Here’s my result:
About what I expected.
Category: Uncategorized
More on Atlas Shrugged
As I noted here I have started reading Ayn Rand’s seminal work, Atlas Shrugged, a book that at least one survey deterimined was the most important book after the Bible to a good number of people.
Normally I’m a voracious reader, and I read quite quickly.
No offense to people who love this book, but IMHO it’s dreck. Her characters are cardboard cutouts with psychoses for personalities – all of them. Her prose is stilted, repetative, and bombastic. Her world-model has all the intricacy and detail of a Leggo construction, but less color. And the BIG Leggo blocks, not the little ones. I’m not a third of the way in, and it’s almost painful to read. Dagny and Reardon have (in the modern vernacular) “hooked up” and they’re so dysfunctional that I keep expecting Francisco to show up in leather and dominate them both. Methinks Rand had some pretty severe issues with sex.
Her essays are interesting, though her style even there is heavy. (Struggle through The Comprachicos some time. I think her analysis is correct, and a few decades after she wrote it we’re paying the cost of what she accurately described, but a stylish and engaging writer she was not.) I give her the benefit of the doubt because English was not her native language, but this manifesto badly camoflaged as a novel is almost more than I can deal with. I have been promised that it will improve, but there’s this thing called “suspension of disbelief” and it requires better writing than Ms. Rand seems capable of. If I haven’t suspended disbelief by now you can bet your a** I’m not going to.
I’m going to slog to the finish, I’ll read all the essays she writes as dialog and cringe at the relationships between the pricipals, but I doubt that I’ll enjoy the experience as so many others seem to have.
(I wonder if this will result in hate-mail?)
UPDATE: As of August 8, 2013 due to the herculean efforts of reader John Hardin, the original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post is now available (for reading only) here.
Our Collapsing Schools Dept.:
This news is from Canada, but it’s an idea that I think is probably a good one: Hamilton school to offer single-sex classrooms
Learning improves when boys, girls are separated, studies say
An Ontario school is giving parents an option rarely offered in the public school system — all-girl and all-boy classes.
Starting in the fall, parents of Grades 7 and Grade 8 students at Cecil B. Stirling School in Hamilton will have the choice of keeping their children in a co-ed classroom or moving them into single-sex classes, which have traditionally been limited to private schools.
The program taps a growing body of research that suggests boys and girls learn differently and benefit from being separated, particularly in such key subjects as mathematics, reading and writing.
Teachers used to worry about girls falling behind in science and math but the concern has now switched to boys.
There’s more, go read the rest.
I think that there’s a lot wrong in the school systems here that single-sex classrooms aren’t going to affect, but any effort to actually improve things is welcome. I’ve become convinced that the destruction wrought on our schools cannot have been an accident – at least not completely.
On a Lighter Note
There’s nothing that can’t be fixed with the proper application of a little high-explosive, I always say.
Artist is David Jacobson, Journal-News, NY.
Oh, so THAT Explains It!
Then There’s This:
Isn’t THAT the truth.
Artist is Chuck Asay, again, from the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Rand Simberg Weighs in on the O’Reilly Controversy
I can’t compete with that. Go read it. Now.
(Nod to the Blogfather for the link. Who else?)
Another Opportunity for Free Enterprise and the Internet
JoinTogether.org continues to be an unending font of material for me. In this piece they report that More Newspapers Banning Gun Classifieds. This happened here in Tucson a couple of years ago. The result? UsedGunsTucson.com (currently defunct as of 2017), a web-based classified system for people buying and selling their firearms privately. At no cost, mind you. This guy runs the site on his own dime. And I’ve used it. It works quite well.
I hope others establish sites like this to replace their newspaper classifieds.
“…they know [guns] are trouble and anytime there is one around, someone is going to get hurt.”
That quote from this San Francisco Bay Guardian column on the local chapter of the Pink Pistols who are trying to get San Francisco’s CCW permit process changed. According to the article there are only “five permits issued to non-law enforcement personnel in the city.” Five. And you can bet they’re either celebrities or government officials. Mere peons need not apply. And, of course, the header of the section on this push is entitled “Licensed to kill”.
Here’s the whole quote:
“This is an antigun city, and I’m proud to say that our District Attorney’s Office has the highest gun-prosecution rate of any county in the state,” District Attorney Terence Hallinan said. “San Franciscans don’t like guns; they know [guns] are trouble and anytime there is one around, someone is going to get hurt.”
Yeah, all those armed police officers sure are dangerous.
The article does get in this excellent zinger:
In California it’s up to the discretion of the chief law enforcement agency in each county to grant a CCW permit. Evidently Marin County is lenient about CCW permits, as it issued one to actor and resident Sean Penn, who recently made the news when his car was stolen, along with two of his handguns, when he was in Berkeley. It is no secret that Penn has been convicted of assault and domestic violence, a history that would normally disqualify any applicant from permission to carry a concealed weapon.
But he’s not a peon – he’s one of the priviledged class.
And, of course, there’s this inevitable question that comes up every time “shall-issue” is mentioned:
What would be the implications if more people were issued CCW permits in San Francisco? Would there be shoot-outs over parking spaces and taxis? Would queer bashing decrease but homicides by queers increase? Will there be a day when you’ll have to check your gun at the bar, like in San Francisco of 150 years ago?
At least the author answers that question – “Not likely” he says.
I Think He’ll be Charged with “Assault with a Deadly Weapon.”
Nod to Acidman for the pointer.
Business Owner Chases, Runs Over Robbery Suspects In Hummer
A business owner in Phoenix, Arizona took matters into his own hands after a group of men robbed his business, according to a Local 6 News report.
Police say three armed suspects walked into the Mr. Insurance building in Phoenix and demanded money. A fourth suspect was in the getaway car, according to the report.
Investigators said after the suspects left with the store’s money, the co-owner jumped into his Hummer and chased after the suspects.
Police said that the man, identified only as Peter, followed the suspects through a neighborhood and eventually caught up with them. He then rolled his Hummer over their car.
Two of the suspects were taken to the hospital in critical condition.
The two other suspects managed to get away but police later caught them as well.
I don’t think he can claim self-defense here. The attached poll is running 85% against charging him, though. I’d like to be on that grand jury.
Man, the Hummer did a job on that car.
You can bet it wasn’t an H2.
Just Googling Around, and I Find This:
From the Timberjay News in Minnesota, comes this little op-ed (I don’t know how long the link will be valid – I suspect only one day) entitled: “Public’s fear the biggest issue with concealed carry law”
Why, yes indeed, that is the biggest issue. And that fear is well fed by the gun-phobic groups and by the media. But the part of the editorial that really grabbed my attention was this:
Whether they are used or not, guns are intimidating to many people – and with good reason. Police officers carry guns and most never use them. But the presence of the gun is a reminder to the public that they have the ability to use deadly force if needed – and the intimidation factor that provides gives police officers an upper hand over the rest of us.
That’s quite correct – government is essentially exercised through the threat of force against its citizenry. But it continues:
That’s acceptable when they are highly trained and their job is to enforce the law and keep the peace. But statewide polls have already demonstrated that the idea of the average Joe walking around with the same intimidating firearms isn’t appealing to most Minnesotans.
And why is that? Because most people have been taught that defending yourself isn’t your job – it’s the job of the state. You aren’t “highly trained” or qualified to do that job. Leave it to the experts. The column continues, though, with this:
Are such fears irrational? Perhaps. The data is far from clear on the point, despite the rhetoric of supporters.
The data is far from clear??? We’ve got data from 35 states dating back years that proves “such fears irrational.”
The piece concludes:
In the end, this debate isn’t really about guns—it’s about fear and public perception. And as public officials and polls around the state have been stating loudly and clearly, this new law will make more Minnesotans feel fearful, while offering an ineffective security blanket to a very small minority. Some of that fear will likely dissipate over time. Five years from now, many people will probably have forgotten about this and moved on to worry about something else. And as one letter writer pointed out, most people will stop carrying guns once the novelty wears off and they realize it’s mostly just an unnecessary burden.
But for now, it has increased the public’s fear in Minnesota, whether justified or not. Does that serve the overall public good? It’s hard to argue that it does.
If the strongest argument you can make against concealed carry is that it inspires a little temporary fear in the brainwashed populace, then please explain to me why fifteen states still don’t offer “shall-issue” – ’cause that’s a piss-poor excuse.