Archive for November, 2008

Another Fudd Speaks

November 18, 2008

I know many have already taken good shots at this guy, but what the hell…

I consider my right to bear arms one of my basic freedoms, but not the only one, so buckle up, gun nuts. I happen to think other amendments to our constitution such as Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others might actually be more important than Number 2.

Ah yes, the ever-convenient straw man of “gun nuts only care about the Second Amendment.” Bill Schneider must not be a very well-read person, at least as far as today’s gun culture and gun bloggers’ representation of that culture goes. The fact is if you read just about any of the gun bloggers out there, it’s a safe bet that you’ll find 99 percent of them commenting regularly on violations of other constitutional rights and general civil liberties. And what’s with the putting all those other amendments ahead of the Second anyway? I don’t see the 13th, 14th, 19th or 26th Amendments under attack here. I don’t even see them in danger. So I guess you could call that a red herring of sorts, but no matter what you call it he’s still way off base. If some tyrannical regime started trying to undermine all those other rights, just who is going to change that? I would think it would be people with — wait for it! — guns. So when you look at it like that, it would seem that what those “gun nuts” — you know, the ones Bill Schneider so cluelessly and self-righteously derides — it would seem that what those people say is absolutely true, that the Second Amendment is the guarantor of all the rest, which, ergo, makes it the most important. You’ll note I didn’t mention the First Amendment as not being under attack…because, of course, it was under attack during the campaign. And as evidenced by the Democrats chomping at the bit to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, there’s going to be a sustained attack on the First Amendment for at least the foreseeable future. I wonder why Bill Schneider didn’t say anything about that?

I’ve learned that gun nuts are scared, and I am, too, but for a different reason. They’re terrified about our new president sending out a flock of black helicopters to confiscate their guns–or at least make it harder to buy them.

Yeah, well, considering the new president’s abysmal record vis-a-vis gun rights, can you really blame them?!

That doesn’t scare me in the slightest, but I am terrified about the corporate greed that has assassinated our economy, the health care crisis, those trillions of federal deficit, a rapidly widening income gap, and escalating poverty and homelessness sweeping our country as we squander billions overseas to fight unwanted, unwinnable wars or for “aid” to countries that consider us the Great Satan.

So it would seem all that high-minded concern for constitutional rights was just a load of shit…because as far as I know, nowhere in the Constitution did the Founding Fathers give the government the power to reign in supposed “corporate greed,” or address some supposed “income gap.” As far as the trillions of federal deficit…well, I seem to recall the last time the balanced budget amendment came up for a vote in Congress to send to the states for ratification, it FAILED due to lack of support from the Democrats…you know, the party we just handed the government lock, stock and barrel to. As far as that “unwinnable war,” well, maybe not so much.

Guns, guns, guns–that’s all that matters to these people.

He says that, of course…but it isn’t true, is it?

Even though I think gun nuts deserve our respect, I don’t always respect their tactics. Witness the recent Cooper Firearms fiasco. The gun nuts went on a mission to crucify Dan Cooper and destroy his company for expressing his support for Barrack Obama. In their words, they “Zumboed him.”…
…gun nuts have no right to destroy a person’s career and an entire company of innocent people because of one person’s political views. This is America, land of the free and the brave, where we don’t persecute people for their beliefs.

Actually, Dan Cooper deserved exactly what he got. What Dan Cooper did with his actions boiled down to betrayal of anyone who owns a boomstick. High-minded Fudd martyr rhetoric be damned.

Somehow, we need to separate the two issues, guns and hunting, which continues to my main criticism of the National Rifle Association (NRA). America’s most powerful lobby should stick to protecting our gun rights and not pretend to represent hunters.

Oh, THAT’s real nice. Tell me who it is throwing who under the bus again? Which faction is it that’s trying to split the gun owners again? Seems to me this guy just wants to sit on his ass and just let the gun-grabbers come after the politically incorrect guns, so naively assuming that they’ll leave his intermediate sniper deer rifle alone. He made a gallant effort to make it sound like he gave a shit about everybody else’s guns, but it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t. Hell, he even admitted as much when he said the only reason he owned a gun was for hunting…in the very first paragraph of his self-righteous screed.

I’ve learned that most gun owners aren’t hunters and some have nothing but scorn for hunters because we’re soft and care about other amendments.

Soft? Maybe. Care about other amendments? Well, ultimately, that’s not true…because once the Second goes, it sets a precedent for all the rest and makes it that much easier, as the oppressors with the guns will say to the ones without the guns, “What are you gonna do about it? You don’t have any means of resistance!” Not that I’d expect some simple-minded Fuddite asshole like Bill Schneider to figure that out for himself, though.

Advertisements

Another old favorite…

November 17, 2008

…heard on the drive to work yesterday…
I’ve always been a pretty big fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd, one of the mainstays of the classic rock stations my parents were always listening to when I was growing up. Of course there were a couple of their songs (“Sweet Home Alabama,” “Free Bird”) that got played so many times, to the point that they might cause some folks to roll their eyes, as Jimmy Buffett’s “Margaritaville” does. But I still think the lion’s share of what I’ve heard from is damn good…”Gimme Back My Bullets,” “”Simple Man,” “What’s Your Name,” all great songs…but my all-time favorite from this Jacksonville, Florida band is and has always been this cut from their very first album…

“Tuesday’s gone, with the wind….”

Hey, more visitors!

November 17, 2008

I do believe the esteemed *hawk* *spit* Rep. Lungren, or at least one of his staffers, saw the letter I wrote to my congressman:

And later:

I wouldn’t be too surprised to find they think I am some sort of extremist — read: ideological purist — or single-issue voter willing to throw people off the bus for ideoogical purity. Which isn’t the case, really…as a gun owner, I just have more than a little bit of a personal interest in this. But one would hope that in general the Republicans will take the road back to smaller government, one that stays out of people’s lives…and politicians who tell their constituents they can’t own a certain type of weapon fail that test as far as I am concerned. My congressman has A ratings from both the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America, so I’m thinking he’ll take me seriously. At least I hope he does. And I hope I am not the only one who wrote…
Meanwhile, in a related thread over at Hot Air

do you have a source showing his support for gun control? Because all I have found is his rightful support of protecting gun manufacturers.

On page one of this search, we have this link…I really, really hope our representatives in the House take more initiative than that…

A Letter to My Representative

November 15, 2008

…or, let it never be said anymore that I sit on my tail as a gun owner:

Dear Representative Poe:
Good day, sir. My name is *redacted*, and I am a resident of *town in Texas’ 2nd Congressional District*. It has come to my attention that Rep. Dan Lungren of California is running for House Minority Leader against John Boehner of Ohio. I implore you as a freedom-loving Texan and American citizen to cast your vote for John Boehner and against Dan Lungren. As California’s attorney general in the late 1990s Dan Lungren oversaw the turning in and/or confiscation of thousands of previously-legal semiautomatic rifles after the state of California outlawed those rifles with the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. For that effort and others, he has in the past been endorsed by the Brady Campaign, which as you may know was originally known as Handgun Control. Perhaps Lungren’s other beliefs may be in line with what the Republicans believe, and he may well have moderated his stance since his election to the U.S. Congress, but personally I’d be inclined to believe said moderation was due to political expediency than an honest change of heart. it’s my humble belief that his previous actions in relation to this issue alone render Lungren completely unfit to hold any public office, let alone be a party leader in this nation’s Congress. Ask yourself, “What would the Founders say to Lungren’s actions in California?” It’s bad enough that we have the gun-grabbing Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress and the Presidency to boot. Please don’t give the enemies of liberty a bigger foothold in the Republican Party too. We need a bipartisan mandate to leave our guns alone, not a bipartisan mandate to take them away — and the latter is what we will be moving toward if Dan Lungren is rewarded with the post of House Minority Leader. Thank you very much for your time.

Best regards,
*name redacted*
*town redacted*

Yep, that’s about right…

November 15, 2008

Scott Chaffin, aka The Fat Guy, in comments to this post:

George Strait’s awards are the tee-tiniest of head-nods from the Nashville establishment that everything else wandering around that stage is, for the most part, useless, soulless fluff used to sell trucks and tampons.

Word, my brother. I can’t argue with even a syllable of that. The head-nod was even bigger in 2000 when that same organization voted “Murder On Music Row” the Vocal Event of the Year. I’d love to know what the individual CMA voters who cast their ballots for that song thought about the trends at the time — off the record, of course. (You could never have gotten them to speak honestly on the record because it’d likely as not destroy their careers and make them radioactive in the industry.) It’d be interesting to know exactly what the trend-setters at the time thought of that as well. I’m sure that on the record it’d be little more than mealy-mouthed platitudes to the effect that “it’s good to respect the past, but the genre must evolve…” Which is true, but it seems to me that they use the word “evolve” as code for “sound more like ’70s rock or what gets played on ’90s-2000s Contemporary Hit Radio.” I’d argue that with some exceptions, the REAL natural evolution of the genre lies in what’s going on down here in Texas, while Nashville’s basically the center for “country music for people who don’t like country music.” While I don’t automatically turn up my nose at everything that comes out of Nashville, still I don’t see how anyone could deny that mainstream country music has been watered down for the sake of mass appeal. And it sucks, but at least we have more choices now than we did ten years ago, what with the advent of satellite radio and the rise of the Texas scene.

A bit of good news, and a bit more RINO prattling…

November 14, 2008

First up, the good news, from this morning’s Chron:

Instead of managing a White House transition, or preparing to assume the vice presidency, the man who failed in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination and was passed over by John McCain for running mate is focusing on his family and political interests.
And it may stay that way through 2012 and beyond.
The surprising ascendancy of McCain’s eventual pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and her popularity among some GOP conservatives have left Romney wondering whether he could wage a viable second campaign for the White House, according to friends and advisers.

Yeee-haaa! From your lips to God’s ears, Mr. Johnson. While I do think that far too much is being made of the whole “diversity” bit, the last thing the Republicans need to be running in 2012 is another greying old-guard Northeastern RINO hack like Mitt Weapons Of Unusual Lethality Romney. By the time 2012 rolls around, it’s quite arguable that Sarah Palin will have the executive experience that compares favorably to Romney’s and in a much more attractive package to boot. I really hate to admit that packaging has gotten to be as important as what’s in the package itself, but it seems that with the ascendancy of an empty suit like Barack Bernardine Dohrn Obama, the importance of the packaging has for the moment surpassed the contents. Or, as Mike so pithily put it, many of his supporters said, “He’s good-looking, glib, and fashionably dark…Oh boy aren’t we just the grandest for supporting programs that made him possible.” I’d say that between Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, the national GOP has a very bright future…

…or at least it will, if it tells self-righteous loser Republicans In Name Only like Kathleen Parker to sit down and have a nice, steaming cup of shut the hell up:

Election Day has produced fresh fury from self-proclaimed “conservatives” promising never again to read me or fellow apostates who criticized the Republican ticket.
This is, of course, their right, but is this really the way to go about salvaging the Republican Party?

Yep, I’d say it is, Kathleen, considering you criticized the wrong half of the Republican ticket. I’d say if anyone’s shooting the messenger, it’s you whining about the mail you get from those who are rightly disgusted with the tack you and your fellow RINO apologists have taken since McCain chose Sarah Palin as his VP nominee. And way to compare the Republican base to toddlers, you condescending bitch. Real nice move there. I know you think you’re hot shit because of your position, but just because you’ve made it into the upper echelon of the “conservative” punditocracy doesn’t necessarily make you a messenger, much less a credible one. No matter what your fellow RINO circle-jerkers might tell you. But I’m guessing you’re just gonna keep digging that hole. Because you’re just THAT clueless.

On legends, awards and success…

November 13, 2008

or, Maybe I have a mild case of cognitive dissonance too…
Being a fan of a lot of non-mainstream artists, I’ll admit I’ve gotten to the point that I don’t really put much if any stock in awards shows anymore. Not that I ever really did, but there was a time that I got a little ticked if my favorites didn’t win. That changed after I started getting into the Texas music scene and discovered a lot of great music from artists who in all likelihood won’t ever make it to the stage at the CMAs, ACMs, Grammys or what-have-you. Since then I’ve pretty much gotten to the point that I go, “another awards show, yawn, that’s nice…” I’d run into people here and there who would point to those awards as some sort of justification for liking the artists who won them — as if those awards made said artists better than all the others — and I’d just have to roll my eyes.
But, as Ron White might say, I told you all that to tell you this. Even with that lengthy disclaimer, I must admit it was still quite gratifying to see the great George Strait take home the CMA Album of the Year award last night for Troubadour. A lot of artists get less and less attention as time goes on, both on the radio and in the record stores. But the Strait man carries on, still putting out music that runs neck-and-neck with what he was doing when he was the hottest thing in Nashville in the mid-to-late-’80s. And it still gets played, still gets bought, and still gets recognized. It’d still be good even if he didn’t win any awards, but I do think it’s great that Strait can still do that well and get that recognition after almost 30 years on the scene — still doing pretty much the same style of music that he did back then, to boot.
Compare that to Reba McEntire, who strayed far from the neo-traditionalist style she started out with and pretty much peaked out artistically and commercially in the late ’90s. As bad as it sounds, I got a little bit of gratification from that too. “You see, that’s what happens when you get away from your roots…” I know that’s not what always happens, but still I thought Reba’s early stuff was far, far better than the lion’s share of her later work.

A Few MORE Words On Molly Ivins…

November 12, 2008

More or less continued from here
So I got a referral, from the search for this phrase: “it was the dearest wish of thomas jefferson’s heart that teenage drug dealers should cruise the city”.
That was from a column written by the late, lamented Texas *snort* columnist Molly Ivins in 1993. I don’t know how she ever got to characterizing herself as a “civil libertarian,” as going by most of what she wrote, she was about as much of a “civil libertarian” as was Benito Mussolini or Idi Amin. She was a beloved Texas personality to a lot of leftists, which just goes to show you how much respect many on the left had for the Texan ideals Molly so gleefully shat on so often during her time at her keyboard. I may well catch some incoming for this, but as a Texan, Molly Ivins always struck me to be about as real as a three-dollar bill. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — Molly Ivins was more or less a Maureen Dowd from Houston. Just like Maureen Dowd has her cutesy-nickname shtick, Molly Ivins had her down-home country-bumpkin Texan shtick leavened with a hearty helping of leftist bile, which basically could be boiled down to, “Shucks a-mighty, Ah shore do hate me some Republikens, ‘specially that dumb ol’ George Dubya, hyuck-hyuck-hyuck!” And it was bullshit, just like most of the word vomit that came off her keyboard. Fake, insincere, ignorant and hateful bullshit at that. I know it may be disrespectful to speak ill of the dead, but as far as I am concerned, such disrespect is only fitting for someone who used her First Amendment rights to so vigorously shit all over my Second Amendment rights (and everyone else’s too, of course). A lot of people bemoan the lack of civility in modern political discourse, and I’ll admit I am one of them…well, Molly Ivins contributed a hell of a lot more to that lack of civility than was her fair share. Even if the more polite of us don’t want to admit it.

Well, maybe because it IS…

November 11, 2008

Lisa Falkenberg is without peer in Texas print media when it comes to not getting it, and today’s column is no exception

Some see pride in Obama’s win as wrong

…Some of my fellow whites apparently are feeling a bit confused, disturbed and even threatened by all the smiling, chest-puffing, Obama T-shirt-wearing black folks strutting around like they run the country or something.
Well, finally, for the first time in our nation’s history, someone who looks like them will be running the country. Can we blame them for celebrating?
Yes, apparently, we can. Where some of us see pride, and share in it, others see divisiveness.
“Unfortunately, all these good black Americans see is the color of a man’s skin,” read one comment under my column last week featuring the perspectives of 1960s freedom fighters.
“I thought this election was not about race, but that’s pretty much all I’ve heard since the result was declared final,” wrote another, who went on to lament how Jesse Jackson wept openly, Condoleezza Rice “could barely contain herself” and a “usually composed Colin Powell was unabashedly happy that a black man was now our president.”
Another reader e-mailed Viewpoints on Saturday, apparently in sarcastic response to the Houston Chronicle’s promotion of a special section on Obama’s historic win: “Is it still possible to get reprints of the special Sunday section highlighting George Bush when he was elected in 2000 or 2004?”
A white loss
All these people can’t be oblivious to the historic moment our country has just witnessed: A man who would have been sent to the back of the bus in the 1950s will soon be riding on Air Force One.
Black schoolchildren learning about America’s presidents will finally find among the row of white faces an image that resembles their own.
So why the sour grapes?
“It’s a classic argument,” says Eric McDaniel, a University of Texas assistant professor who specializes in racial and ethnic politics. “The victory of a black person is automatically seen as a loss for white people.”

Oooh, logical fallacy alert! Namely, straw man argument. I have seen no one anywhere saying that the election of a black man to the presidency would be a loss for white people. And it would seem to me that Lisa Falkenberg and her ilk are placing the fact that this is a “historic” occasion above the fact that we just elected to the presidency a gun-grabbing Constitution-hating Marxist who couldn’t pass a government background check for a defense contract with the government. It’s worth asking, just exactly why the guns and ammunition have been flying off the shelves since Barack Bill Ayers Obama was elected. Considering his record, I find it difficult, nay, impossible to believe that all those munitions were just for target practice or hunting — especially considering it hasn’t been the traditional bolt-action hunting guns whose demand has skyrocketed. I don’t understand why the next step on the way to a completely non-racist society has to be the targets of past racism getting a pass on their own racism. And that’s exactly what it is. If you vote FOR someone just because of their skin color, you’re just as much of a racist as one who votes AGAINST someone for that reason. And it really is just that simple.
In yet another bitter irony, the clueless Falkenberg wrote last week about ’60s freedom fighters supporting Barack No Guns For You Obama — ironic because of the fact that the President-elect deigns to bring back involuntary servitude via “mandatory volunteer service” for certain groups, although this time people of all colors will be under the lash if he gets his way. (How’s THAT for equality?) Who is it once again that’s distracting from the real issues?

How many times has Bryan Miller jumped the shark, now?

November 10, 2008

I knew Bryan Miller was a delusional, no-class, unhinged asshole, but I never thought I’d see him accuse the mainstream media of being shills for the “gun lobby.” Really now. And you note he spews that shit from a computer in an overwhelmingly blue state. Compare that to the Associated Press, who actually had people who, y’know, went to gun stores and talked to people as opposed to just pulling shit out of their asses, as Doug Pennington from the Brady Campaign did. (Imagine that. News reporters observed and reported on those observations, for once.) Speaking of the Organization Formerly Known As Handgun Control, check this out:

Second visit since Friday. I do believe I’ve hit the big time! Hiiii, guys! I see you didn’t have jack to say about me calling you out as the professional prevaricators you are! So it’s true! I always knew it was. I got yer (not-so-)narrow subsection right here, you evil sons of bitches! It’s a whole new world now, you don’t have just the big old mainstream media hauling your water anymore, how does THAT feel? I see your frustration has become more evident as you and your evil minions lash out, and it’s rather ugly…but at the same time it’s a thing of beauty as well. I’m not counting on it, but I’m hoping your buddies in Congress have learned the lesson that catering to you costs them votes. We’ll see how that goes, but I do still have some, um, hope.