Letters to the Editor
Chernobyl Kid
Published Letters: 79 Editor's Choice: 13
-
It blows me away that there's even any discussion on this.
[Read the article: I let my friends stay with me and now they're evicting me!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I practice natural law (i.e. an unlicensed profession that I just made up and which involves an in-depth knowledge of right and wrong, which believe it or not is occasionally a deciding factor in "real" law cases.) Consulting my extensive natural law library (i.e. a bunch of shit that I know) here is my made-up professional opinion:
1) You were here first. All other things being equal, that gives you priority. This was established by the landmark Little Brother v. Big Sister and Friend (1952) and confirmed by appeal to the Court of Mom, 3rd Circuit. Of particular note: the "democratic principle" or "two-against-one" argument was rejected as being not relevant in this case. This case is part of the standard natural law curriculum in kindergartens througout the U.S. and Canada.
2) As your natural attorney, I think you have a very strong case to sue for lost karma. You are also well within your rights to wish that the baby grows up to be a disobedient little hellion who then grows up to move far away and never call; or , if your friend is at all homophobic, gay.
Beyond that, I advise you that your most practical option is to walk away and have nothing to do with your former friends. This decision will likely be challenged in five or ten years, when your old buddy sends a friend request to your Facebook account, wanting bygones to be bygones and can't we just be pals again? At that time you have a responsibility to tell him to fuck off. (There's a Latin term for this but I can't recall what it is just now.) Being fucked over so blatantly and outrageously (based on my personal experience not much different from your own, BTW) messes with your ability to deal with people in general and roommates in particular. In all future roommate situations, you'll be wondering if they're getting ready to pull the rug out from under you. Allowing bygones to be bygones, down the road (i.e. after your buddy has gotten what he wants through sudden invasive dorsal penetration--this is an actual natural-law term--and now wants something else that requires you to again make an unreasonable concession) sets a bad precedent that will only encourage other fuckwads to think they can get away with shit.
-
See, this is why I like Obama.
[Read the article: Did Romney mean to call Osama Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I honestly don't feel that I know enough about the various Democratic candidates to know whose policies I like more. (I mean I think I'm better-informed than most but it's still not enough.)
But Obama stands out because, unlike the previous Democratic presidential candidates in my lifetime, he can (1) see in advance the glaringly obvious cheap-shot smears that will be used against him, (2) prepare for them and (3) respond quickly and decisively.
Compare to John Kerry--who should have known that someone would try and smear his military record, the strongest point he had against a War President--and who apparently waited until the smear came, and retreated to the back room to dawdle and hem and haw and go, "should we answer this? I dunno. Maybe we should. Maybe we shouldn't. Hmm. I just don't know. Hmm..."
Note to all those Democratic apparatchik geniuses who pushed for "the most electable" candidate: Rule number one in being electable is to not let the other guy walk all over you.
-
The lessons of history
[Read the article: Iraq taught us nothing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, can we all just take a break from undermining the President and giving care and comfort to Osama and consider the lessons of history?
History has shown us, again and again that if you act like a crazy ass motherfucker everyone will be all like, Whoa, this dude is crazy and they won't mess with you. Like remember when Winston Churchill was chasing Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was in the passenger seat going all like Winston, are you crazy? What are you doing? The bridge is out! And Churchill didn't hit the brakes, he floored it and jumped the ravine and his car LANDED ON HITLER'S VOLKSWAGEN and then they both got out and Churchill and Hitler duked it out.
And when King Arthur called Churchill on the carpet and said, "Churchill, you're a loose cannon and your unorthodox methods repeatedly get you in trouble!" Churchill slammed down his badge, looked him in the eye and said, "Yippee Ki Yay, your majesty."
See, you should really watch the History channel more. 'Cause then you would totally understand stuff and shit.
-
Everyone has skeletons in their closets
[Read the article: Obama goes for the capillaries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reading through these posts, I'm seeing a lot of people defending one candidate by pointing out how compromised the other ones are. Obama defended the 1872 Mining Act; Edwards worked for a hedge fund; Hillary is pals with the guy from Burston Marstellar.
Look. At this point, do you seriously expect to see anyone who is prominent at a national level, that DOESN'T have some questionable pals in the back room? As Lex Luthor said, prison is a creepy place; you need creepy friends. Ditto for politics.
Somebody--I dunno who, maybe it was Churchill, he seems to get quoted a lot lately--said that politics is the art of choosing the distasteful over the unacceptable. Or something like that.
I would even go so far as to say that half of our problem today--literally half, I mean the 50% of voters who don't freaking vote--comes from too many people expecting the perfect candidate to come along and refusing to participate until he/she does. These people have delusionally unrealistic expectations, as well as a seriously simplistic and sanitized view of the Good Old Days.
So let's just accept that ALL of the available candidates are tainted. If they weren't, they couldn't be candidates. You don't have to like it--it's better if you don't--but you had better accept it. What you want to be looking for is whether their associations seem like grudging compromises that one has to make, or whether they don't consider them compromises at all.
And if by some fluke a candidate comes along who seems completely clean... watch out. Still waters have dead cub scouts at the bottom.