Anarchy at Lunch

Today I want to address a critical issue facing our society. I know in the past few days I have focused on fluffy topics. But this is an issue that simply can no longer be ignored. I am talking, of course, about the issue of sandwich usability.

The sandwich as we know it was an 18th century English innovation. The purpose was to provide a meat delivery vehicle. The purpose of the bread is to provide a means by which the innards of the sandwich can reach your mouth without the need for utensils. That’s it. Somewhere along the way, the sandwich makers of the world have conspired to make this, at worst impossible, and at best damned irritating. There are four major offenses I have encountered in the last week:

1.) The Burger Slide: This is typically a burger offense but is often found in a variety of hot sandwiches. However, it is particularly egregious when you are talking about a round beef patty on a round bun. I get a burger with at least 33% of the patty sticking out of one side. The burger is round, the bun is round… how difficult is this geometry? To add insult to injury, there is also a subcategory of the infraction where the cheese is also slid over the top of the patty an additional 33% (often in the same direction as the patty). This forces me to open the bun, and physically, re-position the burger into the center of the bun and then (using a utensil) scoop the cheese back into the center of the burger. Why God? Why?

2.) The Bacon Dilemma: OK, I have this great sandwich with big juicy slices of bacon on it. Mmmm. Sounds good right? Wrong. The two strips of bacon are, I don’t know, maybe a foot long? So what I get is two strips of bacon (often set directly on top of one another) which have at least half of the bacon sticking outside the bread/bun. This forces me to pull apart my delicately assembled sandwich and break the bacon in half and re-apply it evenly to my sandwich so that I get a nice bit of bacon in every bite. Why do I have to reverse engineer my sandwich to enjoy it?

3.) The Bulge: Not quite the opposite of the Burger Slide, the Bulge is typically a deli style sandwich infraction. What happens is, some sandwich artist carefully places a bunch of ingredients all neat and tidy in the middle of the bread. This sounds like a good idea right? I mean, that way you can pick up the sandwich without the delicious ingredients squirting out one side or the other right? Wrong again my friend. Because the last thing this guy does before serving it to you is cut in half. There you go. Now you’ve got two sandwiches with a huge bulge of ingredients on the very edge of the bread just waiting to go squirting out the second you pick it up. What you are left with is 2 giant bites of meat and ¾ of your bread sitting on the plate covered in mustard and mayo, with nothing to go with it. What a waste of condiments.

4.) The Not-a-Sandwich Sandwich: Typically, this problem occurs with your “open-faced hot turkey sandwich”. At least a dozen places I have been to have had this on the menu. You get turkey on top of a slice of bread covered in gravy, with another slice of bread on the side. This is almost universally served as a meal designed to remind us of thanksgiving, so you also get mashed potatoes along with stuffing and, of course, a dinner roll. What the fuck do I need that much starch for? First, this is not a sandwich. Not even close. It is a turkey dinner with gravy and for some reason a piece of soggy gravy-soaked bread underneath it. I am offended by the audacity these people have to even call this a sandwich. I usually end up throwing the extra (dry) slice of bread onto the table (since there is no room on the plate), and then scooping the soggy gravy-bread out from underneath my pile of turkey and piling it up on top of the stuffing. Now I can’t get to my stuffing damn it!

These are just the recent occurrences. There are more I am sure. This menace must be stopped. I am open to suggestions on what we can do as a society to end this barbarism.

36 Reasons to Change Parties

I took the basic platform from the Libertarian Party of MN and edited some of the more irritating points and made them my own. I don't agree with everything the Party says, so I modified these slightly... I think, an improvement. But in a nutshell, this doesn't sound too bad to me.

1. Property Rights: The most basic property one has is one's own body one's own life. If one chooses to use one's life to acquire honestly and peacefully other property by industry, gift or trade, such acquisition represents that part of one's life. Therefore property rights are part of individual rights. Freedom of privacy, speech, press, and religion are conditions of property rights.
2. Protection of Privacy: The individual's privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property except in the case of known criminal activity.
3. Freedom of Speech: Freedom of speech and communication is essential to a free society. Any attempt by government to control communications, whatever the medium, is an attack on freedom of speech. We oppose any attempt by government to regulate film, recording, the Internet, other electronic media, or publishing industries, including the press. We oppose all forms of censorship, including the laws and regulations on pornography, broadcast programming and content, and advertising.
4. Freedom of Expression: We defend the right of individuals to use their own property to express their own beliefs, no matter how repugnant to others; but not to infringe upon the property of others in that expression, no matter how benign the infringement.
5. Freedom of Religion: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. In order to defend religious freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and state. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion.
6. Abortion and Population: We oppose government actions that compel, prohibit, regulate, or subsidize abortion, sterilization or any other forms of birth control. We oppose all coercive measures for population control. We urge the elimination of special tax burdens on single people with few or no children.
7. "Victimless Crime": We hold that any action that does not infringe upon the rights of others cannot properly be termed a crime, therefore we favor the repeal of all federal, state and local laws creating "crimes" without victims. In particular we are opposed to all regulation of activities such as gambling, prostitution, juvenile "status offenses," use or possession of medicines, drugs, drug paraphernalia, vitamins and firearms, and mandatory usage of seat belts and helmets. We call for the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts. The state has no right to proscribe any lifestyle that is freely chosen. We call for an end to state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women.
8. Gambling: Because gambling is a voluntary activity, and therefore a victimless crime, we oppose the government monopoly in or regulation of all forms of gambling.
9. Drugs, Tobacco and Alcohol: Each individual, as sole owner of his or her own body, can morally decide what or what not to put into it. We favor the repeal of all prohibition-type laws against the sale or use of any drug, tobacco or alcohol. However, users of drugs, tobacco and alcohol must be held fully responsible for their actions. We call for an end to the "War on Drugs," which like all previous wars on drugs is in reality a war by the federal, state and local government on the people it is supposed to protect from war. Until such time as the prohibition of drugs is repealed, we call for an end to the denial of pain relieving drugs such as marijuana and heroin to those who are suffering.
10. Children's and Dependents' Rights: Children and others who are dependent have the same right to be free of coercion as all other people. We accordingly call for the repeal of the Juvenile Justice System and all juvenile status offenses such as truancy, under age smoking, curfews, etc. We support the efforts of parents or guardians to protect their dependents from force or fraud.
11. Government and "Mental Health": We support the right of people to the control of their own minds. The involuntary commitment of an individual not convicted of a crime, but merely asserted to be different or incompetent, is a violation of liberty.
12. Secession: We recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right of secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals.
13. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: In recognition of the fact that individuals are their own last source of self-defense, and the fact that arms are property, we support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Minnesota is one of only seven states whose Constitution does not contain the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. We call for an amendment guaranteeing this right.
14. Due Process for the Criminally Accused: We defend the premise of "innocent until proven guilty," therefore we oppose current "no knock" laws, preventative detention, and all similar measures which destroy liberty.
15. Restitution for the Falsely Accused: We support full restitution for all losses suffered by persons arrested, indicted, imprisoned, tried or otherwise injured in the course of criminal proceedings against them that do not result in their conviction or which is later overturned. Funding of restitution will be the responsibility of those persons initiating criminal action against the falsely accused. Because life cannot be restored to a person who is wrongly executed, we oppose the death penalty in all cases.
16. Restitution for Victims of Crimes: We support restitution for the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or wrongdoer. We accordingly oppose "no fault" insurance laws, which deprive the victim of the right to recover damages from those responsible.
17. Juries: We advocate replacing mandatory jury duty with voluntary juries and private arbitration.
18. Freedom of Association: We support the right of individuals to peacefully assemble for any purpose. We oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, such as in employment, housing, education, social clubs, or gatherings and business. The freedom to choose with whom to trade, assemble or associate includes the freedom to choose with whom not to trade, assemble or associate. Therefore, we oppose government laws and policies requiring forced segregation or forced integration.
19. Equal Protection Under the Law: No individual's freedom should be denied or abridged by the laws of the State of Minnesota or any locality on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or sexual preference. Protective labor laws and other laws which violate rights selectively should be repealed entirely rather than be extended to all groups.
20. Native Americans and the State: We deplore the Federal and State governments' continued paternalistic and exploitative policies toward the Native American. We call for the abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which throughout its history has sought forcibly to make Native Americans wards of the State by destroying their individuality and traditional culture. We call for an end to Federal, State, and local interference in the property rights and civil liberties of Native Americans. We call on the State & Federal governments to honor all current treaty obligations.
21. Taxation: We advocate systematically replacing taxation with a contractual means of financing those services of government individuals want. Taxation, the current taking of people's wealth by force and threat of force, is legalized theft and extortion by the government.
22. Subsidies: In order to achieve a free economy in which government victimizes no one for the benefit of anyone else, we oppose all non-voluntary government subsidies, special interest laws, tariffs or quotas for anyone for any reason.
23. Employment and Licensing: We seek the elimination of protectionist occupation licensing and mandatory certification laws, which prevent individuals from working in whatever trade they wish. We advocate privatizing the current Government Licensing Bureaucracies, removing their monopoly status, and letting them compete in the free market.
24. Welfare, Poverty and Unemployment: We advocate replacing the current counter-productive political welfare system with private charitable efforts. We advocate a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for all charitable contributions. Welfare and unemployment programs appease those whom government has oppressed, and keeps them dependent. Free markets typically generate more jobs than there are job seekers.
25. Unions and Collective Bargaining: We support the right of free persons voluntarily to establish, associate in, or not associate in labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration and right to work laws. Strikes or boycotts do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers, or anyone's property.
26. Consumer Protection: We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. However, we oppose paternalistic government regulations that dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict risk-taking and free choice.
27. Right to Die: Because all individuals should have full responsibility and control over their own lives, anyone, including terminally or hopelessly ill persons should have the right to die at the time and place and under the conditions of their own choosing. In keeping with the principle of non-coercion, no individual shall be forced either to continue or terminate life sustaining care.
28. Freedom of Marriage: We hold that unions between adults are a private matter, and should not be the subject of government licensing, regardless of sex. We call for the State of Minnesota to not restrict or give preferential treatment to private contracts between adults.
29. Pollution: Pollution of other people's property is wrong. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary standards, should regulate pollution. We advocate repeal of the laws that prevent full ownership of the air and water above and below land, thus denying individuals protection under the law against polluters. Private property rights must replace public property. We advocate the repeal of Sovereign Immunity laws, which protect those in charge of government property, utilities and military installations from the personal liability of pollution.
30. Public Entertainment Facilities: We advocate a free market in entertainment; accordingly we call for the privatization and deregulation of all government ownership, financing or involvement in stadiums, fairs, malls, convention centers, racetracks, etc.
31. Education: In order to achieve the best possible opportunity of education we advocate bringing the positive benefits of competition to the monopolistic government schools. As an interim measure we advocate tax credits for any individual or business sponsoring a person's education, equal to the amount of that assistance. We also support open enrollment and the expansion of Minnesota's charter school program which allows parents, students and educators to independently set up semi-autonomous schools operating under reduced public authority.
32. Campaign Laws: We call for the repeal of restrictive state laws that effectively prevent new parties and independent candidates from being on the ballot. We urge the repeal of federal and state campaign finance laws, which repress the voluntary support of candidates and parties, compel taxpayers to subsidize politicians and political views they do not wish to support, and entrench the two major political parties.
33. None of the Above: We propose the addition of the alternative "none of the above is acceptable" to all ballots. In the event that "none of the above" wins, the elective office for that term will remain unfilled and unfunded.
34. Government Accounting Practices: We support requiring government to follow generally accepted accounting principles and require the elimination of off-budget items.
35. Rotation of Legislative Committee Chairs: We support requiring the rotation of committee chairpersons and limiting their chairship to four years.
36. Foreign Policy: The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments. We call for a non-interventionist foreign policy of avoiding entangling alliances, quarrels and treaties, and recognizing the right to unrestricted travel, trade and immigration.

End of the World Moment #1

This will likely become a series on this blog. Things I see or hear that are proof the world is coming to an end. Last night I was talking to some random bar patron -- outside having a smoke discussing the inconvenience of the smoking ban. The smoking ban is another subject for which I will need to devote an entire section of this blog. Back to the point though, the conversation went something like this:

Idiot: "Sucks to have to smoke outside huh?"

Me: "Well yes it does."

Idiot: "But ya know, then I guess I’ll smoke less so that’s good."

Me: "I would prefer to make that decision myself rather than be socially engineered into it."

Idiot: "Well, I don’t always make the right decisions, so maybe it’s just better if someone makes them for me."

Me: "I think I’ll go slam my testicles in the door of my car now in order to mitigate the pain your comment just caused me."

OK, I didn't say that last comment out-loud, but I sure as hell thought it. Let’s think this through for a minute. This is a grown man who presumably has a job and supports himself. He may even have children (God forbid). What has happened to this man that makes him so willing, even eager, to throw away the very concept of personal choice? What series of life altering events made him think that it’s better to just have other people make decisions for him because he is too stupid or too afraid to do it himself? I have some theories.

I wrote a whole laundry list of sociological implications and ideas surrounding a series of theories I was considering. After re-reading them however, it occurred to me that the problems here are self evident. I’ll not insult the reader by trying to explain them. Let me just leave you with this to chew on once more, just mull this over until the aneurysm kicks in:

"Well, I don’t always make the right decisions, so maybe it’s just better if someone makes them for me"

‘nuff said.

It's All Our Fault

I want to expand on something I touched on in the previous post regarding the current war(s) in which we find ourselves. When someone presents an argument that clearly and definitively makes a strong case for the invasion of Iraq, or the reasons for 9/11 (great, now I am linking the two) the knee-jerk response is: “It’s our own fault. We armed Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA created a radicalized Iran, our unholy alliance with Saudi Arabia has served to fund radical Islamic terrorists around the globe… blah blah blah.”

OK. Fine. Yes. True. Agreed.

Do you remember when all that shit happened? There was this little thing called the Cold War going on. We were busy trying to keep England from becoming the "smallest fucking province in the Russian empire.” That meant being everywhere they were and hampering the enemy in any way possible. That’s what a war is, hot or cold.

You never hear these same people say that creation of Israel after WW II is the cause of unrest in the Middle East. Well maybe you do, but you shouldn't. We had just witnessed the Holocaust, where 9-11 million Jews were exterminated. So yeah, we gave them a little strip of land they could call home. Did it make sense, were we thinking long term? Of course not. We had just dropped a couple of atomic bombs on Japan. We were thinking big, we were using a broadsword not a scalpel.

No offense, but a full theater nuclear war with the Soviet Union would’ve made the Holocaust look like a food fight. So yes, we harassed and hampered the Soviet Union wherever they existed; we pressured their spheres of influence and undermined their alliances at every turn. The long-term consequences were not, and frankly, could not be considered. The immediate stakes were too high.

As a consequence, yes, we now have to deal with it. As usual in the post WW II world, we (the U.S.) are the ones who have to try to fix it. That’s our job as the dominate world power. "You break it, you buy it".

So yes, we armed Iraq and Afghanistan, the CIA radicalized Iran and we created radical Islamic terrorists around the globe. But the next time you hear someone talking about how this is our fault in the first place, try to inject some context into the dialogue. My suggestion is to explain, in detail, what a MIRV is.

Red Storm Re-Rising

So I am re-reading Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. OK, sure it’s Tom Clancy (bust out your holier than thou literary critique and get it out of the way). I like Tom Clancy; his books are like trashy romance novels for men. But I digress. If you don’t know the story, it goes something like this:

- Arab terrorists blow up a Soviet oil refinery
- Soviets decide to invade the Middle East to get more oil
- NATO must stop them
- World War III ensues

Now there are some interesting parallels in the story to our current situation in the world… except not as absurd.

- Arab terrorists blow up American buildings
- Americans decide to invade the Middle East to get even
- The rest of world can’t stop them
- World War III ensues (pending)

This book was published in 1986, one full year after Rocky defeated communism. This was back before Ronald Reagan personally dismantled the Berlin Wall brick by brick with his bare hands. If you don’t remember these heady days of nuclear détente and MAD -- not to be confused with MADD (Mothers Against Everything) – this is back when we were on the brink of thermonuclear annihilation. The shit we were dealing with then made global climate change look like a day at the beach without an umbrella. Back then, worrying about “climate change” was like putting on sunscreen while being attacked by wild dogs and killer bees. You’ve got more immediate issues you should be focusing on.

With all that going on, the stories had to be larger than life. We needed good guys and bad guys. It needed to be simple. The complexities of political brinksmanship were too terrifying to contemplate. So in our fiction, we needed to identify the bad guy, kill him and live safely ever after. It was the purpose of fiction to provide that simple release.

In other words, our reality was terrifying and our fiction simple. Fast forward 20 years and what do we have? Reality that’s simple and fiction that is terrifying. Naturally, our reaction (at least that of our government) has been to simplify reality and scare the hell out of us. It’s not our fiction that is simplifying life into good guys and bad guys, it’s the Army. Find the bad guy, kill him and we’ll all be safe.

Ever get the sense that we are totally fucked?

Welcome to this Web log.

I was going to create a professional blog with all sorts of digital media insights. Then I realized how lame that was. So instead, I submit to you my personal diatribes, digressions and distractions. I suspect as this evolves it will largely consist of me complaining. It’s way easier than being constructive.

Cheers.