Over the weekend, I ran across a blog post which took exception to use of the word Derp. I have commented on it a little and will explain here a bit more about why this post irritated me.
The point isn't that I have a burning desire to say Derp. The point is that today we are *inundated* with people telling us we shouldn't say things, to the point that it's become really irritating and even a bit creepy. These days people spend so much time looking over things people say and write, seemingly hoping to find something they can scold people about, that it is almost impossible to say anything that isn't bland or mealy-mouthed without offending somebody. This country, which has the ideal of being the land of the free and the home of the brave, now has "first amendment zones" that are getting smaller and smaller. In my opinion, this control freak mindset has to start meeting (verbal) brickbats and the sooner the better.
People get offended when you comment for or against the two (identical) major political parties. Or for or against 3rd parties.
People get offended when you comment for or against being religious. Or when your brand of religion doesn't match theirs.
As a matter of fact, people get offended when you comment for or against civil liberties.
People get offended when you mention ethnicity. And often when you don't mention it. Even mentioning works like Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness" offends some because his sensitivities don't match today's, ignoring the fact that this was an important work attacking Kind Leopold and Belgium's atrocities in the Congo.
People get offended when you say ANYTHING about sex or gender roles. And often when you ignore them.
I'm not the first person to comment on this whinging attempt to control people via hypersensitivity.
“Don’t step on the toes of the dog-lovers, the cat-lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said.”
- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Monday, May 5, 2014
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Taking the offensive in 2014: make 1994 look a minor change
Here is a really excellent idea for going on the offensive in 2014 in Democrat safe districts, along with a second example from my own experience. Since the anti-gun people have launched all out war on the gun rights community, moving from a defensive stance to an offensive stance is sure to be VERY satisfying. We have the capability to make the 1994 election something that Democrats recall fondly as a minor adjustment...
1) Deplete their resources in primary elections - a really excellent post form the moderator of the WA-CCW mailing list
Do you live in a democrat-controlled district?
If so, you may have figured that voting for your state senator and representatives is a waste of time. It's frustrating to know that the democrat candidate will always win in your district, especially if they are a notorious gun grabber. In districts, and even states, that are controlled by democrats, the incumbent politicians generally feel free to pursue their gun grabber agenda without fear of being defeated in the next election and there isn't much we can do about it. But maybe there is.
I suggest that you, and your fellow gun owners in that district, vote against the anti-gun incumbent in the primary election. You will need to identify their most serious primary challenger. Donate a few dollars to them and display a yard sign for them. Tell them exactly why you are doing it. And tell the incumbent too!
If the incumbent is not defeated, you have at least made them expend resources defending their seat from a challenger within their own party. If they are defeated in the primary and their seat is taken by another gun grabber, at least the new grabber won't have as much seniority and experience as the one who was defeated. Ideally, it will make democrat politicians less enthusiastic about enacting new anti-gun laws. You know that their top priority is being re-elected.
In some states, you would have to change your party affiliation prior to the election. I would be worth it. And here in Washington we don't even have to do that. We have a "top two" primary, so all you have to do is identify the leading democrat challenger and vote for them.
Top two primary FAQ:
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/Pages/Top2PrimaryFAQ.aspx
When election time rolls around again in 2014, let's start paying attention to primary challengers for anti-gun democrats in the legislature. It would be nice to have a list of targets. I think we should ask our gun rights organizations to track potential democrat primary challengers that we can support.
Feel free to forward this message to your friends trapped behind enemy lines.
2. Deplete their resources in special elections, recalls
Another approach that made for good political payback in 1994 was the Roberti Recall election. David Robert coauthored California moronic Roberti-Roos "assault weapon" ban. In 1994, he was about to be term limited out of office but was expected to take part in a safe election to state treasurer.
Instead, he found himself fighting a recall campaign that depleted his political war chest and he subsequently lost the election for Treasurer. Details More Details
This example fills me with amusement because voting for Roberti's opponent in the June 1994 primary was the last vote that I cast in the state of California
1) Deplete their resources in primary elections - a really excellent post form the moderator of the WA-CCW mailing list
Do you live in a democrat-controlled district?
If so, you may have figured that voting for your state senator and representatives is a waste of time. It's frustrating to know that the democrat candidate will always win in your district, especially if they are a notorious gun grabber. In districts, and even states, that are controlled by democrats, the incumbent politicians generally feel free to pursue their gun grabber agenda without fear of being defeated in the next election and there isn't much we can do about it. But maybe there is.
I suggest that you, and your fellow gun owners in that district, vote against the anti-gun incumbent in the primary election. You will need to identify their most serious primary challenger. Donate a few dollars to them and display a yard sign for them. Tell them exactly why you are doing it. And tell the incumbent too!
If the incumbent is not defeated, you have at least made them expend resources defending their seat from a challenger within their own party. If they are defeated in the primary and their seat is taken by another gun grabber, at least the new grabber won't have as much seniority and experience as the one who was defeated. Ideally, it will make democrat politicians less enthusiastic about enacting new anti-gun laws. You know that their top priority is being re-elected.
In some states, you would have to change your party affiliation prior to the election. I would be worth it. And here in Washington we don't even have to do that. We have a "top two" primary, so all you have to do is identify the leading democrat challenger and vote for them.
Top two primary FAQ:
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/Pages/Top2PrimaryFAQ.aspx
When election time rolls around again in 2014, let's start paying attention to primary challengers for anti-gun democrats in the legislature. It would be nice to have a list of targets. I think we should ask our gun rights organizations to track potential democrat primary challengers that we can support.
Feel free to forward this message to your friends trapped behind enemy lines.
2. Deplete their resources in special elections, recalls
Another approach that made for good political payback in 1994 was the Roberti Recall election. David Robert coauthored California moronic Roberti-Roos "assault weapon" ban. In 1994, he was about to be term limited out of office but was expected to take part in a safe election to state treasurer.
Instead, he found himself fighting a recall campaign that depleted his political war chest and he subsequently lost the election for Treasurer. Details More Details
This example fills me with amusement because voting for Roberti's opponent in the June 1994 primary was the last vote that I cast in the state of California
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sexism in the NRA
In 1972, the federal law Title IX was passed with the intention of achieving gender equity in high school and collegiate sports. I find it disturbing that 40 years later, some still see this as a bad thing. For example, witness US Womens Soccer champion Brandi Chastain's experience at a Sacramento at an event honoring the 40th anniversary of Title IX. (article) Even today, media coverage of women in sports lags significantly behind the coverage of male sports.
If that grudging acceptance of women in sports is the status quo in other sports, you're probably thinking to yourself "I bet that barbaric NRA is even worse"! Let's take a look and see...
Here are a couple examples. On the left, is an article about Elizabeth Topperwein competing in the NRA's national matches in 1906. Wait, could that be right? Yes, it was in fact 1906 and this writeup notes that women had competed in other shooting matches for some time. In the picture on the right, Gertrude Beckstrom proudly celebrates WINNING the overall national pistol matches in 1957..
Yes but what about management roles? Surely the backward, benighted NRA wouldn't support women taking a leadership role in their organization. Well, except they did in 1949 when the Seattle area's late Alice Bull was elected to the NRA Board of Directors.
The pictures above are from the book "NRA: An American Legend" (my review) and highlight the pride the organization has taken in supporting all those interested in shooting over the years, whether for sport or self defense. This has included a North Carolina NAACP chapter threatened by the KKK in the 1950s (link) and a Pink Pistols affiliate in Seattle in 2000 (link). In fact, I was a safety instructor for CeaseFear and a variety of gun rights organizations lent substantial support: the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington state's Gun Owners Action League, various shooting ranges.
Clearly, there's a lot more to the NRA's narrative and history that the simplistic media offer up to casual readers. I've included some further illustrations from the NRA's magazine American Rifleman below, in the hope that it will provide valuable information to some.Note that these photos were selected by opening a handful of issues over about a half hour...they are undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg.
This screen shot is from a December 1939 article by Dr. A. F. Bokman, describing the benefits his sons and daughter experienced as a a result of a rifle marksmanship program.
These photos are from the December 1951 editions Annual Meeting coverage
This photo from the November 1951 coverage of the national matches at Camp Perry illustrates that women competed very seriously decades ago.
As does this cover from September 1967.
So before you allow the news media to shape your opinion about an organization, please take the time to think about whether their agenda might shape what they tell you about it.
If that grudging acceptance of women in sports is the status quo in other sports, you're probably thinking to yourself "I bet that barbaric NRA is even worse"! Let's take a look and see...
Here are a couple examples. On the left, is an article about Elizabeth Topperwein competing in the NRA's national matches in 1906. Wait, could that be right? Yes, it was in fact 1906 and this writeup notes that women had competed in other shooting matches for some time. In the picture on the right, Gertrude Beckstrom proudly celebrates WINNING the overall national pistol matches in 1957..
Yes but what about management roles? Surely the backward, benighted NRA wouldn't support women taking a leadership role in their organization. Well, except they did in 1949 when the Seattle area's late Alice Bull was elected to the NRA Board of Directors.
The pictures above are from the book "NRA: An American Legend" (my review) and highlight the pride the organization has taken in supporting all those interested in shooting over the years, whether for sport or self defense. This has included a North Carolina NAACP chapter threatened by the KKK in the 1950s (link) and a Pink Pistols affiliate in Seattle in 2000 (link). In fact, I was a safety instructor for CeaseFear and a variety of gun rights organizations lent substantial support: the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington state's Gun Owners Action League, various shooting ranges.
Clearly, there's a lot more to the NRA's narrative and history that the simplistic media offer up to casual readers. I've included some further illustrations from the NRA's magazine American Rifleman below, in the hope that it will provide valuable information to some.Note that these photos were selected by opening a handful of issues over about a half hour...they are undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg.
This screen shot is from a December 1939 article by Dr. A. F. Bokman, describing the benefits his sons and daughter experienced as a a result of a rifle marksmanship program.
These photos are from the December 1951 editions Annual Meeting coverage
This photo from the November 1951 coverage of the national matches at Camp Perry illustrates that women competed very seriously decades ago.
As does this cover from September 1967.
So before you allow the news media to shape your opinion about an organization, please take the time to think about whether their agenda might shape what they tell you about it.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Letter to the Seattle Times about gun legislation
I am writing to provide some feedback about your opinion columns
about gun control this weekend, as well as the general tone of the
discussion. For your information, I am a moderate liberal Democrat in
most respects who also happens to be an NRA Life Member; I believe
that makes me a consistent liberal.
In general, I find the idea of firearms "discussion" in this country to be
an unfortunate oxymoron. Firearms owners possess the technical acumen
for real debate and a first person knowledge of the issues. Most gun control
advocates seem to fall more into the "guns are icky and we want all the
controls we can get" camp. Attempts to rebrand "gun control" to "gun safety"
will only have any veracity when the control side provides more data than
the equivalent of sex ed composed solely of "abstinence" instruction.
The firearms community reduced the fatal gun accident rate from 2500/year
around 1970 to about 600/year now, mostly through OUR initiative and
without significant legal requirements.
To reiterate and rephrase: we don't want to be talked at by those with no
knowledge any more than women wanted to be talked down to be
anti-choice extremists last year.
Having lived in 4 states and experienced a variety of gun controls first
hand, including their unintended consequences, I'd like to respond to
some editorials by Danny Westneat and Jenny Durkan in the Time,
this weekend.
I was most impressed by Danny Westneat's comments and I believe
that he and my representative Hope have a sincere interest in finding
intelligent discussion points. Where this breaks down is if HB 1588 includes
a requirement to record firearm type and serial numbers. A carefully
defined background check can be an excellent idea but legislation which
results in full firearms registration is unacceptable. That reading of
1588 would put it on par with California's requirement that records all
firearms transactions. This is not so much in regard to gun show transactions
as to private purchases between individuals.
An approach which could be much more acceptable to the firearms
community would be something like Iowa's pistol purchase permit,
which I experienced in the mid 1990s. It included a background check
good for a year or two pf purchases. A background check meets the
stated goals of Rep Hope, without venturing into firearms registration
territory. Another equivalent would be to exempt firearms purchases where
the purchaser possesses a valid WA state concealed pistol license.
I have personally only sold firearms to persons possessing a valid CPL,
which I believe meets my responsibility as a gun owner squarely.
I am frankly disappointed with Jenny Durkan's attempt to ingratiate
herself with the firearms community by saying "I grew up with shotguns"
and then have her go on to urge a ban on so-called "assault weapons". If Ms
Durkan grew up with guns, surely she knows that these firearms are
functionally equivalent to hunting firearms. The idea of banning rifles which are
used to kill less people than blunt objects and half the people killed with
hands and feet is patently ridiculous.
The US will never have its gun culture destroyed in the way that other
countries have. There are many millions of handguns in private hands
and tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles and normal capacity magazines
for them as well. The djinn is out of the bottle but gun rights advocates share
your concern in reducing violence. Why not ask for our ideas?
If you ask us how instead of "splaining" to us what controls we have to
accept, we can work together to improve the situation. But we don't have
to accept any bad idea you come up with and we won't. Something like
a hundred thousand gun owners took the time to show up and protest
peacefully for our rights in state capitols around the country, two weeks
ago. We're not going anywhere.
about gun control this weekend, as well as the general tone of the
discussion. For your information, I am a moderate liberal Democrat in
most respects who also happens to be an NRA Life Member; I believe
that makes me a consistent liberal.
In general, I find the idea of firearms "discussion" in this country to be
an unfortunate oxymoron. Firearms owners possess the technical acumen
for real debate and a first person knowledge of the issues. Most gun control
advocates seem to fall more into the "guns are icky and we want all the
controls we can get" camp. Attempts to rebrand "gun control" to "gun safety"
will only have any veracity when the control side provides more data than
the equivalent of sex ed composed solely of "abstinence" instruction.
The firearms community reduced the fatal gun accident rate from 2500/year
around 1970 to about 600/year now, mostly through OUR initiative and
without significant legal requirements.
To reiterate and rephrase: we don't want to be talked at by those with no
knowledge any more than women wanted to be talked down to be
anti-choice extremists last year.
Having lived in 4 states and experienced a variety of gun controls first
hand, including their unintended consequences, I'd like to respond to
some editorials by Danny Westneat and Jenny Durkan in the Time,
this weekend.
I was most impressed by Danny Westneat's comments and I believe
that he and my representative Hope have a sincere interest in finding
intelligent discussion points. Where this breaks down is if HB 1588 includes
a requirement to record firearm type and serial numbers. A carefully
defined background check can be an excellent idea but legislation which
results in full firearms registration is unacceptable. That reading of
1588 would put it on par with California's requirement that records all
firearms transactions. This is not so much in regard to gun show transactions
as to private purchases between individuals.
An approach which could be much more acceptable to the firearms
community would be something like Iowa's pistol purchase permit,
which I experienced in the mid 1990s. It included a background check
good for a year or two pf purchases. A background check meets the
stated goals of Rep Hope, without venturing into firearms registration
territory. Another equivalent would be to exempt firearms purchases where
the purchaser possesses a valid WA state concealed pistol license.
I have personally only sold firearms to persons possessing a valid CPL,
which I believe meets my responsibility as a gun owner squarely.
I am frankly disappointed with Jenny Durkan's attempt to ingratiate
herself with the firearms community by saying "I grew up with shotguns"
and then have her go on to urge a ban on so-called "assault weapons". If Ms
Durkan grew up with guns, surely she knows that these firearms are
functionally equivalent to hunting firearms. The idea of banning rifles which are
used to kill less people than blunt objects and half the people killed with
hands and feet is patently ridiculous.
The US will never have its gun culture destroyed in the way that other
countries have. There are many millions of handguns in private hands
and tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles and normal capacity magazines
for them as well. The djinn is out of the bottle but gun rights advocates share
your concern in reducing violence. Why not ask for our ideas?
If you ask us how instead of "splaining" to us what controls we have to
accept, we can work together to improve the situation. But we don't have
to accept any bad idea you come up with and we won't. Something like
a hundred thousand gun owners took the time to show up and protest
peacefully for our rights in state capitols around the country, two weeks
ago. We're not going anywhere.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Gun Appreciation Day - January 19, 2013
Washington state was one of almost 50 states today that
staged huge gun rights rallies, under the Gun Appreciation
Day rubric. New channels are reporting that a couple
thousand people showed up in Olympia and I believe it!
Had to get a shot of my last minute sign.
As you might expect, this gal and I had a big old fist bump
when we noticed each others signs.
A few pictures of this big and very awesome crowd.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
GOP Recovery Plan
There's a familiar pattern in American politics, where a party starts getting some real power and starts thinking it can use that power to start forcing the country into their little mold. This arrogance then causes them to lose big in elections, giving them a valuable opportunity to rethink their platform. It happened in 1992 and 2010 to the Democrats...this year, it happened to the Republicans.
What does the GOP need to do to be worthy of a comeback? Here are my suggestions:
1) Do be financially conservative without appearing like a soulless dick. A balanced budget is one thing; a schmuck like Romney joking about firing people during a Recession just makes you look stupid.
2) Don't mindlessly attack whole segments of the population. Intelligent people don't try to control or influence what birth control women have access to. Intelligent men don't quibble with women about what "real" rape is and "men" who do deserve a punch in the nose, not a job with lots of power.
3) Don't take power you were given on a limited government platform and try to be the lifestyle police. Gay and lesbian people are really cool when you get to know them and our society is immeasurably richer for its diversity. That LGBT folks want to form committed relationships with legal standing is an awesome thing and not something you should even think about getting in the way of.
4) Do stand out by becoming the party that takes civil liberties more seriously and doesn't shred the Bill of Rights at every opportunity. Again, back to that small government thing. Using drones in the US, the TSA and its constant grabs for more power to stupidly embarrass senior citizens, the endless Drug War and its abominations like Asset Forfeiture...shut them down before we end up hunting you with dogs, OK?
5) Do remain supportive of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Speaking of civil liberties, this is one of your party's few solid, smart pro-right positions. Don't be be like California Republicans and support dumb gun laws.
These are my suggestions...make of the what you will. As a swing voter, I will only vote for the best candidates and in this election cycle, you gave me very little to support.
What does the GOP need to do to be worthy of a comeback? Here are my suggestions:
1) Do be financially conservative without appearing like a soulless dick. A balanced budget is one thing; a schmuck like Romney joking about firing people during a Recession just makes you look stupid.
2) Don't mindlessly attack whole segments of the population. Intelligent people don't try to control or influence what birth control women have access to. Intelligent men don't quibble with women about what "real" rape is and "men" who do deserve a punch in the nose, not a job with lots of power.
3) Don't take power you were given on a limited government platform and try to be the lifestyle police. Gay and lesbian people are really cool when you get to know them and our society is immeasurably richer for its diversity. That LGBT folks want to form committed relationships with legal standing is an awesome thing and not something you should even think about getting in the way of.
4) Do stand out by becoming the party that takes civil liberties more seriously and doesn't shred the Bill of Rights at every opportunity. Again, back to that small government thing. Using drones in the US, the TSA and its constant grabs for more power to stupidly embarrass senior citizens, the endless Drug War and its abominations like Asset Forfeiture...shut them down before we end up hunting you with dogs, OK?
5) Do remain supportive of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Speaking of civil liberties, this is one of your party's few solid, smart pro-right positions. Don't be be like California Republicans and support dumb gun laws.
These are my suggestions...make of the what you will. As a swing voter, I will only vote for the best candidates and in this election cycle, you gave me very little to support.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Ditto (Election 20XX)
Some Republicans: that Republican candidate is too liberal
Some Republicans: that Republican candidate is too conservative
Some Republicans: that Republican candidate is Ron Paul
Most Republicans: Obama is a bigger dick and that's why we should vote GOP
Most Republicans: We want less government except for all the stuff we want to ban
Some Democrats: Obama is too liberal
Some Democrats: Obama is too conservative
Most Democrats: Obama is a dick but Republicans are bigger dicks and that's why we should vote Democrat if they nominate a Honey Badger.
Most Democrats: We want less government except for all the stuff we want to ban
News media: BLAH BLAH BLAH we have something relevant to say BLAH BLAH
Most people in the US: there's no 'None of the Above' option and old reruns of Gilian's island make more sense than this crap
Some Republicans: that Republican candidate is too conservative
Some Republicans: that Republican candidate is Ron Paul
Most Republicans: Obama is a bigger dick and that's why we should vote GOP
Most Republicans: We want less government except for all the stuff we want to ban
Some Democrats: Obama is too liberal
Some Democrats: Obama is too conservative
Most Democrats: Obama is a dick but Republicans are bigger dicks and that's why we should vote Democrat if they nominate a Honey Badger.
Most Democrats: We want less government except for all the stuff we want to ban
News media: BLAH BLAH BLAH we have something relevant to say BLAH BLAH
Most people in the US: there's no 'None of the Above' option and old reruns of Gilian's island make more sense than this crap
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
