2001-03-18 - 9:28pm

Who's Who Cheat Sheet
Who I Read

On the internal soundtrack: The Monkees' rendition of "Riu Chiu". I think only the real hardcore fans know this one. :)

So, I'm back.

Justin is here!

I have to do one of those 20-minute entries for now.

Sigh. So, my week in NJ. It was depressing. It made me very tired. I'm not the kind of person who likes to spend all day running around, and that's what I did, and half the activities were funeral-related, which made them even more tiring.

The one for Alicia's grandmother was particularly difficult. I was in denial until I got to the "viewing", and then seeing Alicia and all of her family hit me really hard. Her grandmother was an extremely vivacious, outgoing person -- someone who caught your attention immediately by the force of her personality -- and the fact that she's no longer here is "impossible", as I told Alicia.

I spent most of the funeral bawling. Even when nothing was going on -- reciting dull prayers and such -- I was bawling. I'd imagine it has a lot to do with how I feel about my own grandfather being so sick. Every time I see him I'm afraid it's going to be the last time. And it hurts to see him getting weaker and weaker, and worrying about his condition. Argh.

All right, moving on to happier topics. My mom's youngest sister is about to buy her first house. She's bouncing off the walls. It's in a tiny village in Bucks County, surrounded by antique shops. Part of the house dates back to the 1800s. The kitchen is brand new. The outside of the house is kind of pathetic -- no landscaping, ugly siding -- but she and her husband have a knack for making things look cute, so I'd imagine they'll do a great job with it.

It's so cute to see how excited she is. When I was younger, she was a rather sarcastic person. Since then, she seems to have made some peace with a lot of things -- helped in part by the man she's married to -- and is now an incredibly fun, bubbly person who gets a lot of joy out of life.

When I hugged her to congratulate her about the house, we hopped up and down at the same time.

Conversation with Justin (who lives in an isolated area outside San Diego) in the car:

J: ...and when you come to visit, we can shoot in my backyard!
E: Hey, can I sunbathe naked out there too?
J: Sure, just don't get downrange of me.

Justin just discovered guns after he moved to San Diego. Apparently their property ("compound", Poindexter called it after he saw it -- it's nestled in the hills) is very isolated, and so he was interested in getting a gun for protection.

Justin, when he gets interested in something, throws himself wholeheartedly into it. He brought some gun magazines that crack me up. They're for hardcore firearm enthusiasts -- I can't even understand the terms used in the articles. For me, guns are not a phallic extension, so I don't tend to get excited about bigger/louder/faster.

It must be my lack of testosterone. I like old cars in general, Volkswagens in particular; I like knowing how they work, but I'm not about horsepower or speed, I'm about aesthetics. My 1972 VW, after all, has the HP of about lawn mower and sounds like one, too. But it looks really cute.

So Jonah Goldberg is irritating me again. In this article, he wrote:

Second, legalizing drugs in a "small place" has been tried. In Switzerland, for example, they tried it in a park that quickly became known as needle park. They had to shut it down because it became a petri dish of scummy addicts, petty criminals and prostitutes. After that experience, the Swiss voted by 73 percent to reject drug legalization. If they had noted what a sewer Amsterdam turned into because of legalized drugs, they could have saved some hassles.

First, let me clarify that this discussion is in the context of today's society, not some libertarian utopia.

WHY do people keep citing Amsterdam and a single park in Switzerland as a reason not to legalize drugs?!?! This is ridiculous.

First of all, the small scale is part of the problem. Imagine if there were only one city and one park in this entire country where alcohol was allowed. The most desperate alcoholics would be the first ones out there and they'd be in too much of a stupor to leave. Whereas if drugs were legal everywhere, users would not suddenly all flock to the same square mile -- they could stay at home or at other people's homes or more lenient bars or clubs to do it, just the way they are doing now.

Second, why does everyone assume that if drugs were legalized tomorrow, using them on the streets would be acceptable? Public drunkenness is a crime in most, if not all, areas of this country. Urinating in public is a crime, and so is sex in public. If you're going to legalize drugs, simply mandate that their ingestion be done in PRIVATE. And like alcohol, driving under the influence would be a crime.

The situation in Amsterdam is weird, anyway. From what I've heard, the laws are really screwy and they've fixed it so that the ONLY place you can use the drugs are in certain types of cafes. I need to find out exactly how this works. But if I'm right, it goes along with my whole not-in-public argument.

Now, I'm still open to arguments that drug legalization is worse than the current state. Let me have it. Poindexter and I argue for hours on this particular issue -- he's on the fence about it. But don't try the Amsterdam/Swiss park argument on me.

BTW, I highly recommend reading what Tino has to say about the drug war.

previous index next