Home > observations > This is what the expression “WTF?” was invented for

This is what the expression “WTF?” was invented for

February 3, 2008

I was walking home from the theater last night when I came to a traffic light.  The walk signal was off and the light was about to change to red, so I stopped.  I waited, with my hands in my pockets. A shiny new white pickup was waiting for his light to turn green.  It did, and he began to move.

Then he slammed on the brakes in the crosswalk.  The driver leaned over and yelled at me in a shrill voice;

“Goin’ skiing?!!!”

To which his passenger added, yelling;

“F*king A*hole!!!”

Shocked, I made no response.  Then the truck sped off into the night.  How very odd!  The walk signal turned and I went on, amusing myself with the thought that the passenger was describing himself and the driver.  What was it about ski goggles that set them off?  There was at least 8 inches of snow on the ground and it was windy and cold.  And what did it matter to them anyway?  I wondered what had their lives had been like to explain such behavior toward a stranger on the street. I turned to a shortcut across the Methodist church parking lot.

And then I saw the white truck again, with its distinctive LED bar across the tailgate.  They had circled around the block and were driving slowly down the street, looking from side to side.  Having no wish to encounter two big guys half my age with an apparent vendetta against ski-goggle-wearing pedestrians, I stepped between two vans.  They drove on and I didn’t see them again.

I don’t know what it all means but there you go.

Categories: observations
  1. EdK
    February 4, 2008 at 01:42 | #1

    You’re probably looking at two future inhabitants of the concrete and steel government resort we call “the Pokey”.

    I think that’s about all it means.  Somebody has to be part of that bottom percentage.

  2. February 4, 2008 at 06:36 | #2

    Nice to know you are smart enough to get out of site.  I would think too many drugs…

  3. trailrider
    February 4, 2008 at 08:16 | #3

    Must be some fine goggles.

  4. February 4, 2008 at 09:12 | #4

    Maybe there is some psychological or pharmacological explanation, but they may most usefully be described as ornery and stupid.

  5. james old guy
    February 4, 2008 at 09:56 | #5

    I am glad not all the morons in pickup trucks are in the south.

  6. February 4, 2008 at 16:13 | #6

    I think this post has just as much to do with people that are “different” as it does with ski goggles. Why is it we treat people that seem different to us like pieces of shit?

  7. February 4, 2008 at 16:23 | #7

    If by “we” you mean “society in general” that’s sort of a broad net.  Luckily only a tiny minority take it upon themselves to harass strangers.  I guess it’s a thankless job.

  8. February 4, 2008 at 20:46 | #8

    and people wonder why I carry…

  9. February 5, 2008 at 01:10 | #9

    It certainly crossed my mind.  Generally I favor concealed-carry laws.

  10. Me
    February 5, 2008 at 13:34 | #10

    and people wonder why I carry…

    People like me I suppose.

    What would carrying have done here? DOF’s response of avoidance seems perfectly well in line considering the threat; I don’t think that he was de-nutted by avoiding the confrontation with a bunch of jerks.

    Perhaps the rednecks felt guilty that DOF was all in their face with his walking around while they toodled in their truck. I know I get peeved whenever the poor have the temerity to show up and make me think how little I do. Maybe it was something like that?

    Folks, the new budget came out a few days back. Getting bigger each year because we’re askeered and need to keep arming ourselves with bigger guns or some brown person’s gonna take our women. Sometime, the right answer is to duck in the alley and let the juveniles pass without shooting at them.

  11. Lucas
    February 8, 2008 at 11:47 | #11

    Me:  I think it’s clear that GUYK and George would have shot both of them in cold blood for looking at them cock-eyed.  Now to go read up on this new sarcasm thing I’ve been hearing all about…

  12. Lucas
    February 8, 2008 at 11:50 | #12

    What is this fucking bullshit?  A fucking filter?!?  Fuck that shit, motherfucker.

  13. February 8, 2008 at 13:39 | #13

    LOL

  14. Ted
    February 8, 2008 at 15:02 | #14

    Now to go read up on this new sarcasm thing I’ve been hearing all about…

    Which part was sarcasm? I don’t think George said outright that he carries, but GUYK did. I also don’t think that either one would of necessity have shot anyone, but let’s recount a few events in the last few days of our grand gun culture:

    1. Five women dead in Lane Bryant.
    2. The guy that killed the SWAT officer plus a few relatives.
    3. The guy that took out the five council members after being ejected from crankery.
    4. Many anonymous people shot dead under less interesting circumstances.

    Ready availability of guns, yields ready use of guns. GUYK and George may be paragons of even-temperament, but we all get frustrated sometime. Owning guns and “carrying” guns does not imply the same thing.

    To me, “carrying” implies a lack of confidence in basic law and order, and the militarized state of our law enforcement agencies.

    If you want to own, great—I just would like to restrict and regulate their ubiquity.

  15. February 8, 2008 at 15:29 | #15

    “I just would like to restrict and regulate their ubiquity.”

    How might that be done?

  16. Ted
    February 8, 2008 at 16:05 | #16

    I forgot about the college student in LA. Shot two classmates, then herself. Was that this morning?

    How might that be done?

    We’re pretty creative people. How would you do it?

    I was driving through Macon the other day and there’s this big new-type electronic outdoor sign, “Use a gun to commit a crime, you’ll do serious time.” Serious time was bold and flashing enough to cause a seizure to hapless passer-bys.

    I wondered what that’s all about, but then I remembered that we had more people jailed in the US, The Home of the Free, than China did, and they have five times as many people and are seriously abusive to their citizens.

    The 80/20 rule applies to gun ownership, and 20% of the consumers, own 80% of the guns (or some such number). George W, previously made light of a dress code in Louisiana dealing with sagging pants, and frankly, I don’t agree with him on that, although I agree with much he says. Why? Because it’s a matter of mental maturity, and although you can’t legislate it sometimes, you can regulate it. Guns owners and users need mental maturity as well.

    1. I’d restrict the carrying of loaded weapons outside of ranges; homes, and hunting areas. You’re no match for SWAT or the US military. If you think you are, see the section above re: mental maturity.

    2. I’d require gun safety classes and tests every 3 years in order to keep a gun. And not something real simple either, but including provisions that you had to understand legal ramifications and legal code. SAT style testing.

    3. Guns should be protected and safeguarded or taken away from sloppy people.

    4. Guns should be subject to law enforcement inspections. They can send you a card, and you can take it wherever so they can check it out and see that you still have it.

    5. Gun owners should be taxed heavily during the registration phase. If you can’t afford the tax, your focus should probably be elsewhere.

    6. Guns should be tracked throughout their lifecycle. Birth through grave.

    7. Fingerprint activation? Technology is our friend—a gun should be used only by the registered owner.

    And no, I don’t believe that if you regulate heavily, only criminals would have ready access to guns. We have tens of thousands of gunshot deaths each year. Other countries that regulate heavily have 100s and their criminals aren’t running rampant. The opposite, actually.

    I suspect that for many Americans the gun is an extension of their manhood/identity. That’s pretty poor for 21st century people. I had a friend in the military and he said they locked up the guns and kept them under strict control until it was necessary to use them. Supposedly they’d know a thing or two about the consequences of everyone carrying guns during daily tasks.

  17. February 9, 2008 at 12:06 | #17

    Ahh, Saturday…

    I don’t get real worked up either way on second-amendment issues but if there were a proposal that allowed citizens to qualify for a carry permit I’d be OK with it.  Presumably it would involve a background check, training, ballistic samples, periodic gun inspection, etc.  People who get through that filter probably aren’t a danger to society. And of course, if you get caught packing without a permit, you get the book thrown at you.

    We have a lot of people in prison who shouldn’t be, but illegally carrying a gun is a pretty strong signal.

    Some people have legitimate self-defense needs.  For one example, too many poor women live in fear for their lives because their creep ex-s ignore restraining orders and the cops can’t do anything.  Hey Romeo, ‘stay away’ means what it says. 

    Ted – there’s been a lot of research on systems that would only allow guns to be fired by their owners.  Somewhere i read that many cops are shot by suspects who got their guns away from them.  Not sure what the current state of the art is.  One approach would be an RFID chip implanted in the hand, readable by the gun.  Hitachi is now making dust-mote-size chips so I don’t think it would be that hard.  As you can guess the cool technological problem is more interesting to me than the legal issue anyway. 

    Lucas: glad you like my ######### filter, it does a ####### ###-#####‘n job of ######## the #####…  ;-P

Comments are closed.