It's late night, which is the perfect time of day to bring up hazy memories from the past. Or vivid ones. Or all the ones that fall in between.
Although I've tried quite hard to get into the good old Minnesota Christmas spirit, something seems to hold me back. Namely, I can't quite get it out of my head that a year ago from right this instant, I was scrambling through Prague attempting to catch a train bound for Munich. Catching a train is in itself not an extraordinary activity. But I suppose the circumstances made it so. Out on my own for the first time, stuck in a country where I'm completely confused by language and culture, forced to rely on myself instead of my parents, etc, etc, etc. But mainly, I'm just have a bit of melancholy at the fact that my days of extreme living are currently limited.
It's no secret to those who know me or who follow this blog that the experience I had in Nottingham has profoundly affected me. In some ways, I wish it hasn't. I wish I didn't have these feelings of separation, of loss. Of a struggling identity, of reconciling myself pre-England with myself post-England. But then again, these are the things that have caused me to grow the most. And for that, I am thankful. More importantly, I am so very thankful for my time spent on 67 Homefield Road, Nottingham NG8 5GH. For my English family, all 10 of them.
Why is it that Christmas, for all of its joy, can also bring about sadness? Maybe it's because we tend to think of all the joyful events of the past, and we don't pay enough attention to the now, or to the future. I have no idea. But as I've thought, it's not the actual past that saddens me. I'm not sad that I'm not reliving the exact Prague experience right now, because that can never be. I think I'm more sad that for the time being, I won't be able to make new experiences similar. Life's a bitch for a poor college student, right? (not really, I have few complaints)
One thing's for certain, life is definitely moving forward. I have received confirmation today of my acceptance to Hamline University School of Law. I was glad to hear it, it's at the very least a more than adequate safety net. At the highest, it's a great opportunity to launch my life as the long fabled REAL ADULT. I guess anything less than Minnesota will be sort of a bitter pill to swallow, but I better get used to it. For sure, Hamline offers an opportunity to study international arbitration in London for a month in the summer. I think I would go. What am I talking about, I know I would go. Sometimes, I just want to go back home.
That was dramatic. I'm sorry.
I want to close this post with a piece of poetry from a friend's blog. One of my simple joys in England was reading the blogs of my Notts/Luther friends, seeing how they were interpreting our shared experience. I won't say who this is from, but it is definitely from an individual who is more eloquent than I could ever hope to be. I read it tonight and it sort of spoke to me, in a certain sort of way. I'm pretty sure it was written as we were about to leave Nottingham for the last time.
as we fill our bags
our heads crowd with memories from the year
ignoring the lump in our throats
holding back floods of tears
we realize every activity is for the last time
two mornings remain
one family dinner
after a bus ride to london
will face the hardest goodbye
knowing that nothing will be the same
after our families and luther,
England will always be home
England will always be home. I was sure that would turn out to be a cliché. I've figured out, it's anything but.
If I don't talk to everyone, I'm wishing a very happy Christmas to all. My hope for everyone is that we all take some time to see the Christmas beneath the sales and the lights. It really is a beautiful time of the year, if you can find it.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Break
I'm on Christmas break. A year ago from right this second, I was lounging around in Chamonix, in the heart of the French Alps. Now I'm preparing to go to work for 3 hours. Get what I'm saying?
Like I said, have to go sell some drugs. More to come. Sometime.
Like I said, have to go sell some drugs. More to come. Sometime.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Zepp
Led Zeppelin just played a reunion show in London. Everybody freak out.
I hope they come to Minneapolis and personally extend me an offer for a front row seat.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
GUNS
This stuff scares the shit out of me.
This isn't exactly a political blog, but gun control is an issue I am feeling increasingly passionate about. I think a lot of it stems from my time spent in England, which has very strong gun laws. In my opinion, English gun control laws stem from a series of very logical responses to specific events. Check out this article from the BBC to see a history of gun laws in Britain.
In 1998, a man in Hungerford massacred 16 people with semi-automatic weapons. In response, the British government banned semi-automatic and pump action rifles, weapons which could fire explosive shells, short shotguns, and elevated rifles. Following a tragic massacre of 16 children in 1996 by a man with 4 legally owned handguns, the Government banned all calibers of handguns, including .22's. Within a year. Currently, it is a criminal offence to even possess an imitation gun, punishable by 12 months in prison.
So far in 2007, 49 people have been killed in the US in mass killing involving firearms. These victims are from a school shooting in Cleveland, the Virginia Tech massacre, and the two mall shootings in Salt Lake City and Omaha. That's as many firearms related deaths as in the whole of England and Wales in 2005-06. According to the BBC, that same year, the US had over 14,000 gun related murders. I consider this to be a problem, a problem that is unacceptable in contemporary society. Since the 1997 Columbine massacre, mass gun crimes have seemingly been on the rise. And as I stated earlier, that doesn't include any other gun related murders. Why is it that the US Government has not acted to prevent such horrors as Columbine, Red Lake, and Virginia Tech when it only took the British one tragedy to come to their senses? I find this to be incredibly perplexing and disturbing.
I own two guns, I must admit. I own a shotgun passed down to me from my grandfather, and a hunting rifle purchased when I was in boy scouts. Both are in my basement and secured with trigger locks. The keys are in a lock box. I haven't shot either of them for 6 years. It would be hypocritical of me to advocate a UK style ban on handguns at this point, and I'm not advocating that. Hunting definitely is a culture in the US, and the vast majority of hunters are safe and responsible with their firearms. But you don't need an AK-47 or a .50 caliber handgun to kill a deer.
Handguns and automatic weapons should be outright banned in the United States, with stricter controls on other firearms within urban areas. Why is this, one asks? The fact that a majority of firearms related murder victims are being killed by handguns. The fact that a ban on handguns in Britain has put firearms deaths in the double digits for the whole country. The fact that they are dangerous to civilian society and unnecessary. One could argue that they are necessary for self-protection, or as a deterrent. But if no one owned a handgun, why would it be necessary to own one in self-defense? Additionally, they are contributing to a very unsettling culture of violence in urban America.
One of the amazing things in the second video posted above is how Fred Thompson lays into Rudy Giuliani for the simple idea of requiring a written exam and a background check before purchasing a firearm. Call me crazy, but I find it ludicrous that every state in the Union doesn't have such safeguards. I find it even crazier that someone running for President would propose something as irresponsible as selling guns to whoever wants one. For firearms other than the kinds detailed above, I firmly believe that there should be a rigorous background check, written exam, and registration program in place, regardless of geographical location. It just makes sense. When we have devices that can just as easily kill people as animals, it is criminal negligence to not be positive that the wielders of such weapons are competent and responsible people who are using them for safe and legal means.
The Second Amendment apparently guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. Or is it the right of the well regulated militia to bear arms? I don't know the answer. But the Constitution also is set out to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Is there domestic tranquility when guns (a majority of them handguns, according to the U.S. Department of Justice) are killing over 14,000 Americans a year? Is it the general welfare to give out weapons without taking the necessary precautions and safeguards? And are we really receiving the blessings of liberty when out shopping at a mall, people are getting killed? No. Firearms related crime is curbing our liberty, our welfare, and our domestic tranquility. It's time for the government to ensure these guarantees by limiting the availability of firearms, especially handguns and automatic weapons. For a civilized nation, supposedly the greatest in the world, it's time to curb the barbarism of gun crime. People can bitch about having the right to carry firearms and all that jazz, but I have a right to stay alive too. I think pubic safety wins out.
I'm done, I just had to get this out.
In a final note, if you want to read some blatant bullshit on the merits or demerits of gun control, check out this brilliant Conservapedia article. Specifically read the fourth paragraph comparing Britain to the US. Ridiculous.
This isn't exactly a political blog, but gun control is an issue I am feeling increasingly passionate about. I think a lot of it stems from my time spent in England, which has very strong gun laws. In my opinion, English gun control laws stem from a series of very logical responses to specific events. Check out this article from the BBC to see a history of gun laws in Britain.
In 1998, a man in Hungerford massacred 16 people with semi-automatic weapons. In response, the British government banned semi-automatic and pump action rifles, weapons which could fire explosive shells, short shotguns, and elevated rifles. Following a tragic massacre of 16 children in 1996 by a man with 4 legally owned handguns, the Government banned all calibers of handguns, including .22's. Within a year. Currently, it is a criminal offence to even possess an imitation gun, punishable by 12 months in prison.
So far in 2007, 49 people have been killed in the US in mass killing involving firearms. These victims are from a school shooting in Cleveland, the Virginia Tech massacre, and the two mall shootings in Salt Lake City and Omaha. That's as many firearms related deaths as in the whole of England and Wales in 2005-06. According to the BBC, that same year, the US had over 14,000 gun related murders. I consider this to be a problem, a problem that is unacceptable in contemporary society. Since the 1997 Columbine massacre, mass gun crimes have seemingly been on the rise. And as I stated earlier, that doesn't include any other gun related murders. Why is it that the US Government has not acted to prevent such horrors as Columbine, Red Lake, and Virginia Tech when it only took the British one tragedy to come to their senses? I find this to be incredibly perplexing and disturbing.
I own two guns, I must admit. I own a shotgun passed down to me from my grandfather, and a hunting rifle purchased when I was in boy scouts. Both are in my basement and secured with trigger locks. The keys are in a lock box. I haven't shot either of them for 6 years. It would be hypocritical of me to advocate a UK style ban on handguns at this point, and I'm not advocating that. Hunting definitely is a culture in the US, and the vast majority of hunters are safe and responsible with their firearms. But you don't need an AK-47 or a .50 caliber handgun to kill a deer.
Handguns and automatic weapons should be outright banned in the United States, with stricter controls on other firearms within urban areas. Why is this, one asks? The fact that a majority of firearms related murder victims are being killed by handguns. The fact that a ban on handguns in Britain has put firearms deaths in the double digits for the whole country. The fact that they are dangerous to civilian society and unnecessary. One could argue that they are necessary for self-protection, or as a deterrent. But if no one owned a handgun, why would it be necessary to own one in self-defense? Additionally, they are contributing to a very unsettling culture of violence in urban America.
One of the amazing things in the second video posted above is how Fred Thompson lays into Rudy Giuliani for the simple idea of requiring a written exam and a background check before purchasing a firearm. Call me crazy, but I find it ludicrous that every state in the Union doesn't have such safeguards. I find it even crazier that someone running for President would propose something as irresponsible as selling guns to whoever wants one. For firearms other than the kinds detailed above, I firmly believe that there should be a rigorous background check, written exam, and registration program in place, regardless of geographical location. It just makes sense. When we have devices that can just as easily kill people as animals, it is criminal negligence to not be positive that the wielders of such weapons are competent and responsible people who are using them for safe and legal means.
The Second Amendment apparently guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. Or is it the right of the well regulated militia to bear arms? I don't know the answer. But the Constitution also is set out to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Is there domestic tranquility when guns (a majority of them handguns, according to the U.S. Department of Justice) are killing over 14,000 Americans a year? Is it the general welfare to give out weapons without taking the necessary precautions and safeguards? And are we really receiving the blessings of liberty when out shopping at a mall, people are getting killed? No. Firearms related crime is curbing our liberty, our welfare, and our domestic tranquility. It's time for the government to ensure these guarantees by limiting the availability of firearms, especially handguns and automatic weapons. For a civilized nation, supposedly the greatest in the world, it's time to curb the barbarism of gun crime. People can bitch about having the right to carry firearms and all that jazz, but I have a right to stay alive too. I think pubic safety wins out.
I'm done, I just had to get this out.
In a final note, if you want to read some blatant bullshit on the merits or demerits of gun control, check out this brilliant Conservapedia article. Specifically read the fourth paragraph comparing Britain to the US. Ridiculous.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Johan Santana
This has gone on long enough, and I have remained silent. No more.
My thoughts on the Twins' effort to trade Johan Santana? Frustration.
It seems as though this will be in vain, as talks seem to be close with the Red Sox to trade Santana for either Jacoby Ellsbury or Jon Lester, Coco Crisp, and some other prospect. I don't exactly know, Ellsbury or Lester are the main sweeteners, as well as Crisp. Whatever, that's not the point. The point is this. I feel it is time for the Twins to make a statement. Don't get me wrong, I don't think rebuilding is wrong. Every team goes through rebuilding phases. My sticking point is that the Twins seemingly rebuild aimlessly. In essence, Minnesota is always rebuilding. Certainty and stability are not the core virtues of the Minnesota Twins.
The people of Minnesota have made a commitment to the Twins. Hennepin County has a sales tax in effect right now to build a $522 million dollar stadium in downtown Minneapolis. Public citizens are paying for a new ballpark, a new ballpark promised to GENERATE REVENUE. The Twins franchise is currently riding a tremendous wave of popularity, in large part due to the contributions and popularity of such players as Santana, Joe Mauer, and Justin Morneau. Their owner is a billionaire. They are untainted from the scandal of other Minnesota sports, and have a good reputation in the community and baseball business. Minnesotans are making a commitment to the team, and expect a commitment in turn. I expect every effort to put the Twins in the World Series.
Obviously, the return for a Santana trade would be huge. No doubt. But this is a symbolic act. He would be just the latest in a long line of Minnesota athletes to leave town (ie. Kevin Garnett, Randy Moss, Torii Hunter). It's time for the Twins to make a commitment to their team and their fans and resign Santana. Yes, it will be very expensive. But he's the best pitcher on the planet. One must pay for good things. More importantly, Twins fans have a certain connection to Santana. He is an upstanding citizen, a good person. The Twins found him, developed his talent, and brought him to the fore. It's just wrong that he should pitch for any other team, least of all the soulless baseball forces of the East Coast. No, it is time for Minnesota to make a mark as a team committed to winning and staying competitive. It is time for the Twins to make a stand as their own team, to firmly create an identity apart from 1987 and 1991.
The latest front office incompetence has been so damn frustrating, stemming from the Twins' failure last offseason to sign Hunter and Santana to extensions. That bullshit trade of Luis Castillo to the Mets in the middle of the 2007 season was worse. The fact that the Twins twiddled their thumbs during the season to sign Hunter and Santana was another negative. Now, I liked the trade for Delmon Young. But the way the Santana situation has been dealt with just irritates me. The fact that its come to this irritates me most of all. Obviously, I'm no expert on baseball economics. I know that 20 million dollars a year is ridiculous, especially for a mid market team like us. It shouldn't have come to this anyway. But it's my opinion that the Twins, with their new stadium looming and all that revenue coming their way, their payroll freed of Torii's salary, should make a point.
Resign him. I don't care how much it costs. You owe it to us.
My thoughts on the Twins' effort to trade Johan Santana? Frustration.
It seems as though this will be in vain, as talks seem to be close with the Red Sox to trade Santana for either Jacoby Ellsbury or Jon Lester, Coco Crisp, and some other prospect. I don't exactly know, Ellsbury or Lester are the main sweeteners, as well as Crisp. Whatever, that's not the point. The point is this. I feel it is time for the Twins to make a statement. Don't get me wrong, I don't think rebuilding is wrong. Every team goes through rebuilding phases. My sticking point is that the Twins seemingly rebuild aimlessly. In essence, Minnesota is always rebuilding. Certainty and stability are not the core virtues of the Minnesota Twins.
The people of Minnesota have made a commitment to the Twins. Hennepin County has a sales tax in effect right now to build a $522 million dollar stadium in downtown Minneapolis. Public citizens are paying for a new ballpark, a new ballpark promised to GENERATE REVENUE. The Twins franchise is currently riding a tremendous wave of popularity, in large part due to the contributions and popularity of such players as Santana, Joe Mauer, and Justin Morneau. Their owner is a billionaire. They are untainted from the scandal of other Minnesota sports, and have a good reputation in the community and baseball business. Minnesotans are making a commitment to the team, and expect a commitment in turn. I expect every effort to put the Twins in the World Series.
Obviously, the return for a Santana trade would be huge. No doubt. But this is a symbolic act. He would be just the latest in a long line of Minnesota athletes to leave town (ie. Kevin Garnett, Randy Moss, Torii Hunter). It's time for the Twins to make a commitment to their team and their fans and resign Santana. Yes, it will be very expensive. But he's the best pitcher on the planet. One must pay for good things. More importantly, Twins fans have a certain connection to Santana. He is an upstanding citizen, a good person. The Twins found him, developed his talent, and brought him to the fore. It's just wrong that he should pitch for any other team, least of all the soulless baseball forces of the East Coast. No, it is time for Minnesota to make a mark as a team committed to winning and staying competitive. It is time for the Twins to make a stand as their own team, to firmly create an identity apart from 1987 and 1991.
The latest front office incompetence has been so damn frustrating, stemming from the Twins' failure last offseason to sign Hunter and Santana to extensions. That bullshit trade of Luis Castillo to the Mets in the middle of the 2007 season was worse. The fact that the Twins twiddled their thumbs during the season to sign Hunter and Santana was another negative. Now, I liked the trade for Delmon Young. But the way the Santana situation has been dealt with just irritates me. The fact that its come to this irritates me most of all. Obviously, I'm no expert on baseball economics. I know that 20 million dollars a year is ridiculous, especially for a mid market team like us. It shouldn't have come to this anyway. But it's my opinion that the Twins, with their new stadium looming and all that revenue coming their way, their payroll freed of Torii's salary, should make a point.
Resign him. I don't care how much it costs. You owe it to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
