The Marketing of the "Mac"

Let's get something straight. There is no Mac-PC debate.

Some might read this with confusion. After all, if they're like me, they remember these commercials from way back when:

Of course, these commercials are just that: commercials. They're designed to sell a product. Like most commercials, they are extraordinarily misleading.

The first thing you have to understand about the "Mac vs. PC" debate is that what most people call a "Mac" is a PC. PC simply stands for "personal computer." Desktops, laptops, and even all-in-ones can be considered PCs.

So what makes a "Mac" different? This is where the second important distinction comes in. Mac actually isn't a computer brand. Mac is an Operating System.

In case you're lost, let's take a step back. A prebuilt, commercial computer is created by something called the OEM, or Original Equipment Manufacturer. Dell, HP, Toshiba, Apple, and Acer are all examples of OEMs. This is simply the company which builds the physical computer from parts.

Mac is an Operating System, or OS. This is simply the software that goes on the computer. Windows is also an Operating System. Windows is perfectly capable of running on a computer manufactured by Apple, just as Mac is capable of running (albeit illegally) on a computer built by Dell or Toshiba. This is because computers all utilize the same basic parts. What software you load on it only changes how you interact with these parts.

So what makes an Apple computer (colloquially or incorrectly called a "Mac" by some) different than a Dell or Toshiba computer? Apple tightly controls distribution of its OS, so that it can only be run (legally) on Apple built computers. Microsoft, however, sells its OS (now generally Windows 8) to any OEM, or maker of computers. This is the primary reason why Windows is run on most personal computers.

So what do all these acronyms boil down to? Essentially this: an Apple computer has the same parts as you would find in a Toshiba or Dell. The only difference is the casing the computer comes in and the OS. That's it. When people refer to the "Mac-PC" debate, they actually mean the Mac-Windows debate. Apple builds PCs too, but by loading a different OS and pretending they somehow sell a different product, they create a clear, if false, distinction between their product and everyone else's. In reality, there is a massive difference between a $2,000 Toshiba and a $400 Dell. However, they both run Windows, and by tricking people into thinking that the two computers, which will perform at vastly different speeds, are the same by linking the computer to the OS, Apple can claim that all "PCs" are slow, based on the performance of lower-end computers, with which most people are familiar.

Of course, most people do have trouble with Windows, and there's two reasons for that. The first is what we in IT call PEBCAK. Windows is a very open OS which allows for a huge amount of tweaking. If you don't know what you're doing, you can and will fuck it up. The second reason is that Windows is prone to virus and malware attacks. While Apple likes to claim that this is due to the inherent superiority of their OS, the truth is that most crackers won't bother writing malware for Mac OS, because most people are running Windows. Yes, a UNIX based OS (like Mac OS) will be more resistant to viruses and other forms of harmful software, but if the market shares were reversed, Windows would be virtually virus-free.

So are there differences between "Macs" and "PCs" as the average user understands them? Yes. Are those differences as black and white as Apple would have them believe? Not even close.

I've used my fair share of OSes. I've used XP, Vista, Win7, Win8, Lion, Mountain Lion, Ubuntu, and Fedora. They're all good for different things. My personal PC runs Windows 7, Windows 8, and Ubuntu. It's faster than any Apple computer in existence and has never had a virus. That's because the parts are way way more powerful than anything Apple puts in their machines and I keep my copies of Windows extremely secure. (Oh, and did I mention that my rig will smoke a Macbook Pro in every benchmark and cost the exact same price to put together?)

The Mac-PC debate is a debate of marketing, not reality. Mac OS X is a phenomenal operating system. But so is Windows 8. Neither is inherently "faster" or "better." I use Windows 7 for gaming, but prefer Mountain Lion for everyday browsing (though since installing Win8, that's definitely changed, let me tell you). Those familiar with computers generally won't pick a "side" because there's no side to pick. You don't debate about whether a pickup or a Ferrari is better because they're completely different vehicles built for completely different purposes. Militant Windows or Mac fanboys are looked down upon in the power user community because they're arguing about distinctions that don't really exist. Computers running Mac OS can be just as slow as computers running Windows. Trust me, I've seen it. The difference between any two systems is largely in the hardware used. Yes, Mac or Linux is less intensive - all things being equal. But plug a better processor or more RAM into one box and it will run faster, regardless of the installed OS.

If you're still confused, buy a "Mac." It will make your life so much simpler. If you're following so far, get Windows OR Mac; your choice. If you knew all of this before you started this post, good for you. Go install both with a side of Linux.

The Supporters of Death

Even though most Americans have probably forgotten, the debate over firearms rages on in the legislature. Attempts to disarm innocent civilians continue in the wake of a streak of deadly shootings.

Interestingly, no such debate is being held over whether police or other government thugs officials should be allowed to carry guns, despite the deaths of two innocent women at the hands of the state.

A whole blog entry could be written about the media's tireless efforts to find shootings across the US - as long as they aren't good guys shooting bad guys or bad cops shooting good civilians - but that's not why I sat down at my keyboard today. No, today, I wanted to share with you, reader, this.

It's not the most tasteful thing in the world, is it? But it speaks to a very clear distinction between those who support the 2nd Amendment, and those who do not.

As a gun owner, and supporter of the right to bear arms, I detest gun violence, not only because violence sucks, but also because gun violence leads to circumstances which I do not like. If you're a gun owner, you don't want anyone shooting anyone else, because it leads to legislation such as currently is being debated in Congress. If you love guns, then gun violence is the worst thing that could happen for you in this country. If you're a supporter of gun control, however... well, like I said: gun violence does nothing to support my agenda.

Perhaps it's not fair to say that people like Adam Lanza should be considered heroes for those who support gun control, but I'm going to say it anyway; people like him have done far more for the anti-gun agenda than grassroots gun banners ever have.

It's time we took a good, hard look at what those who ban weapons actually support. A weapon, especially one like the AR-15 rifle, has a very specific purpose: to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones. Weapons are the ultimate symbol of brains and skill over brawn and brute force. Is it really a surprise that those who wish to take away the means to protect human life would also mock a soldier's death?

Despite their rhetoric, it is not those who produce what is only a grouping of metal and plastic parts who are bringers of death and violence to America; if anyone, it is those who wish to prohibit ordinary Americans from the means of defending themselves against those who do not respect human life or property, let alone bans on firearms. In this context, from this viewpoint, the above cartoon, or rather the circumstances in which is was created, make perfect sense.

Gun owners do not mock the dead. We do not exploit misery. We do not take a sick, perverted glee in those who die at the barrel of a gun. We, those of us who know what a gun is actually capable of (not shooting down planes, or blowing up railroads, thank you, Reverend Jackson), do not relish the prospect of gun violence. Those who know nothing about guns, and wish to ban them, waving their ignorance like a banner, do.

 

Argue if you will that you wish to ban guns to save lives. It's not true. If you believe it, however, I will admit that you are justified - in your own mind only; not in reality - but you are justified as far as you can be. However, know that there are many on your side who, even if they do not support death and suffering, take a sick pleasure in it at the worst, and at best will only foolishly deliver innocent Americans into it.

Human Professions: History as a Legitimate Field

Most people don't like to be lied to. That's too bad, because you get lied to all the time. Don't think so? Do you watch the news? Then you're being lied to. Read any sections of mainstream news in which you have a skill set (in my case "technology") and you start to notice that they're actually either wrong on have dumbed the information down to a point where the story or advice becomes misleading. One of the major places where mass lying occurs is in public (and probably a lot of private) high schools.

Think you have a good grasp of history with your high school education? Please. Even a general AP U.S. class is full of enough errors, omissions, and shallow analysis to get you into trouble should you attempt to write real history.

There's nothing wrong with this of course; we can't all be experts in everything. Fuck, I still use a calculator to figure out the tip in restaurants. If you ask me how mitosis works I might be able to provide you with an answer, but probably not a good or fully accurate one. That's why we specialize and focus in our respective fields. Everyone does this. Talk to your janitor next time you're in the office. That guy knows his shit when it comes to cleaning (and usually when it comes to wiring and plumbing too). That isn't sarcasm. I have no animosity towards those with menial jobs - as long as they're good at those jobs. That's all I ask for. I don't pretend I could do my janitor's job any more than the janitor could do mine.

Sadly, there is a job in this country whose members usually think they can do everyone's jobs. Those people are called politicians: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/tea-party-tennessee-textbooks-slavery_n_1224157.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false.

This egregious act by legislators is not only disgusting. It's also 100% wrong. Take this quote by a spokesman for the group trying to pass this bill: "[there's] an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."

"Made-up?" Were the founding fathers the ones "making it up?" Because anyone who knows anything about Jefferson or Washington knows that these men were slaveholders. You know why? Because it's in their fucking records. You know, the ones they kept themselves.

Sadly, morons like this get to influence what your kids learn. The feel-good, apologist historiography mostly died out in professional history in the mid-sixties. No one in the field (or at least no one who expects to be taken seriously) thinks that such a simple view of complex men can exist in history, because the founding fathers were humans and humans are complex. Sadly, hero worship of the founders destroys their usefulness as historical figures, because it paints them as Greek-esque demi-gods with one-dimensional personalities, and their achievements as unreachable by mere mortals. Furthermore, it maligns their vast achievements, making it seem as though they did what they did because they were somehow different, instead of being what they were - human. What they accomplished wasn't easy, and pretending that the success of the Revolution was inevitable because the founders were basically superheroes takes away from their ridiculously difficult-to-achieve successes.

The problem here is that we're treating history like just another profession but without the respect a profession should rightly garner. Reading a few books on medicine and visiting Johns Hopkins doesn't make you a doctor. Yet every year tourists who have read McPherson or Foote rush to Gettysburg, PA (site of my Alma Mater not incidentally) and tell everyone who will listen about their take on "the war." Which is nice, except they aren't really qualified to do that. Some of them are right in what they say. Some aren't. Even the correct analyses tends to be simplistic and focus on facts only, rather than facts and concepts. Again, we stopped doing this in professional history 50 years ago.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not ruling out a "Good Will Hunting" scenario here, but that sort of thing is rare because history is, again, a profession, and most people don't find the right books or do the right kind of analysis just like that. It takes a lot of reading in a lot of different sources, some of which are extremely difficult or expensive to obtain outside of professional history. There's a reason for that. Libraries and archives have to maintain their sources and pay for their upkeep. It's one thing to let a professional historian in for free, especially when his access has been paid for by the institution supporting him, but it's quite another to let in someone who may not really have any idea what he's doing so that he can go write a book vindicating his great granddaddy by cherry-picking his sources.

Speaking of cherry-picking, we have a thing in history called "peer review." That means that if you write a book that used some questionable practices, the rest of the community is going to make sure you're called out on it. We won't be mean (unless you really suck), but yeah, people are gonna know what you did.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. The same thing happens in science. That's why you don't get scientific papers about creationism. It's also why, in my field, you don't get a lot of papers that espouse the Lost Cause mythology or the ultra-simplistic view of the founders as saints. That stuff stays where it belongs: in pop and amateur culture, just like books on creationism or how to survive the coming apocalypse.

I won't pretend that there's no political wrangling in my field, but no more or less than in other fields, such as medicine and law. Yet we still trust doctors and... uh... well, we trust doctors.

In all seriousness, however, you trust professionals, because they are just that: professionals. They went to school and learned their shit. They studied and discussed with other aspiring experts and they understand the technical and theoretical necessities of their jobs. If you don't think you can be the pitcher for the New York Yankees or perform open-heart surgery, what makes you think you can tell Ira Berlin that he's full of shit? (Spoiler: he's not.)

Sadly, lack of regard for history, and a variety of other humanities, as a real profession is what leads to Tennessee wanting to teach your kids that people who openly admitted to holding slaves didn't own slaves. Because they assume that they can legislate what did or did not occur in our history. We might not know for sure, but we have a better idea than you do, and let me tell you something: Jefferson was a massive hypocrite and even back then, people knew it. I know that because, unlike Tennessee, I read a variety of letters and other primary sources that indicate this pretty heavily and I do know what I'm talking about.

So you know what, Tennessee? Shove it up your ass. It's one thing to espouse a Wood-esque take on history. It's another to openly lie to children. If you can't do history right, at least do me a favor and leave it to the professionals.

Firearms 101

As Americans, we should be wary whenever we hear of the government attempting to "control" something. I live in PA. As someone who enjoys good beer, a drink every bit as complex and dynamic as wine, I spend a lot of money to try new craft beers. I could spend less if I lived somewhere else, but the state of PA has extremely outdated laws regarding alcoholic beverages. In PA, it is rare to be able to buy a six-pack in a supermarket. When you are able, you have to buy a limited amount of alcohol and you can only buy it in one specially proscribed area of the store. It must then be bagged in order for you to exit the area.

These laws might be called "liquor control," and they don't work. Most people in the state find them incredibly silly. (Derisive references to 19th century blue laws are common.) Obviously they don't stop drunkenness. I went to Gettysburg College, a little private school near the state line. I can tell you for a fact that people wishing to buy a lot of beer and get very drunk simply drove to Maryland and bought entire kegs of a very low-quality beer called Natural Light. (From the taste, I imagine it's a combination of rice water and human urine.) PA's laws certainly didn't prevent frat bros and other students from getting extremely wasted. Yet these laws exist and they drive up the cost of beer and other drinks for responsible users of alcohol statewide.

It's interesting that many of the same Americans who believe (rightly) that control of alcohol or marijuana have zero effect of consumption on those products nevertheless believe that prohibition could be applied to certain types of firearms, especially since alcohol has killed more people, far more, than guns ever have.

If you read one thing from this post, read this. It's a great website, and it points out  one of the many many problems with gun control: that most gun control advocates don't know .223 Remington from 5.56 NATO. The people who wish to take the property of their fellow Americans, or restrict access to certain types of property, know next to nothing about that property. This is odd. I wouldn't allow a garbage man to tell my doctor what to do (or vice versa), yet it's the people who have never fired a gun who get to dictate what shooters can and cannot own.

Of course, any appeal to reason is useless, because it is predicated on the idea that politicians, or even some members of the public, make decisions based on reason. Politicians, despite their job descriptions, are concerned only with themselves. What matters isn't issues; it's elections. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Look at any politician's career: he didn't get where he is now by doing what he thought was right; he did it by doing what the majority thought was right. Members of Congress like Dianne Feinstein aren't stupid. They know that rifles like the AR-15 aren't used in the majority of gun crimes in this country. But bills like Feinstein's have nothing to do with preventing gun crime and have everything to do with people like Dianne Feinstein.

Let's take a look at a practical example of one bill which was passed in 1994: the Assault Weapons Ban. Under said ban, which sunset in 2004, the following weapon was illegal:

This one, however, was not:

In reality, these weapons are the same model: the Ruger Mini-14, featured in the above link. They fire the same cartridge at the same rate. Under the ban, they would also both be limited to the same magazine size. The only difference is the furniture.

Even a gun control advocate has to wonder about a law like this. If, as was stated, the '94 ban was about protecting people, why exactly was a gun like the Mini-14 allowed in one configuration, but not the other? Republican opposition? Maybe, but unlikely, since Republicans at the time didn't want the first model banned at all. Confusion? Possible, but Feinstein, the author of the bill, isn't an idiot. It's not unreasonable to assume that she knew enough about guns to realize that these weapons are equally deadly.

I'll offer an explanation: Feinstein and her cronies don't care even slightly for the safety of Americans.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was pure politics. Feinstein got to be famous at very little cost. She didn't really do anything; "assault weapons" were still very legal. But she got her name in the papers and got reelected. Even if you support gun control, your own people in Congress are lying to you, and they are using your lack of knowledge about firearms to do it.

One might ask why I would tell people this, since I am very obviously against gun control. The truth is, I'm not a politician. I'm not going to lie about how weak the AWB was and how weak future laws will be. Some might use this information to try and create laws that actually do ban guns. But I have a theory about gun control advocates. This theory states that the most anti-gun person on the planet can be turned by a little information and a fun and educational trip to the nearest shooting range. Guns aren't evil. They're tools. They're the embodiment of mind over muscle. They're a useful item for protecting your family from potential threats. They're capable of putting food on the table. They're plain fun. Some people misuse them, it's true. But some people misuse cars too, and we don't ban them because they are extraordinarily useful. Like guns, they are not designed for killing (you read that correctly), and the vast majority of people use them responsibly. That is why they remain legal. Are there limits? Yes. Similar limits to those which already exist on firearms.

The best weapon against evil and coercion are not AR-15s and AKs (though these are also effective tools against certain kinds of evil), but knowledge. Educate yourself. Understand firearms and respect them as tools, which, in fact, they are. Will it change the outcome of the legislation in Congress? No. Congress does not reason; it uses force and takes what it wants. (Let's be honest: if it didn't, you wouldn't be paying your tax bills every year.) But that doesn't mean you should accept it at that. They can pass laws, but they should not ever be allowed to get away with fooling the American people. That, unlike restrictions on magazine size or which stock to put on your AR, is something on which Americans may actually agree.

The Obsolete Men

Every New Year, my family has a tradition of watching SyFy channel's Twilight Zone marathon. While some episodes are certainly better than others, it's a pretty decent show. Perhaps one of my favorite episodes is entitled "the Obsolete Man." In this episode, a librarian is found obsolete by a dystopian society and scheduled for termination. By the end of the episode, the leader of this society is embarrassed nationally by said librarian and himself found obsolete. While I am not a Christian like the protagonist, I do find the ultimate message: "the state is not God," very appealing. However, what I enjoy more is the conclusion that it is men such as allow for oppression who are obsolete.

Without going so far as to claim that people can be "obsolete" (though in some cases this was probably true; I'd say we didn't really need Hitler, for instance), there are people whose thought patterns are. I had one example of this phenomenon brought to my attention by a family member recently. Apparently there had been a lot of attention given a while back to a mother who gave her son an iPhone 5 but only if he followed a series of strict and silly rules. This was apparently enough to reward the mother involved with national fame and the admiration of an entire generation of grumbling old people.

http://news.yahoo.com/moms-18-point-iphone-rules-son-143831843--abc-news-parenting.html

Admittedly some of the rules laid out in the "contract" (which you can't actually make with a minor legally) are fair. No porn seems reasonable, though highly unrealistic. No sexting also kind of makes sense given the child's status as a minor. However, most of these prohibitions are the actions of a creepy helicopter mom who belongs to a generation whose members are sometimes left without a working understanding of computing.

Now don't get me wrong. I will be the first to admit that giving a thirteen-year-old an iPhone 5 is a terrible idea - it should be an Android phone, so that he can learn about computers from an early age and be given every opportunity to cultivate a necessary skill. Children should not be discouraged from using technology to its full potential. (That's why when I have kids, they will get their first computer at an early age - in pieces, which I will then teach them to assemble.) Telling a child not to use Google to look things up is like telling them not to open a dictionary to learn new words. There is a wealth of online knowledge waiting for anyone who wishes to learn. Google offers a vast database of the combined knowledge of every Internet user on the planet. It's where I learned to build a computer and use Linux, both of which, not incidentally, were major factors in getting me the job I have now. I would also be far less effective as a historian without Google and a variety of online resources, which have helped me to vastly increase my knowledge of American slavery, which helped be get into a great Masters program. You can learn pretty much anything by using the Internet. In this day and age, not allowing your child to access Google ensures that learning will be a much slower, much less effective process as you are blocking their access to a variety of useful resources. Disallowing Google because you can find some pretty gross stuff on it if you want is like not sending your kid to college because he might drink: you have to trust the kid to make the right decisions. You take the risk because the benefit of getting an education outweighs the danger, and if your child partys all day, it's not the college's fault, just like it's not Google's fault if you use it to look up nasty porn.

The same could be said about restricting a child's interaction with those he only knows in real life. I'm not saying you don't have to be careful online, but there are whole online communities based around every conceivable subject. You can learn more from a forum than you can from talking to people in your neighborhood, and you can learn it a lot faster. The Internet is a meeting point for everyone in the world. It is a massive consensus-building tool. Sure, a run on Omegle will result in over 9,000 perverts, but they're perverts from all over the world. If you go to the right places, you can have discussions with people all over the world who aren't just interested in your tits. You might even gain a broader perspective. In suburban America, it's a lot easier to be exposed to different viewpoints if you're online. Sure, if you go to the wrong place you might be exposed to something else, but that's no reason to discourage healthy online discussion with people worldwide.

For some reason, however, stunting a child's mental growth is praiseworthy for some people. While I could easily go into why the list here is a stunning example of terrible parenting, I'd like to focus on part of the reason it has become so popular. The problem is simply that there exist people who fear or dismiss technology, despite benefiting directly from it and having no knowledge of what it actually constitutes. Computer systems and related technology are tools, like all technology. They have become so prolific because they allow the user to do whatever he wants faster and more efficiently. Ironically, this has been one of the main complaints about computing; however, one cannot fault a group of circuits for the nature and actions of an individual. If you raised your kid to be the type of person to hook up with random people, then yes, they might have sex online. Computers don't change the behavior; they only facilitate it. This holds true of any behavior. If you raised your child to be the type of person to have a burning desire to learn, a computer will help him to do this more efficiently as well. The responsibility the mother in question is evading is essentially that of raising her child. It's easier to prohibit access to things you don't want your kid to get than it is to raise them correctly. The problem is, this mother's child won't be thirteen forever, and helicopter moms are begging for their kids to go nuts when they're out from under the watchful eye of the parent. Teaching this kid a little responsibility now by trusting him and letting him make his own mistakes while he's young might save him the trouble of making those mistakes in the future when he is given free reign to do so and, it might be added, held legally responsible for his actions.

People like this mother and those who agree with her twisted view of one the world's greatest inventions are going to have a hard time adapting to the future. If she can't handle Google, I can't imagine how she'd deal with augmented reality, computer sentience, and singularity - and those things are coming, maybe not in her lifetime or mine admittedly, but they are coming. But it's not just future technologies that she fails to understand. Probably every single positive material aspect of  your life right now was aided in some way by a computer. Computing, by its nature, has led to massive breakthroughs in literally every aspect of daily life, if not directly, then indirectly. For a mother to scorn technology as a harmful necessity as she sits in her suburban home, whose comforts are a direct result of computing, drives to her job in her car which, in all probability has a computer, and benefits from computer systems at work, is deeply silly and hypocritical.

Technology is a tool. It will do what you tell it to do. If you fuck up, it will not protect you. Stifling the benefits of technology out of fear of the drawbacks or as a substitute for responsibility demonstrates not only bad parenting but a lazy attitude towards parenting and an unrealistic attitude towards the modern world. This mother should be castigated, not praised. She should be encouraging her son to cultivate the skills necessary to living in the 21st century, not stunting his knowledge of a useful skill set. She should be encouraging him to explore the world that opens up with Internet access, not telling him it's a fear inducing, sex-crazed pit. Parts of it are, but so are parts of the world and you let your kid out there. Sure, the Internet is more accessible, but that also lets you access the great parts of the Internet: the parts that let you learn, collaborate, and experience a variety of viewpoints and perspectives. That's why, no matter how hard the ignorant fight technological progress, it is here to stay. Those who refuse to adapt will find their lives increasingly difficult and will be far outpaced by those who do. They will remain in a world of slow communications, less social interaction, and less information - a world which is, by 2013, long obsolete.

Whispering No

A list of my favorite books would probably put me on a government watch list: the Fountainhead, Civil Disobedience, V for Vendetta. Recently, I picked up Watchmen, a graphic novel by the same author as the last title on the previous list. It was difficult to pick a favorite character (which is great, since that's the whole point), but, despite myself, I think I found Rorschach most compelling.

Don't get me wrong; Rorschach's character profile is repulsive. He's a fascist, a brutal torturer, and he hates gays, not things I'm ok with. But then again, you're not supposed to like any of the heroes a whole lot; picking a favorite is a moot point. Honestly, as was the author's intention, I was uncomfortable with all the characters. However, Rorschach stood out for me personally in the beginning of the book and at the end. In the end of the novel, he's willing to die rather than betray his ideals, sick though they are, and rather than lie to humanity. Rorschach may be a perverted bastard, but at least he's consistent.

However, it's the one of the first lines of the book, and one of the most famous, uttered by this character, that I enjoy the most: "The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "save us!" and I'll look down and whisper "no." It's a pretty brilliant summary of what made the character what he is, explained later in the book. And really, it's (no pun intended) spot on.

In the wake of a pretty sick recent event, the public outcry hasn't been to examine society or its issues too deeply; it's just been to mount an attack against physical objects: firearms. The problem with this is that blaming guns doesn't make sense. The old adage "guns don't kill people; people kill people," is essentially true. Blame the gun and the man who murders gets a moral pass.

I won't go too much further into that. I know so much more about other people's personal grief than I ever wanted or needed to, thanks to the media, which makes its money off butting into everyone's business and making it a personal affair. The incident is not for me to assess; it's none of my business. I can't imagine what being involved is like, and I won't pretend I can. The people involved deserve their privacy.

I will, however, be directly affected by legislation which limits or prohibits sale or ownership of firearms. I am a gun owner. I'm proud of that. There are many people like me, who have cultivated a useful and potentially life-saving skill, and have a passion for it, who should not have to pay for the sins of others, but will. My little brother is working on building his own personal AR-15 from parts. He's smart and talented, and a great natural tinkerer and shooter. Laws in Congress now may stunt that talent and dash one of his projects and dreams before he's old enough to cultivate them. Say what you want about gun control; it's not fair and never will be. That others have suffered far far worse recently is not a valid justification for that.

The NRA, who I joined yesterday, has been silent. They're embarrassed. They shouldn't be. It's not their fault, and they should be representing their constituency. I paid my dues in the expectation that they would protect my rights. But let's be honest, what can they realistically do? The public is a dirty, ugly, sneering mob. Whether it's invading another country for its alleged nuclear program, taking away our privacy by wiretapping us and strip searching the elderly at airports, forcing people to pay for other people's insurance, or not allowing responsible citizens to own firearms, the people usually get what they want by virtue of force of numbers and with guns of their own, in the hands of the government, to back it up.

The same people who voted Obama into office because they were sick of Bush voted Bush into office because they were sick of Clinton. They deserve every bad policy, every shitty thing that happens to them, every right taken from them. Some people get caught in the crossfire through no fault of their own, but many Americans vote, or protest for some new bill, and the worse things get the more they agitate for the government to take a more active role, to take more control over their lives and make it worse. They deserve the invasive airport security. They deserve the fiscal cliff. They created it. It's their monster, not mine.

It's wrong what happens to people caught in the swirling vortex of dirty politics, and I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about homosexuals who can't get married. I'm talking about Iraqi and Pakistani children who die in drone strikes. If you think your government does not murder and extort, take a look at the civilian death toll in wars we didn't need to fight. Look at your tax bill each year. But the difference between me and the man who votes is that I didn't ask for this.

It used to bother me. Today, it stopped bothering me. Say what you will about Ayn Rand, but when I first read Atlas Shrugged, it was a summary of almost everything I'd ever believed long before I picked up that novel. The heroine of that book goes through a process where she believes she can save the world by fighting those who sought to destroy it, before realizing that she can't - and she shouldn't. I'm there.

Today I started up Google Currents and saw a picture of protesters who held signs saying they were against assault rifles. They were militantly agitating against an inanimate object. I was enraged by their stupidity and their essential wrongness; how can you be against a thing? It is literally senseless. But then I realized that these same people might one day be in a situation where they are trapped by someone with an illegal gun on the street, and had disarmed those who might otherwise have saved them. Would it be the thug with the stolen Glock who murdered them? Ultimately? Or would this be a case of suicide? By fighting gun control, or bad economic policy, or the prohibition of the marriage rights of others, I'm attempting to protect myself, because what you take from a gun collector, or a rich or gay man or woman, you can also take from me. But ultimately, the mob will have its way, and by protecting myself, I'm protecting them too - from themselves.

I don't deserve the results of this messed up system, and neither do thousands like me across the nation. But people like me aren't given any say, and if that's the case, I'm done pretending I can do anything about it. Go ahead, America. Vote. Agitate for more government control. Keep getting what you want at the expense of others. Keep killing. Keep extorting. Keep lying, cheating, and stealing. I won't try to stop you. You're already bankrupt and at the mercy of a government you gave the right to pry into your personal life years ago. You did that. I won't try to help you. Not anymore. Reap the results of your own bad decisions, like any drunken teenage girl who later ends up a mother before she should, or like any young careless boy who plays with fire and burns down the house.

You might think from this writing that I'm bitter. I'm not. There's a certain serenity that comes with the knowledge that no matter how bad things get, you weren't responsible. In knowing that what happens to you happens to those who caused it also, and that, unlike them, you didn't ask for it. I won't be able to own guns, but you'll also be the victims of crime. I won't be able to make much money out of school, but you'll also work well into retirement. The difference between you and me, America, is that I know I wasn't to blame. I can live - and eventually, God metaphorically willing a long time from now, die - knowing that I made the right decisions and never tried to hurt anyone, or force them by sheer numbers or institutional violence to do what I wanted. Can you?

Royal Pain in the Ass

Let's play a game. The game is called, "let's see how many things we can find wrong with society using the following news story: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/world/europe/uk-royal-hospital-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t1."

A psychologist or sociologist could have a field day with this story. There are more things wrong here than the plot of Plan 9 From Outer Space. Let's start with the root issue: the royal family. Not to bring up that whole history thing, but  there was a time in this country when people detested the idea of hereditary nobility. You can argue that it doesn't matter anymore because the nobles don't have any power, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the royal family is famous for literally no real reason.

I'll be the first to admit that America has an extremely unhealthy celebrity culture, but at least American celebrities are known for something. They're actors, or singers, or star in a sex tape. They aren't always good reasons, of course, and being interested in their life isn't exactly what you'd call healthy, but at least there's a reason people do it. Royalty, on the other hand, begins with forceful takeover and continues through  heredity. Taking power through force is kind of a dick move (to use understatement), and retaining it just because you were born to certain (usually inbred) parents isn't much better. Granted, there's no power involved anymore, but I'm not sure I see the point in making someone famous due to heredity either, and I certainly don't see the point in keeping nobles around like national zoo animals.

Let's examine that metaphor further. The idea of a famous royal family is sad and pathetic for two reasons. The first of these stems from the fact that people would be even remotely interested in someone else's life literally only because of their bloodline. It's kind of like picking someone up off the street and avidly following their personal life. What's the point? What do get out of it, exactly? If you need to be involved in the life of a complete stranger to that extent, maybe you should examine your own, because you might be missing something.

I also wonder what this is like for the family itself. It's not like they chose to be famous, after all. The people involved in this scenario can't even pick their noses without the Guardian (or whatever the British version of  the Enquirer or Bild is) finding out about it. A lot of people called the royal wedding "beautiful." Try being a voyeur in any other regard and see if the fact that whatever you were intruding on was "beautiful" makes it any less creepy. The fact of the matter is that these people, through no choice of their own and from birth in the case of one of them, can't even go through important and very personal life events without the entire world sticking their noses in it. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me. You may be happy about their baby (which is sad enough; get a life), but if I was its parent, all that would be going through my mind is what that poor kid will have to go through in life simply because I was the parent. Tough environment to raise a child in. Good luck to the poor bastard. I'd be surprised if he or she didn't develop a complex of some kind. Pat yourself on the back for that one, society.

So really, the entire structure of the royal family is pretty fucked up. But that's not where this news story ends, because apparently there's a commercial aspect to be had here that adds a whole other layer to the debacle. Apparently some  radio show thought it would be amusing to prank the hospital where what's-her-face was admitted for morning sickness. (I'll hold off questioning if that's even an appropriate reason to take up a hospital bed, because as a 22 year old male, I actually have no clue.) Fair enough; it probably was amusing to someone. But still, it's just a tad in poor taste to pester a pregnant woman. And what exactly is going on with the hospital system in Britain that you can call up, just say you're the queen, and talk with a princess? I mean, really? If I call up the White House and pretend to be Obama, I feel like I probably won't have a lot of success getting in touch with his daughters.

So there's that. But it gets better, because the nurse they pranked was so embarrassed that she actually killed herself.

I find this interesting, because, again, really? I will be the first to take back everything I say about this aspect if it comes out that she had some kind of mental issue, because then, obviously, it's not entirely her fault. Assuming she didn't, however, (and the newspaper doesn't say she did) killing yourself? Because you were embarrassed? Even being embarrassed nationally doesn't exactly qualify as a great reason for perpetual oblivion. The idea of either thinking that this sort of thing makes your life bad enough to kill yourself or valuing life so little that you end it because you're embarrassed is not exactly healthy, and speaks to the kind of society we live in, where someone would think that to be an even remotely appropriate response.

Some have blamed the radio hosts, and while that's not exactly fair, I would hope they still feel a little guilty. That being said, the whole thing could have been avoided by not putting so much importance on certain people based on completely arbitrary factors. People would argue that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, and that it doesn't actually have any effect that Britain continues to support this bizarre and antiquated system of hereditary nobility. Ultimately, that's probably the case. However, in this instance, there was a very clear effect, and while the system itself can't actually be held responsible fully, it still played a role.

Not that any of this is surprising. The nobility have been (directly) killing those under them for centuries. What's one more death in 2012? Add it to the roster of deaths caused in whole or in part by keeping up a system based on the opposite of logic. There was a revolution fought in this country which, though multifaceted, aimed partly to destroy this unfair system in the American colonies. Unfortunately, anti-monarchical sentiment didn't last very long. For so many Americans then and now, the allure of power, even an empty power that had little to nothing to do with them, was and continues to be too powerful a draw.