I dont think you mean schadenfreude – or, I at least hope you aren’t deriving joy from this.

Detached bemusement would be fine, though. Just not joy or happiness.

January 7, 2005 @ 11:31 am | Comment

Schadenfreude is probably too strong a word — I meant I had to prevent myself from finding it funny and a bit deserved in the face of the lad’s hubris and stupidity. I’ll change it to “bemusement” in the post.

January 7, 2005 @ 12:37 pm | Comment

hahaha retarded rednecks

January 8, 2005 @ 11:24 am | Comment

Bemusement also seems wrong, but I’m not sure the right word for the occasion. Also, congrats for beating me in the Simon World contest; you deserve it, but 2nd place always tries harder…..

Friskodude (Carl)

January 8, 2005 @ 1:47 pm | Comment

Thanks Carl — I didn’t even know! I’ll have to check Simon’s site.

January 8, 2005 @ 1:53 pm | Comment

But Richard, I also have a problem with seat belt laws — although I still wear my seat belt. I feel naked without it. The reasons I have a problem with seat belt laws are basically the same as Derek’s with one addition. These laws were pushed for by the insurance companies. For our safety? That’s the advertised reason. To me, it’s just another reason for them to deny your claim — all of it. Should you wear your seatbelt? Yeah, probably a good idea. But should it be a law? No. Consider it genetic selection.

As a side note, when I was travelling in Northern Ireland a few years back they had a fantasic public service commercial regarding wearing your seat belt. It showed four young kids getting into a car. It opened up with “today ‘Timmy’ is going to kill his friends.” (I don’t remember if his name was Timmy). ‘Timmy’ got in the back seat and did not buckle his seat belt. The other three kids did. As predicted, the kids got in a terrible accident. Timmy, not buckled up in the back seat, becomes airborn. His head hits all of his companions heads as he flies around the inside of the car. It never occured to me that someone not buckled up in the car could be a danger to someone other them himself in the car. Now, noone is allowed to ride without their seatbelt on when I’m in the vehicle. (that’s my law;-)

And then, to switch my view, I guess if it’s possible to do harm to others it could be viewed as a legit reason to pass a law….

There is also a push in the equestrian community to legislate wearing helments whenever one is riding their horse. I have been pretty vocal against this. Again, for the insurance reason. But, fearing (even though I’m not really superstious) the similiar fate of Derek, I have begun to wear my helmet, most of the time. Don’t want to temp fate, or at least the “example” article or end up in a blog!

January 8, 2005 @ 10:03 pm | Comment

I understand the conflict, and I don’t like being told buy the government what to do, either. But…when it comes to seatbelts, those who don’t use them cause the insurance premiums for us good guys to soar, and that is unfair to us. Driving a car is a major responsibility — you need a license, you need to follow the road rules, and you need to wear a seatbelt. That seems a fair trade-off to be granted the privilege to drive.

January 9, 2005 @ 11:02 am | Comment

well, you know me, Richard. Someone says yes, I say no. Is there such thing as an Libritarian Democrat?

January 9, 2005 @ 3:35 pm | Comment

When a young man dies for whatever reason, war, accident, suicide or even idealistic hubris, it’s the saddest thing – so much potential unrealised. And, especially for the parents. the greatest curse and suffering must be for parents to experience the death of their child – there is no more crueler sorrow.

January 13, 2005 @ 9:14 pm | Comment

Jacky, that is absolutely true, which is why in my post I say I had to stop myself from feeling bemused — but my inclination at first to feel bemused came from the fact that the guy got exactly what he was asking for, and his death was totally unnecessary. And there is a supreme irony in that.

January 14, 2005 @ 6:30 am | Comment