Even before the election, fans of cannabis in Washington state were worried about DUI provisions of the law that could get people in trouble merely for having innocuous traces in their system weeks after perfectly legal use. That’s not the only such complication. I can think of an easy, commonsense solution. Wonder if anyone will adopt it? (H/T H.)
Writer David Young says your ebooks are yours (or ought to be) and even suggests some ways to protect them.
Years ago we were at a LDS cannery and a woman begged them to let her can dog kibble. They refused. Then the following year they closed the cannery to the public.
I have freeze-dried raw dog food and powdered calcium stored for my dog. Dogs can eat pretty much anything in a pinch, but they really need meat and calcium long-term. Those #10 cans of freeze-dried meat are expensive, but ideal for people and dogs.
Thanks again for the mention, Claire. I really wonder why retailers & distributors feel empowered to decide what a reader is buying. After all, they’re generally not the copyright holders to begin with.
Plus, I get pissed off when Amazon tells people they’re doing stuff (like limiting book lending) at the publisher’s request. As the publisher of my own books, I strongly disagree with nearly all of the crap they say. And they never asked me.
I was once at a mountainman rendezvous where an environmental protester showed up- in the middle of the shooting range- to protest our “killing Mother Earth”. He was lucky that some “forest circus” agents happened to be there making sure we weren’t doing anything too “free”. They forcibly removed him from the rendezvous (along with his dirt bike!), and warned him that if he came back they wouldn’t rescue him again.
I have thought about the “luxury of anger” issue myself. And also the luxury of assistance, which carrying a gun gives you. I feel more free to help people than I might otherwise.
The problem with the fiscal cliff is that neither wing of the carrion bird really cares if we go over it. If they dither until the tumble occurs they both get what they want. Mandatory cuts (sequestration) kick in and automatic tax hikes across the board. Both wings can claim being the aggreived party, both can claim being the last defender of the tax payer. Each wing believes the damage to the other will be greater than what they will suffer. Since taxpayers don’t seem to hold the federal government accountable, they are probably right.
We live in a society where a significant portion of us are not allowed the luxury of anger, whether we are armed or not. As a middle aged caucasion male I am not allowed that particular freedom. If I said what I thought and a confrontation ensued even though not physically instigated by myself, I’d be charged with a crime. If the confrontation occurred with members of a protected group I’d be charged with a “hate” crime. Just verbalizing what I might feel internally can get me charged with a crime is some othe party “feels” threatened or oppressed, or whatever.