In response, I went for an extended coffee break, book in hand. I glanced at a new TV show with the host from “Cash Cab”. It’s called “Last Person Standing” or something like that. The defeated opponents drop through a trapdoor. These are specially designed trapdoors where the flimsy “easy-access” dress of the blonde babe does not fly up around her shoulders. Alas, 30% of the questions are still nonsense dressed up as trivia. How am I supposed to know the heroine of Nutcracker, an opera that puts me into deep, sleep?I’ve got the last two decade counters in Broward. Also known as a ring counter, this integrated circuit does little more than flash ten lights in sequence. I used to think youTube videos were advanced electronics, but now I see that all those operators did was wire up a kit. Take my word, these circuits can be created a lot more easily than you think. What’s more, it is possible to build such gadgets without knowledge of how the chips perform the duty. But that’s an error our club did not make, okay?
The daily excitement was taking the scooter on a 30 mile trip in the cool winter weather. Really, I can’t make today any more lively than already. If I’d known about today in advance, I could have knitted a pair of socks. Now here’s a heads-up, I made a list of what I have to do before the end of the month. I have to get propane and repair music cables, for instance.
One thing I’ve learned about so-called retirement is that anyone who thinks that means there is nothing to do hasn’t been there. Nothing to do and can’t do nothing aren’t the same, even if they initially seem that way to the gumptionless. This joint is as close to zero maintenance as possible and it still keeps me busy with chores.
That’s it for today. I had to reserve most of it for waiting around. It was beyond my control. Lazy days make for lazy people. Doing nothing wears me out. I came home to promptly fall asleep in the easy chair until after midnight. I need another vacation.
Later, since I don’t want today’s blog to be too short, there is a topic I’d like to clarify. When I say that I believe in and support the rule of law that does not mean I expect every person to immediately get out there and start obeying every law in existence. What I mean is that the law should be so clearly established that the average and prudent person knows the limits of the law, to the extent that person can make an informed and willful decision. I suggest and it is borne out in practice, that people will tend to obey good laws and disobey bad laws—but either way the “rules” of said laws must be clearly established.
This seems contradictory to the untrained mind, but it is not muddled at all. Take the bad laws concerning prohibition. It was widely broken from the back alleys all the way up to the White House. Every person who took a drink knew the law and to what extent they could be punished, and millions drank anyway. Every person should have the right to calculate how to “get around” a law as long as they don’t become criminals by breaking it. Right, Coca-Cola? Okay with you, FedEx?
No, it is not right or okay. Where the law can be manipulated depending on the Plaintiff’s tactics, it is not rule of law at all. If you or I try to market a cola or compete with the postal service, it could mean heavy fines. It cost Dr. Pepper a bundle to prove it was a cherry drink, not another cola. Coke was able to sue because the laws on the books were not clear, FedEx avoided being sued because the law was silent on a few critical points that didn’t get sorted out until the company was well-established.
Without the rule of law, you get a situation like my family upbringing, in which you were compelled to play an endless and boring game where rules are suddenly altered should you ever figure out how to win consistently. This produced an entire generation that never learned the value of innovation, rather just how to stop others from doing so. A current example is the laws that criminalize those who cheat gambling casinos.
Such “cheaters” should be rewarded, lionized in fact, as a form of external competition. The way it stands, the only opposition the casinos need fear is another casino, and it just ain’t right the law should provide for that. Be careful here, I confine this example to cheating the house, not the other gamblers. The house is not gambling, they are guaranteed a profit and it is only right that should be subject to intense competitive pressure.
This is plainly a different stance than simply saying everyone should play by the rules. It is saying the rules themselves have to play by the rules. Something to think over, even if I can’t totally define it right here and now.
