Violating proper procedure after a motor vehicle accident.

Several months ago, as some of you might know, my poor truck was struck (and destroyed) while parked. The driver responsible for this didn't get too far after hitting it, as his tie rod end broke, and his wheel basically fell off. So, that's the good news.

The bad news, however, is that this man, a Mr. D Hastings, did not follow proper Baltimore procedure after the accident. As I approached my truck, he walked up to me and apologized profusely, trying to explain himself. He then reached into his wallet and pulled out his insurance card, which is subsequently handed to me.

I wrote down the information from the card, and handed it back to him. When I did so, he apologized again and told me that he'd inform his insurance company, because he was definitely at fault.

In the end, his insurance company, having been notified, took responsibility, and paid a sum of a few thousand dollars to my insurance company.

Well, that sounds easy, doesn't it? And it was!

However, that's not proper post-accident procedure in Baltimore. Apparently, legally, you are required to ditch the vehicle responsible, come back with some friends, and beat the shit out of the victim of the accident:

The driver of a dirt bike plowed through a red light at a West Baltimore intersection Wednesday and broadsided a red sedan, but the most serious injuries suffered by the car's driver didn't come from the crash, according to city police.

A department spokesman said a passenger on the dirt bike quickly hid the cycle in an alley and then returned with friends who beat up the car's driver so severely that he had to be rushed to Maryland Shock Trauma Center, police said.^[1]

So that's what it's come to, apparently!

Someone call the ACLU: BCPD
is doing something to someone.

"Dirt Bikers" in Baltimore are a serious hazard. I've only witnessed a gang of them twice in my life, but both times, they were driving dangerously, zig-zagging across the road (and across the median into on-coming traffic: I kid you not). They'd also randomly jump the curb and ride on the sidewalk. They seemed like an organized gang of transportation menaces. Hell, they were so organized, they even seemingly had some sort-of leader with them.^[2]

What can be done about this? Well, so far, nothing. The police refuse to give chase because the rider might be put at risk. Well, who cares? They're breaking the law and putting people at risk a lot of the time. Several people have died over the years thanks to marauding gangs of dirt bike-riders. I imagine plenty more were injured. Let the riders be the ones to die or be injured when the police give chase.

You know what? Maybe the police need dirt bikes - they're never going to catch them on a Segway...

1. Source>
2. You could tell who he was because he was riding an ATV and not a dirt bike.

I've finally found the value in Noneism.

Noneism is a philosophy - specifically applicable to metaphysics - that some things simply don't exist. Those things that don't exist can have words to describe them, though, so that we can discuss their non-existence.

It's a confusing way to put it, but it's the best I can do without writing several paragraphs. I, your humble narrator, would most dutifully be of service service by linking you to the Wikipedia page if it were any better. But since it's not, I won't.^[1]

I digress, however, as I'm quite possibly rambling on about the meaning of the word and not actually describing how it is a valuable asset to today's world. You see, friends,^[2] Noneism exists in our modern masterpiece of life in the simple form of the term "One-Hour Photo".

"One-Hour Photo" is simply a metaphysical theory, and not a wholly significant, real thing. We give it existence by giving it a term. There is no tangible evidence of actual "One-Hour Photo" in this world, and there likely will never be one. I have no choice bu to postulate, after collecting a lot of evidence, that it simply does not exist, and that it likely never did.

Now, some people might claim that it did, and that they've used it before. But can they prove this? Is there documented evidence of such? Perhaps are they simply straying down the path of Absurdism.^[3]

Again, I feel as though I've strayed from the actual purpose of this entry, and so I shall not get right down to the point:

A historic item.

This weekend, I took a trip with my lovely girlfriend. We visited her hometown, a small town in Pennsylvania. Being that this town is a tiny, historical villa, I decided that some photography would be in the works. Now, I can develop black & white film (and make prints) on my own - I have the facilities for it - but color is out of the realm of possibilities for me at this time. Well, this was my mistake. Film is becoming obsolete, as we all know.^[4] And, because film is becoming, film developing labs are becoming obsolete. The first victims in this war against traditional photography seem to be the mythical "One-Hour Photo" locations.^[5]

The local Walmart, a place I mostly despise, advertises "One-Hour Photo", and some people have even claimed to have utilized it before! However, when I arrived, there was a sign informing me that it was not at all possible to get such a service performed. So, one place down, plenty of more to go, right?

Wrong.

I traveled to the next closest Walmart, which informed me that their machine was sold merely two weeks ago, because film is "becoming obsolete". Well, fine, that's just fine. I know it is, but it hasn't stopped me in the past. However, it seems to be this time. But, I digress...

The lady who informed me of the sale of their machine also told me that I could go "next door", to the Sam's Club (also owned by the evil Empire of Walmart), and get it done there. I did exactly as she asked. I walked to the next building, entered, and asked the girl at the door where their photo desk was. And... No luck!

"Sorry, sir, photo is closed today," she informed me.

Right, so I'll go to the place I bought the fucking film: Target.

Target also did not have "One-Hour Photo", or even a service to SEND IT OUT. THEY'RE ONE OF THE FEW PLACES SELLING FILM... BUT YOU CAN'T GET IT PROCESSED THERE!

Finally, against my better judgment (and a stern warning by a friend), I went to Rite Aid. The local Rite Aid has "1-Hour Photo" on their awning, so it seemed perfect!

I entered the store and quickly found the photo desk. Above the desk was "ONE HOUR PHOTO" in giant fucking yellow letters on a blue background. I seem to have been in luck!

Don't take your film here if
you ever count on seeing
it again!

I quickly made my way to the afforementioned photo desk, which was unstaffed. I looked at the envelopes. There were two different ones: "One Hour Service" and "Out Lab Service".

I picked up the "One Hour Service" envelope, filled it out, put my film in it and put it in the slot. Success!

Or was it?

I went back today, hoping that my film would be done (afterall, I dropped it off over twenty hours ago). And, as you might've expected, it wasn't done.

"Sir, we don't have one hour photo anymore. We ship everything away," the cashier told me.

I looked at her, keenly, and replied, "But it says `one hour photo` several places in your store, and there were envelopes that said it, too."

"Sir, as you can see, there are no envelopes in the `One Hour Service` bin. This is because we no longer offer it," she said to me, as if I was a fucking illiterate moron or something.

"Well, there were several last night. I should know, since I filled one of them out," I retorted.

She tried once again to make excuses for the store's stupidity, "Well, sir, maybe there were, maybe there weren't, but the bin is empty as is the drop-off bin, which means that the guy took them to the lab today. Come back in 3-4 days. I'd say try back on Monday."

In the end, one cannot be sure of the existence of such an abstract concept as "One-Hour Photo". However, I believe I'm demonstrably shown that there is little chance of its actual existence... Kinda like God.

1. Even though I did.
2. Romans? Countrymen?
3. Another, related philosophical movement of the 20th century.
4. And as a Walmart employee extraneously informed me.
5. Which I still don't believe existed to begin with.

Opening up the military to Christians is a mistake!

Some people think allowing open Christianity in the military means nothing more than opening a door that was previously closed. It means much more than that. It would mean simultaneously ushering out the back door anyone who is disapproved of by "Christian" conduct, whether because of legitimate privacy and mental health concerns or because of moral or lifestyle choices.

This outcome is almost inevitable, because pro-Christian activists have made it clear that merely lifting the “ban” on openly Christian military personnel will not satisfy them.

The stand-alone bills that have been introduced to overturn the 1993 law, such as S. 3065, call explicitly for:

Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.

While not in the defense authorization bill amendment approved by the House of Representatives and a Senate committee last week, this goal will undoubtedly be accomplished administratively as part of the “necessary policies and regulations” mandated by that amendment.

This means that all 1.4 million members of the U.S. military will be subject to sensitivity training intended to indoctrinate them into the myths of the Christian movement: that Jesus said some stuff about accepting everybody, no matter who they are (this includes sinners).

Anyone who points to the mountain of evidence to the contrary (and there is an awful lot) - or merely expresses the personal conviction that consenting adults should be able to make their own life choices - runs the risk of receiving a negative performance evaluation for failing to support the military’s “equal opportunity policy” regarding “religious tolerance.”

For no other offense than disbelieving what a few short-sighted members of the not-so-great monotheistic religions have believed for all of history - 6000 years according to them, but many, many, many more according to actual smart people - some service members will be denied promotion, will be forced out of the service altogether, or will simply choose not to reenlist. Other citizens will choose not to join the military in the first place. The numbers lost will dwarf the numbers gained by opening the ranks to practicing Christians.

This pro-Christian political correctness has already begun to infect the military.

As a homosexual and a Marine Corps veteran, I was invited to speak at a gay pride event at Andrews Air Force Base earlier this year. I had every intention of delivering a sexual message, not a political one.

But the invitation was withdrawn after I criticized Former President Dubya’s call to open the military to Christianity in his State of the Union address. The base commander told me they had received some complaints - about a dozen. I pointed out that orchestrating a handful of calls was a simple task for Christian activist groups.

If I was blacklisted merely for supporting existing law, what will happen to those who oppose the new, politically correct law?

Those most likely to suffer are the homosexuals, the polyamorous, the atheists, and the agnostics. While some in the ranks will simply choose not to exercise their First Amendment rights in order to preserve their careers, this is not an option for these people. Their entire lifestyle is contrary to the ridiculous faux moral and theological teachings of the Christian faith.

But under the new regulations, will they be free to ignore preaching from the Bible? Or will they be forced to endure the many passages declaring certain conduct to be a sin?^[1]

Really, though, the satire is over, for now. I don't see how what I wrote is any different than what "Tony Perkins" wrote over at CNN. He has an opinion: that people like him have a right to discriminate and hate people as much as they want. However, he feels like those "rights" are being threatened, and that he himself will be discriminated against and hated. Well, if that's not a ridiculous double-standard, I don't know what is.

Mr. Perkins confuses me. He seems, somehow to think that religious liberty is synonymous with hating people. I'm not sure where this came from, but I have my guesses. To borrow a page from my most hated enemy, Glenn Beck; Maybe Perkins is gay. Can we prove he's not actually a homosexual? Can we prove that he's not in the closet and embarrassed about it? What evidence is there to disprove it? Now, I'm not saying that he is for a fact, a homosexual. But, I am wondering if he could prove that he isn't one. You know, just for the record...

1. Enduring a reading from the Bible is bad enough as it is. That book's a pile of shit!
2. Source