Wednesday, June 30, 2010

In response to a Facebook FU

A dear friend of mine has fallen in with the Animal Rights crowd in Ireland (le sigh) and posted about what a triumph it was to kill off a hunt. I replied, congratulating them on introducing greater net suffering via their efforts.

Having been called a poor loser, my response is below...

Not about being a good loser or not. Don't particularly have a stake in euro issues aside from a general dismay at good wildlife management being trumped by good intentions + bad analysis. In general, if you can get wildlife management to pay for itself, you are not only ahead of the're more likely to get better quality wildlife management.

Barring predators, any organism will breed itself beyond the capacity of a given range limited only by disease (which is often cross-species) and starvation. A further consideration is the impact of the now-burgeoning species on the human food chain (talk to a farmer whose fields have been "blessed" with a surplus of deer...or rabbits..or...) or in the instance of predators (fox, wolf, etc) on (depending on animal size) on small pets, farm animals, and some locales (predator size dependent) humans ranging from toddler to adult size.

I offer Australia, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Florida as particularly horrible examples of what eventuates when either invasive species are introduced to an ecosystem or predation (human or animal) is eliminated or severely reduced.

Hunting (or a ridden hunt, a different but related creature) provides, in those regions where non-sentient predators have been eliminated or reduced below environmentally significant levels, a means of controlling wild populations of a wide variety of creatures such that they do not destructively interact with humans (due to lack of range or food), or die of starvation/disease.

Again, not about winning/losing. In the end, abolishing hunting/hunts actually increases animal suffering, has distinctly negative agricultural impacts, and ensures larger populations of half-starved (breeding like animals, remember...) creatures more susceptible to disease and the carrying thereof.

Good intentions + Good effects are a dandy thing. Good intentions and spreading starvation, disease, and suffering...perhaps not so much.

And, just for the record, I'm not a hunter. Yet.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Protest & Penalties

This evening, a group of knuckleheads inconsiderate jerks arrogant wretches Immigration Rights Advocates were holding a protest in front of the Federal Building with the usual list of demands when during rush hour (at 4ish), in an organized action, their group stepped off the side walk and blocked the intersection of 2nd and Madison for nearly three hours...causing all kinds of back ups and obstructing any emergency vehicles that might need to go swiftly through the downtown in the meantime.

The Seattle Police Department, likely at the orders of their political superiors, stood by and watched until 7ish, when they finally made arrests of the core group demanding to be arrested.


If you want to protest, fine and dandy. Yump up'n'down on the sidewalks, dance naked in the public fountain, scream crude comments at passerby. Wave signs. Do performance art. Run for office. Vote. Write a nasty letter to the editor. All good.

Obstructing traffic, because it obstructs access by emergency vehicles and interferes with others trying to simply get home - not so much. My sense of humor on such topics is exhausted amazingly quickly.

Book'm, Dano. Reckless Endangerment, obstructing a public thoroughfare, and jay-walking. Then seek out pro bono attorneys to sue them on behalf of all the drivers and businesses inconvenienced by their public temper tantrum - and stand well back.

If it's a big enough deal to protest in the streets...have the guts to take it to town, complete w/ arrests, riots, and serious litigation. Or stay home, and do something sensible.


Monday, June 21, 2010

Summer Colds.

Not Nice. Limited blogging.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

You know, if Glenn Beck is having authors as guests...I vote for Larry Correia, of Monster Hunters International - much more fun. Write and join the fun.

You can reach Glenn or his producer at

  • Glenn Beck:

  • Stu: (head writer/producer)
  • A proper response to the NRA

    If you want to change an organizations behavior, you need to stay in the organization. Call up NRA-ILA (800-392-8683, Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST) and tell them as part of your conversation that you are "re-considering your membership and support" and then tell the nice people how they can make you happy. If naught else, if they don't know what you want, they probably won't be nearly as good at producing it.

    When I called yesterday, I got the distinct impression that everyone over at NRA-ILA from Chris Cox on down was staffing the phones and getting a steady and painful earful. Hopefully, this will actually have some effect though I also got the impression of an attitude of "we've ridden this sort of thing out before, we can do it again...they will forgive and forget if we just keep on keeping on long enough". Not malicious, mind you - but tone-deaf and a bit absent-minded about who they work for (the membership).

    The NRA is, for good or ill, the 900lb gorilla in the room. The question is, whether that Gorilla and it's flying monkey subordinates are following the desires of the membership - or telling the membership "we know better, now be quiet"?

    Waldron points out that the Revolt of '77 led by Harlon Carter is long past.

    After the NRA's mis-steps in Georgia, McDonald, Heller (aka Parker), and other instances some questions arise. Given its occasional behavior that certainly looks a lot like a Prima Dona waltzing into the midst of an event and announcing, regardless of any bothersome prior facts to the contrary, that it's really all about them and they are in charge now, one might wonder how best to cause the organization to become a bit more attentive.

    All's well that ends well is likely not the right answer. Playing chicken with the First Amendment at stake (that handy one that gives us a more subtle defense of the 2nd Amendment and other rights than "from the rooftops") seems, at best, inappropriate. I get the general impression that more than a few others feel the same.

    At a minimum, a public spanking seems in order, particularly in the face of the NRA's "we know what we're doing, don't both us" sort of response to the justified concerns of the membership.

    Just what would be required to enact meaningful reform at the NRA? To stage the Coup of 2011 or 2012? And if it's so insulated itself through the use of orwellian by-laws and procedural gamesmanship as to be invulnerable - then perhaps it's time for the SAF and others to begin the process of talking amongst themselves to form an over-arching organization in the Second Amendment Community that would constitute a second 900 lb gorilla in the room that's a tad more attentive.

    Friday, June 18, 2010

    A bit of housekeeping....

    NEW on the blogsite is a bleg button, courtesy of the fine (and pro-gun/libertarian) folks over at Gunpal. If you enjoy what you read here, and would like to shower a little cash upon the Snark Production on the link!!

    Now, on to our next bit. Someone we all know is running for office (not a surprise to a lot of folks) over at Reluctantly Republican. He's running against the incumbent for a seat in the Washington House of Representatives in the 34th District (Position 1). There should be a statutory-compliant donation form up there in a day or two.

    Finally, a bit on the personal front. The electric car gig continues, but I remain open to other offers. The present gig is looking up, with highway speed cars now available for order (and driveable NEV's also now available). All I can say is that I'm immensely grateful to wave goodbye to some of the older models.

    Mom slowly is improving, pulling out of her grieving and medical recovery process, begrudgingly becoming independent and returning to independent locomotion. She's able to make it through the grocery store on foot now, but will still making a tottering bolt for the electric cart at the slightest excuse.
    The new car (Cooper Mini) is working out well for her...and she's still looking for a home for her Miles Electric (12k, anyone?).

    Onwards and upwards!!

    On Language

    Pedantic as it may be, over-use and abuse of terms tends to cheapen the term and trivialize the events it was actually meant to describe.

    I would suggest that if it doesn't involve blood, boom, or the use of WMD (atomic, bio, chem) or attempts there at - an activity may be an awful lot things, but terrorism it ain't. In other words, to do terrorism, you have to *work harder*.

    A brick through a window or a mob of screaming protesters in front of a politi-critters house may be less than fun (and in the first instance, chargeable), but it's not terrorism. Death threats get into the ball-park...but out in the back forty, given that a threat, by itself, involves no actual mayhem or bloodshed/boom/ABC weapons.

    When folks use actual violence against persons or parties as a tool to intimidate third parties into either action or inaction, THAT'S terrorism. When property damage is used for similar intimidatory ends, that MAY be terrorism...but it needs to be at a level somewhat more significant than micturating on the outer perimeter of the target to really qualify as more than a pain in the neck.

    No blood, no bodies? No boom, no rubble? Probably not terrorism, kids.

    Thursday, June 17, 2010

    More NRA betrayal & backfill...

    We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill. - NRA Statement per Snowflakes, 6/17/10

    So, "if you give us an exemption for us and nobody else, we won't oppose the HR 1575 in the final hearings" isn't a quid pro quo? Come now, if you're going to spin, at least try for competency...or recognize it for a bad job and give it up.

    Yes, the NRA sold out. And now they are trying to double down. If you are reconsidering your membership in the NRA, may I suggest another fine organization...without the history of betraying its members...the Second Amendment Foundation as worthy of membership. If you recall, the fine folks that brought you Heller - somehow without throwing any constitutional rights under the bus.

    I'd point out their life membership cost is much more reasonable, they are much more attentive to membership concerns, and don't have nearly the history of self-inflicted wounds that the NRA displays.

    If you get the hint I'm just a bit bent out of shape, you might just perhaps be right. My position on HR 1575 has not changed since my last post - when one of our most potent defenders stands aside and says "we got ours, you're on your own" when at no real cost to themselves they could have stopped vile treachery in its tracks without a shot fired - why yes, I do think it reasonable to take exception.

    I am reconsidering my NRA membership and since I have my life SAF membership, debating what other group I should give my allegiance to if the NRA doesn't pull back from this massive blunder.

    GOA? Open-Carry?

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010

    On the grand scale of things...

    There are much worse things that can happen to a person when they assault a police officer than a punch in the face. Two teens children thug wannabes deeply misguided youth deciding to get physical with one officer is just a recipe for bad times.

    When your friend is getting busted for jay-walking, and decides to get physically frisky with the citing officer, the right answer is "stand back, nibble popcorn, and be awed by friend or about-t0-be-former friends amazing stupidity" - not "jump in, and physically attack officer".

    The first approach leads to a story you can tell your kids and grandkids and laugh. The second, not so much, and a possible felony conviction for assault on an officer as an ugly little bonus.

    It shouldn't be necessary, but I will point out that "don't sell out cheap" is a good life lesson to live by in situations ranging from financial transactions to legal matters and on to matters of violence and criminality.

    Managing to turn a jay-walking ticket into assault on an officer is, to put it mildly, selling out cheap. You can pay out a jay-walking citation for perhaps $150.00 or so - even if you win, you'll have spent AT LEAST ten times that fighting the case when you're on video hitting an officer...and if you lose, you'll get to pay all that money...get a felony record...and spend quality time with ugly felonious folks. Don't sell out cheap (also rendered, "don't be stupid").

    That the local chapters of the NAACP and Urban League are drumming up public controversy rather than sending the much-needed message to children of all ages (right up to age 80 or so) that "hitting cops is bad, and when you do, lots of bad things happen - should be saved for SPECIAL occasions" at a minimum by trumpeting how a single officer, already beset by one assaultive teen mid-arrest/citation was "just plain wrong" to hit teen assailant #2 in the not just counter-productive, but borders on evil.

    Teaching the community that cops are fair game who may not "hit back" is to set up members of that same community for violence and quite possibly perforation when that lesson is proven false.

    To promote that "thinking happy thoughts" and sweet reason are the only options available to a police officer when assaulted with anything less than lethal force is to put officers and suspects at unnecessary risk.

    A baton or pepper spray are not necessarily any better than a swift punch to the face, and if laws are going to be enforced, we need to accept that "Gee, perhaps not everyone will be sweetly cooperative" - to the extent that officers are allowed reasonable use of force.

    Force is *never* pretty. A lot of other things aren't, either. However, in most of life while pretty is *nice*, it's a good long way from *necessary* in getting the job done.

    Fortunately, though the SPD initially supported and then took semi-punitive action (assignment to a training unit) against the officer, the union (in one of the few instances when such organizations are worthwhile) is backing the officers actions in their entirety.

    In the situation at hand, the officer should be commended for quick thinking and appropriate action while under assault by persons who might or might not be armed. The two assailants should be charged with felony assault on an officer.

    And in one of the rare instances I would advocate such...if the NAACP and Urban League can't bring themselves to say something recognizing the officers restraint and handling in a bad situation gone worse, perhaps, just this once, they should consider holding their tongue.

    The officer didn't start the fight. He didn't seek out a fight. But he did finish it, and without body bags or hospital trips for anyone involved. The officer deserves a gold star, not a tour with the training division and the public humiliation of the department announcing he is being required to review use-of-force training...before they even determine he actually did anything wrong (and the video tends to make one think...he didn't).

    Stupid should hurt. Otherwise, folks don't learn from it, and keep repeating it to the detriment of themselves and all about them.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010

    The DISCLOSE Act, and perhaps a Wee Betrayal

    It's been a long day, and I'm not quite up for a full throttle rant. Perhaps later. Or perhaps Stingray of Atomic Nerds and his amazing command of invective will beat me to it. He's rather better at such things than I.

    Essentially, the proposed DISCLOSE act might be termed the "Muzzle Folks Obama & Charlie Schumer Don't Like Act" - utilizing onerous mandatory content requirements, disclosure, documentation, and regulatory tools to accomplish the task. The NRA was doing just fine as the 800lb gorilla torpedo'ing the vile piece of unconstitutional garbage - right up till House leadership brokered a back-room deal and carved out a special exception for the NRA from the muzzle (oddly, JPFO, Tea Party Activists, bloggers, SAF, and a variety of others would still get the full measure of harassment).

    At that point, the NRA proceeded to effectively throw everyone else in sight under the bus (in classic Obama style) having gotten theirs, they retired to the sidelines...never mind supporting everyone elses freedom of speech and the press, they've gotten theirs.

    Sebastian, in a take resembling that of an apologist for the NRA, posts on the topic over at Snowflakes. To my eye, Tammy Bruce does a rather more comprehensive job of critiquing the NRA's actions and the repellent DISCLOSURE Act itself.

    The Washington Independent graciously publishes the NRA's statement. A statement that rather supports my initial comments that the NRA's position on the 1st Amendment seems to be "I got mine, so screw you!". Not amused.

    In looking at all this, RobAllen posts a reasonably good analogy that should get the point across to even the scatterbrained lackwits that fail to understand why the NRA's self-centered position of appeasement (as well as the Disclose Act itself) is a very bad thing. That it coincidentally has the effect of obliterating other pro-gun organizations communication, public-relations, political, and fund-raising efforts...doesn't precisely shower the NRA with the aura of selfless nobility.

    Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) provides a relatively genteel exploration of what the effect of the Act would be on bloggers. The shorter explanation is that if any of us persist with political commentary in our blogs, we look to be in deep and nasty stuff...or so burdened with disclosures and disclaimers as to make blogging vastly burdensome.

    Time to write a congress critter - and call, and fax, and email them. And write a nasty letter to your favorite newspaper on the topic.

    Stop DISCLOSE/HR5175. Stop it NOW.

    Free speech is worth a bit of crankiness. Time to send a message...and point out to the NRA that to protect the 2nd, we kind of NEED the 1st - and not just for the "official NRA message".

    Monday, June 14, 2010

    Congressman assaults student on public street...

    Read about it here. Seems Rep. Etheridge (D-NC, 2) can't keep his hands to himself or his conduct civil when not surrounded by sycophants. Assault is so VERY tacky...

    Sunday, June 6, 2010

    Support Your Local Cop....or not?

    Seems the Red & Black cafe down in Portland demonstrating a rare brand of leftist lunatic fringe bone-headedly short-sighted bigotry/activism, telling police they are unwelcome under any circumstances at the establishment in question - that if they are robbed, they will call the neighbors, because in their view cops are trigger-happy thugs who might *notice* their self-proclaimed clientele consists of eco-terrorists animal rights activists, homeless advocates, and environmentalists.

    It seems unlikely that anyone in authority in Portland is raptly reading this blog (frankly, I'd expect to see flights of winged monkeys circling the White House, first), but I'd urge them to some extent to take the proprietors of the Red & Black at their word - limiting police presence solely to a large and deeply curious contingent of investigators given that there's such a rich field of potential suspects apparently comparing notes over coffee at the cafe.

    It'd probably be a bit tacky to post on area phone poles signs reading "Police will not respond to or investigate burglaries, arson, or vandalism committed at the Red & Black Cafe at the owners request"...but I'd be a tad amused should such occur.

    Sometimes, justice is letting folks have what they ask for - in great big barrels.

    Friday, June 4, 2010

    Alright...being humanitarian and trying for minimum force didn't work out so well...

    So what say this time the Israeli's simply resort to blowing the bottom out of the vessel, and rescuing survivors?

    Israel: This we collude in doing to our ally?

    Krauthammer gets it. Go. Read. Is good.

    Tuesday, June 1, 2010

    On the Gaza Blockade

    If you announce a blockade in conjunction w/ the UN and a second nation (in this instance, Egypt), announce with great fanfare you are *enforcing* said blockade, is it REALLY any surprise to anyone sufficiently intelligent to walk and talk at the same time that when your boarding teams are beset by hostiles armed with knives and rebar clubs...that your team fights back? And when under gunfire, resorts to returning fire?

    And let's not forget that traditional blockade enforcement is a shot across the bow, and then into the hull of the offending vessels if they fail to yield....followed by standing off, with optional rescue operations, while the hulled vessels *sink*...

    I'm not seeing a problem here...other than folks thinking "I'm so spiffy and pure of mind that customs, blockades, and such don't apply to me"