'm not worried. If the world is poised to eat itself in 2012 then it's because the universe wills it. People are hardly in a position to bend space-time, so there's isn't much to be done about it. And that's fine.

Back to work on Tuesday.