They were avoiding the kid like he was a leper.
Do-rag, black t-shirt, shorts pulled down below his butt cheeks to show off his boxers, blasting rap out of his cell phone, no headphones attached. Chubby guy, maybe twenty years old, with a dumb expression on his face, oblivious to all the dirty looks he was getting as people peeked up over their newspapers.
You're not allowed to listen to music on the Metro without headphones. If I were a cop I probably could have issued a citation. But all I could do was talk:
"Excuse me, would you mind putting on some headphones?" I asked.
"Don't got none," he replied.
"Then would you mind turning off the music?"
"Why don't you come over here and make me?"
I totally could have taken this idiot. I've been fantasizing all day about teeth coming loose from his bleeding mouth. I really wanted to put him in his place. You shouldn't just be able to break the law with impunity, annoy everyone around you, and then be a prick when someone asks you to stop. And then when you invite someone to a fight, he should be legally allowed to kick your ass.
But instead we exchanged unpleasantries and I got off the train, walked ten feet to the door on the next car down, and got back on.
And that's why I've never said anything to these idiots before. I always plan it out in my mind, and I abort the operation because I have no "nuclear option" at my disposal. I can talk, and I can leave, or I can suffer through, but ultimately I have no control over whether the music stops.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Paving the way to legalization of religious persecution
The Senate approved the latest defense spending bill. And the Democrats threw in an unrelated rider: The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. The MSHCA widens hate crimes to include crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation.
I believe that no crimes should be committed against anyone. I believe that people should not hate other people, and that they should not act out of hate. But I oppose the MSHCA for four reasons:
1. The MSHCA is entirely unrelated to defense spending and should therefore be presented as a separate bill and given an up-or-down vote based on its own merits. As it stands, the Democrats just wanted to attach controversial legislation to a must-pass bill. The MSHCA failed the four previous times that it was proposed.
2. The MSHCA gives special victim status to homosexuals, making crimes targeting homosexuals (as in all hate crimes) a more grievous offense carrying a harsher penalty. If we believe in equality under the law, then we need to erase hate crimes from our laws because hate crime legislation makes some victims more important than other victims. The bill also authorizes federal funds to assist in the prosecution of hate crimes--once again creating a special class of victims who get federal assistance while other victims go unaided.
3. The MSHCA opens the door to controlling religious thought and speech. As of yet, the MSHCA only prohibits speech that would incite violence against homosexuals--but that type of speech is already prohibited. You're not allowed to incite violence against anyone. The only reason why you would need to specifically single out homosexuals here is to set a precedent for later expansion of definitions of prohibited speech.
4. The MSHCA is just one more example of the federal government overstepping its constitutionally defined limits. I can at least understand the context in which original hate crime legislation passed--when some states unabashedly miscarried justice for minorities, forcing the federal government to interfere. But when we don't have an emergency requiring federal involvement, the federal government should stay out, and we should repeal the emergency provisions that allowed the feds to overstep their bounds in the past.
I believe that no crimes should be committed against anyone. I believe that people should not hate other people, and that they should not act out of hate. But I oppose the MSHCA for four reasons:
1. The MSHCA is entirely unrelated to defense spending and should therefore be presented as a separate bill and given an up-or-down vote based on its own merits. As it stands, the Democrats just wanted to attach controversial legislation to a must-pass bill. The MSHCA failed the four previous times that it was proposed.
2. The MSHCA gives special victim status to homosexuals, making crimes targeting homosexuals (as in all hate crimes) a more grievous offense carrying a harsher penalty. If we believe in equality under the law, then we need to erase hate crimes from our laws because hate crime legislation makes some victims more important than other victims. The bill also authorizes federal funds to assist in the prosecution of hate crimes--once again creating a special class of victims who get federal assistance while other victims go unaided.
3. The MSHCA opens the door to controlling religious thought and speech. As of yet, the MSHCA only prohibits speech that would incite violence against homosexuals--but that type of speech is already prohibited. You're not allowed to incite violence against anyone. The only reason why you would need to specifically single out homosexuals here is to set a precedent for later expansion of definitions of prohibited speech.
4. The MSHCA is just one more example of the federal government overstepping its constitutionally defined limits. I can at least understand the context in which original hate crime legislation passed--when some states unabashedly miscarried justice for minorities, forcing the federal government to interfere. But when we don't have an emergency requiring federal involvement, the federal government should stay out, and we should repeal the emergency provisions that allowed the feds to overstep their bounds in the past.
Friday, November 21, 2008
NY Times Review of Twilight
I haven't followed the books. Before today I had no reason at all to care about Twilight. But then I read the New York Times review and I think I need to take a stand, even before having seen the film.
Basically, the Times insulted my sense of morality. It started like this: Vampires kill people and suck their blood, but really it's all a metaphor for having sex. The vampire is probably conflicted, doesn't want to suck blood, but he feels an uncontrollable urge, and eventually he gives in. So if drinking blood is like having sex, then Twilight is the vampire movie for the chastity crowd.
OK. Simple enough. (And as I explained this to Hilary, she said, "Well yeah, the vampire's a vegetarian." Oh. Is the metaphor really that well understood? I had never thought about it. And plus, she tells me that the author is LDS. Oh. Am I really that disconnected?) But then the reviewer said that the movie was totally lacking precisely because the vampire doesn't kill the girl or have sex with her.
The reviewer didn't use those exact words, but that's what she was saying. She was saying, "Teenagers have sex. That's what teenagers do. Why make a movie about teenagers who don't have sex?"
Maybe I'm putting words in her mouth, but I really think that's the message she was trying to convey. Maybe one of you can tell me what you think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/movies/21twil.html
Basically, the Times insulted my sense of morality. It started like this: Vampires kill people and suck their blood, but really it's all a metaphor for having sex. The vampire is probably conflicted, doesn't want to suck blood, but he feels an uncontrollable urge, and eventually he gives in. So if drinking blood is like having sex, then Twilight is the vampire movie for the chastity crowd.
OK. Simple enough. (And as I explained this to Hilary, she said, "Well yeah, the vampire's a vegetarian." Oh. Is the metaphor really that well understood? I had never thought about it. And plus, she tells me that the author is LDS. Oh. Am I really that disconnected?) But then the reviewer said that the movie was totally lacking precisely because the vampire doesn't kill the girl or have sex with her.
The reviewer didn't use those exact words, but that's what she was saying. She was saying, "Teenagers have sex. That's what teenagers do. Why make a movie about teenagers who don't have sex?"
Maybe I'm putting words in her mouth, but I really think that's the message she was trying to convey. Maybe one of you can tell me what you think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/movies/21twil.html
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Reading, reading, reading
I must have the most boring pleasure-reading menu on the planet. The last several books I've read have all been non-fiction:
The Omnivore's Dilemma
Boys Adrift
The Siege of Mecca
Class 11
(Plus a bone-dry 800+ page textbook)
And you know what? I've read all of those in the last 3 months. And in addition to those, I read The Fist of God, which is fiction set during the first Gulf War. And that's all in addition to what I have to read at work and the newspaper that I read every morning.
I've never been an avid reader. I can't even remember reading an entire book in college--mostly I got by just taking notes during lectures and divvying up assignments in study groups.
The only reason why I'm reading so much now is that I have a total of 3 hours on the Metro each day. But why am I drawn to non-fiction? I wonder if I'll keep reading when I move out to Herndon.
The Omnivore's Dilemma
Boys Adrift
The Siege of Mecca
Class 11
(Plus a bone-dry 800+ page textbook)
And you know what? I've read all of those in the last 3 months. And in addition to those, I read The Fist of God, which is fiction set during the first Gulf War. And that's all in addition to what I have to read at work and the newspaper that I read every morning.
I've never been an avid reader. I can't even remember reading an entire book in college--mostly I got by just taking notes during lectures and divvying up assignments in study groups.
The only reason why I'm reading so much now is that I have a total of 3 hours on the Metro each day. But why am I drawn to non-fiction? I wonder if I'll keep reading when I move out to Herndon.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Latest Issue of the Washingtonian
The newest issue is now out on shelves. My story is on the last page. I took a few copies of the magazine to church and everyone was very excited to see the article. And Matthew the photographer was nice enough to put up some extra pictures for us.
http://www.matthewworden.com/Nate/
...Unfortunately, it looks like that link is no longer valid. I hope you all got the pictures you wanted.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Mayumi Aziza Ayer
Born on 24 May 2008, 6 pounds 9.5 ounces, 21 inches long.
Hil had been having contractions pretty regularly since Thursday. And then she was up all Friday night timing her contractions. I tried to be supportive, but I fell asleep sometime after midnight. (Sorry! But she also slept a little...) In the morning she called Dr. Samman who told us to come in.
We arrived at the hospital at 7:30 AM and Mayumi was born at 3:01 PM.
Mommy and Baby are doing fine. They'll be coming home tomorrow. Look for updates soon.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Published again and flying a kite
A couple entries ago I wrote about some self-defence lessons with the youth, and that piece is being published in the Washingtonian. At least, that's what editor Bill O'Sullivan told me yesterday. It will be in the First Person column on the last page of the magazine, probably next month. I'll let you know when I see it.
Maybe if I'm going to try getting something published, I shouldn't post it on a blog until after I get paid for it...
On Saturday Hil and I finally went out to try that kite I built for her.
The day started off at the graduation ceremony for the Unified Services University of Health Science. Our friend Mason, a lieutenant in the Navy, was graduating from medical school. Glo later met us on the Mall with the kite. She said that on two separate occasions, kids had approached her and told her it was a cool kite.
It's a box kite, 3 feet tall, 9 inches wide and deep. I built it by hand from 1/8" dowels and wood glue. The panels and tail are polyester and hand sewn. The string is plain old package-wrapping string. The kite ended up being quite sturdy, but I was afraid it was too heavy to fly.
But as I stood on the National Mall holding onto the kite, a sudden gust of wind pulled the kite from my hands, and the kite hovered at eye level. I ran out the string and the kite rose so fast that the string burned my fingers.
The kite flew amazingly well. It required no effort at all to get it aloft--you just had to hold it at arm's length until the wind picked up, and then it rose on its own. Once it gained altitude, it could spin in tight circles or figure-eights with a slight pull on the string. It was very nimble for such a bulky kite. I was worried that maybe the design was unstable--I thought that box kites were supposed to just kind of float instead of perform acrobatics.
We were the only kite-flyers on that stretch of Mall and a few times small crowds would form and watch the kite.
Happy birthday Hil.
Maybe if I'm going to try getting something published, I shouldn't post it on a blog until after I get paid for it...
On Saturday Hil and I finally went out to try that kite I built for her.
The day started off at the graduation ceremony for the Unified Services University of Health Science. Our friend Mason, a lieutenant in the Navy, was graduating from medical school. Glo later met us on the Mall with the kite. She said that on two separate occasions, kids had approached her and told her it was a cool kite.
It's a box kite, 3 feet tall, 9 inches wide and deep. I built it by hand from 1/8" dowels and wood glue. The panels and tail are polyester and hand sewn. The string is plain old package-wrapping string. The kite ended up being quite sturdy, but I was afraid it was too heavy to fly.
But as I stood on the National Mall holding onto the kite, a sudden gust of wind pulled the kite from my hands, and the kite hovered at eye level. I ran out the string and the kite rose so fast that the string burned my fingers.
The kite flew amazingly well. It required no effort at all to get it aloft--you just had to hold it at arm's length until the wind picked up, and then it rose on its own. Once it gained altitude, it could spin in tight circles or figure-eights with a slight pull on the string. It was very nimble for such a bulky kite. I was worried that maybe the design was unstable--I thought that box kites were supposed to just kind of float instead of perform acrobatics.
We were the only kite-flyers on that stretch of Mall and a few times small crowds would form and watch the kite.
Happy birthday Hil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)