Monday, August 16, 2010

MIA

Multiple Interesting Articles, that is - in the Sunday Post.

One, for example -- relative to whether one should have the right to carry a concealed weapon, does it matter if you knew the person whom you shot at after they broke into your home, and then lied about knowing them? In this case, a fellow fought off an intruder from his rural Maryland home. The intruder attempted to seize a shotgun that the fellow had, but was unsuccessful. The fellow then requested and received a permit to carry a concealed weapon as a result of that break-in, because he appeared to be in imminent danger. That sort-of makes sense to me. Rural, break-in -- yeah, okay. When he recently attempted to renew the permit, though, it was denied on the grounds that he was no longer in apparent danger. So, was that a correct decision? I think it was. Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects disagree. The fellow says that you don't have to prove need to get a driver's license, so why should you have to prove a need to get a gun permit. I think he's a little unclear on the concept of licenses, n'est pas?

Oh, and that intruder that the fellow didn't recognize? His son-in-law. As to whether it matters that he did know the intruder -- I can't see how, other than, perhaps, making him appear willing to pick and choose when he tells the truth.

Another was the On Leadership opinion piece concerning the forcing-out of the HP CEO. It poses this sterling question: "In forcing out successful chief executive Mark Hurd, did Hewlett-Packard directors overreact to what, given his overall compensation, appears to be a modest abuse of his expense account?" I read that to my wife, who was rendered speechless. Apparently, the concept is that when you break company rules, the offense should be offset by how much money you have. Sounds fairly Republican to me -- I can see John Bohner et al signing right up for it.

And an article about a marvelous new bakery which has opened up in a small Cape Cod town left me, once again, glum about the area in which I live. We're a backwater, no doubt about it. There are deeper backwaters in the area, but still... reminds me of our XG's reaction when we offered her some croissants from the local store. Talk about dismay.....

3 comments:

STAG said...

The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.

Those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will end up with neither.

Cerulean Bill said...

Black and white statements are inevitably wrong.

STAG said...

Oh well...not my problem. I am happy to live under the fascist tyranny of the Canadian political system. No five day waiting period, no restrictions other than to register my guns with my wife and the RCMP. No fox news putting the fear into the folks down home.

I note that both quotes (above) were spat out by folks that were writing books about throwin' off the yoke of tyrany and one was a founding father of your country. Maybe, like many politicians, they were merely exaggerating for effect.