Suppose you are having a party this holiday season, a BIG party. You usually have a small get together for a few friends every year, but this one is going to be special. You’ve been planning it for weeks and now it’s time to buy all of the supplies. You arrange for some close friends to help with the preparations, visit the local warehouse club for supplies, stop by the grocery store, and finally you run by the liquor store to purchase the libations.
As you and the store proprietor go over your list, you finally come to the final item, Champaign, and he tells you that he doesn’t have any—he’s already sold out. It seems that all he originally had for sale was domestic Champaign and because of recent diplomatic conflicts, he doesn’t have any imported Champaign.
So what do you do now? After calling around, you finally locate someone who says that they might be able to help you with your purchase and you arrange to stop by the next day to discuss delivery. You learn that the “distributor” can supply you with four cases of fine Champaign imported from France. The deal is contingent on you paying $70 cash per bottle, plus tax, for Champaign that would normally cost $35 per bottle. After thinking about it for a minute, you drive to the ATM and return with the $1700 needed for your purchase. It’s an extra expense, but you head home confident that your party will be a success and your guests will appreciate your efforts.
The next day there is an unexpected knock on your front door and when you answer you find a police officer and a government agent requesting to come inside and ask you a few questions. It seems that current law prohibits you from buying and drinking Champaign made outside the United States. After a few minutes of conversation, you watch their truck drive away with your hard won party drinks—and you get no refund.
Now that you have taken the time and patience to read through the above story I ask you the following question. What business is it of the imperial Federal Government of the United States what I choose to purchase and drink in the privacy of my own home, as long as all of the taxes are paid and I willing to pay the asking price? Why does it matter to the bureaucrats where my beverage is made?
Unfortunately, the government has gotten into the business of regulating a vast portion of our lives including the products which we are “allowed” to purchase, usually under the guise of assuring quality and safety. However, based on a number of cars I’ve owned over the past thirty years, government involvement rarely assures quality and with the Fen Phen debacle and the recent recall of the drug Vioxx, their promise of protecting our safety with regulation is certainly suspect.
USA Today printed a story yesterday about the federal government riding to our rescue again in the recent flue vaccine shortage. I think that you’ll agree that we can all sleep better tonight as a result of their efforts…NOT!
“Thousands of doses of flu vaccine smuggled from France through Saudi Arabia were destined for black-market sales in New Jersey, federal officials said Tuesday.
The smuggling scheme is the latest, and perhaps boldest, criminal act to arise during the nation's unprecedented flu vaccine shortage. As health officials dole out a limited supply of vaccine, police are dealing with price gougers and vaccine thieves.”
Can you believe this situation? As I stated in my earlier post, Hillarycare Preview, the imperial federal government is already responsible for the flue vaccine shortage in the first place. If it hadn’t been for their intervention in the vaccine market in the 1990’s, chances are that everyone that wanted a flue vaccine shot today could get one for a modest cost. But nooooo, a “modest cost” wasn’t good enough for the bureaucrats, it had to be sold at prices below production costs or given away for free and as a result the vaccine manufacturers ran for the hills looking for more profitable enterprises.
What the government has done is step into the free market, screw around with the basic formulas of supply and demand that normally dictate product pricing and availability, and now they are criminalizing the actions of those who seek to fill the vacuum that developed in the wake of their efforts.
You can rest easy now ladies and Gentlemen, thanks to the diligent efforts of our law enforcement and US Customs officials, another 8,000 doses of non-approved flue vaccine has been taken off of America’s streets and placed into the dumpsters where it belongs. A few men won’t run the risk of experiencing unnatural cravings for brie cheese as a result of taking the vaccine only approved for French consumption. Untold numbers of American women are saved the torture of beginning to not shave the hair on their legs and in their armpits as a result of ingesting the French poison.
Thank God for our all knowing government.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
"Freedom's" Just Another Word
(For Nothin’ Left To Lose)
Janice Joplin’s 1971 hit song ”Me and Bobby McGee” includes the words “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” I’ve often contemplated the meaning that the songwriter, Kris Kristofferson, had in mind when he wrote these words. I mean, the words sound good in a sorta romantic way, but I’ve also heard that “freedom isn’t free” as applied to the efforts of the American soldier over the past 230 years.
So which is it? Either way, it sounds to me like freedom is expensive, but it shouldn’t cost you everything you have in life. Which brings me to this morning’s topic--President Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental health. I’ve been following this program for the past six months or so and, in my opinion, this program is bad news. Here is why.
This “New Freedom” program study was begun in April 2002 and has since gotten up a pretty good head of steam. Basically, it is a national program designed in theory to improve and standardize the mental health screening and treatment provided to all Americans. Like most Government efforts, it sounds good on paper. But as I always like to say, the Devil’s in the details.
Here is how it will work. In conjunction with the assistance of the pharmaceutical companies, the government is going to begin by screening the mental health of all of the approximately 52 million children in public schools, including preschool aged students. They are not just looking for “stark raving mad,” “crazy as a loon,” or “a few bricks shy of a full load” personalities. They will be evaluating the overall “social and emotional development” of each child. BY WHO’s STANDARDS WILL THE CHILDREN BE JUDGED?
In the beginning the program will be administered by the individual states, and Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania are already on the band wagon with their own pilot programs supported by federal funding. In addition to the kids, the six or seven million teachers and other employees of the public school system will be evaluated. As a result of the screenings, anyone determined to have a diagnosable form of “mental illness” will be prescribed one of the latest, state-of-the-art psychotropic drugs like Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Effexor and Remeron. Can you say “massive profits for drug companies?”
What is not clear at the present time is what, if any, say the parents and children will have in submitting to the evaluations and actually taking the prescribed drugs. It appears that at first everything will be voluntary, but you know the government…they believe that they know what is best for you and me.
Here is what disturbes me about this newly found “Freedom.” There is already a great deal of pressure being brought to bear by teachers on the parents of so-called “hyperactive” children to use medications like Riddlin to control behavior that forty years ago was managed with ordinary corporal punishment and a large dose of good parenting. Will this new program not increase the number of kids on psycho-modifying drugs beyond the 9 million already on them?
Further, will the potential mandatory evaluation and treatment potentially infringe on the rights of parents to raise their own children as they see fit? I’m not promoting withholding necessary medical care from anyone, but is the imperial Federal Government the best arbitrator of the administration of these type of critical services?
Maybe, like myself, you don’t have kids or your children are already out of school. Why, you then ask, should I care about the movement to have the Federal government in the business of Mental Health screening? Because the government intends to expand the program to include EVERYONE, including you and I.
Imagine if, in order to get something you need like a drivers license or a business license or some professional license like those for pilots, engineers, doctors, or lawyers, that the government required that you have a mental health screening. OK, that’s not so bad you might say, because you don’t want your airline pilot or your brain surgeon to have too many bats loose in his cranium.
Well, here is the problem. You know the government. It’s just a matter of time until they make your drivers license or your business license contingent on you not only having the screening, but that you also have to take the drugs that they prescribe for you. What would then keep them from coming to your house or your work and hauling you off to JAIL or locking you up in the looney bin, er um insane asylum…er, I mean “Freedom Center” if they find that you have gone off of your meds without their permission?
There is quite a battle going on right now in the congress regarding funding for this program and, like me, a number of individual representatives and senators are fundamentally against it.
All I know is that, in my personal experience, the declaration of sanity or the lack thereof is a highly subjective, widely variable discipline. I hope we can slow this potential monster down, or at least bring it out into the light of day so more parents and regular people can be involved in the decision making process.
Wake up and smell the java!
Janice Joplin’s 1971 hit song ”Me and Bobby McGee” includes the words “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” I’ve often contemplated the meaning that the songwriter, Kris Kristofferson, had in mind when he wrote these words. I mean, the words sound good in a sorta romantic way, but I’ve also heard that “freedom isn’t free” as applied to the efforts of the American soldier over the past 230 years.
So which is it? Either way, it sounds to me like freedom is expensive, but it shouldn’t cost you everything you have in life. Which brings me to this morning’s topic--President Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental health. I’ve been following this program for the past six months or so and, in my opinion, this program is bad news. Here is why.
This “New Freedom” program study was begun in April 2002 and has since gotten up a pretty good head of steam. Basically, it is a national program designed in theory to improve and standardize the mental health screening and treatment provided to all Americans. Like most Government efforts, it sounds good on paper. But as I always like to say, the Devil’s in the details.
Here is how it will work. In conjunction with the assistance of the pharmaceutical companies, the government is going to begin by screening the mental health of all of the approximately 52 million children in public schools, including preschool aged students. They are not just looking for “stark raving mad,” “crazy as a loon,” or “a few bricks shy of a full load” personalities. They will be evaluating the overall “social and emotional development” of each child. BY WHO’s STANDARDS WILL THE CHILDREN BE JUDGED?
In the beginning the program will be administered by the individual states, and Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania are already on the band wagon with their own pilot programs supported by federal funding. In addition to the kids, the six or seven million teachers and other employees of the public school system will be evaluated. As a result of the screenings, anyone determined to have a diagnosable form of “mental illness” will be prescribed one of the latest, state-of-the-art psychotropic drugs like Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Effexor and Remeron. Can you say “massive profits for drug companies?”
What is not clear at the present time is what, if any, say the parents and children will have in submitting to the evaluations and actually taking the prescribed drugs. It appears that at first everything will be voluntary, but you know the government…they believe that they know what is best for you and me.
Here is what disturbes me about this newly found “Freedom.” There is already a great deal of pressure being brought to bear by teachers on the parents of so-called “hyperactive” children to use medications like Riddlin to control behavior that forty years ago was managed with ordinary corporal punishment and a large dose of good parenting. Will this new program not increase the number of kids on psycho-modifying drugs beyond the 9 million already on them?
Further, will the potential mandatory evaluation and treatment potentially infringe on the rights of parents to raise their own children as they see fit? I’m not promoting withholding necessary medical care from anyone, but is the imperial Federal Government the best arbitrator of the administration of these type of critical services?
Maybe, like myself, you don’t have kids or your children are already out of school. Why, you then ask, should I care about the movement to have the Federal government in the business of Mental Health screening? Because the government intends to expand the program to include EVERYONE, including you and I.
Imagine if, in order to get something you need like a drivers license or a business license or some professional license like those for pilots, engineers, doctors, or lawyers, that the government required that you have a mental health screening. OK, that’s not so bad you might say, because you don’t want your airline pilot or your brain surgeon to have too many bats loose in his cranium.
Well, here is the problem. You know the government. It’s just a matter of time until they make your drivers license or your business license contingent on you not only having the screening, but that you also have to take the drugs that they prescribe for you. What would then keep them from coming to your house or your work and hauling you off to JAIL or locking you up in the looney bin, er um insane asylum…er, I mean “Freedom Center” if they find that you have gone off of your meds without their permission?
There is quite a battle going on right now in the congress regarding funding for this program and, like me, a number of individual representatives and senators are fundamentally against it.
All I know is that, in my personal experience, the declaration of sanity or the lack thereof is a highly subjective, widely variable discipline. I hope we can slow this potential monster down, or at least bring it out into the light of day so more parents and regular people can be involved in the decision making process.
Wake up and smell the java!
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Liars Figure and Figures Lie--Part II
I love details. I really love details that give an issue perspective.
As I continue my ranting and raving about world events and the media’s presentation of same to the public, I continue to enjoy grabbing the few little tidbits of information that manage to leak out of a given story and put it into terms that everyone can understand.
Here is the amazing story of a young girl apparently successfully treated after the onset of the symptoms of rabies. They have yet to determine the long term effects of the illness on the girl’s mental capacities, but recovery from the disease is apparently nothing short of a miracle.
Rabies used to kill a lot of people here in the US before the development of the vaccine. There have only been a few dozen deaths in the past ten years because of the wide spread availability of the vaccine. Growing up in the rural south, the two things we were most afraid of was a rabid animal and getting “lock jaw” (tetanus) from getting cut running with rusty scissors. No kid in their right mind wanted to face “ten shots in the stomach” or whatever else the rabies treatment used to entail.
Based on the CDC statistic reported in this article, rabies still kills one person every 15 minutes. A little math tells me that that equals about 35,040 people each year (365 days per year times 24 hours each day times 60 minutes per hour divided by 4.)
The point of my story is this: where is the US government’s, the UN’s, and the media's outrage when it comes to this issue? I mean, thirty five thousand people. To read the papers and listen to the TV, sharks and air bags and bird flue and mad cow disease and anthrax are all imminent threats, but Rabies? Old News.
I say NO NEWS is worthy of your attentions without checking the facts for yourself.
As I continue my ranting and raving about world events and the media’s presentation of same to the public, I continue to enjoy grabbing the few little tidbits of information that manage to leak out of a given story and put it into terms that everyone can understand.
Here is the amazing story of a young girl apparently successfully treated after the onset of the symptoms of rabies. They have yet to determine the long term effects of the illness on the girl’s mental capacities, but recovery from the disease is apparently nothing short of a miracle.
Rabies used to kill a lot of people here in the US before the development of the vaccine. There have only been a few dozen deaths in the past ten years because of the wide spread availability of the vaccine. Growing up in the rural south, the two things we were most afraid of was a rabid animal and getting “lock jaw” (tetanus) from getting cut running with rusty scissors. No kid in their right mind wanted to face “ten shots in the stomach” or whatever else the rabies treatment used to entail.
Based on the CDC statistic reported in this article, rabies still kills one person every 15 minutes. A little math tells me that that equals about 35,040 people each year (365 days per year times 24 hours each day times 60 minutes per hour divided by 4.)
The point of my story is this: where is the US government’s, the UN’s, and the media's outrage when it comes to this issue? I mean, thirty five thousand people. To read the papers and listen to the TV, sharks and air bags and bird flue and mad cow disease and anthrax are all imminent threats, but Rabies? Old News.
I say NO NEWS is worthy of your attentions without checking the facts for yourself.
I'd Rather...But Not Dan Rather
Well Folks, its official. Dan Rather announced yesterday that he is stepping down next March as the anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News. CBS executives are trying to tell us that good old Danno’s retirement is unrelated to the “Memogate” scandal regarding President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service during Vietnam, but I beg to differ. The results of the “independent investigation” into the “alleged” forged documents forming the core of the story are yet to be made public, and the producer of the segment, Mary Mapes, is still lurking around behind the scenes at CBS.
Rather’s retirement is simply an obvious effort at damage control—they still want Dan’s sullen scowl on the Sunday and Wednesday “60 Minutes” segments. Stay tuned for more high quality, partisan BS—we’re counting on you Dan.
What we are witnessing today is the culmination of yet another evolution in the way information—specifically news—is disseminated in our society, and it is a GOOD THING. Other forms of media have endured this type of evolution and survived—TV News will too, but not without major changes in the names involved and the motives behind the decision making process. On behalf of the Internet Bloggers I’d like to say that “We have only begun to fight…”
Take the written media, specifically newspapers, for example. William Randolph Hearst, publisher of the NY Journal, and Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of the NY World amassed fortunes running their ”Yellow Journalism” empires in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and yet competition in the newspaper industry served to ultimately balance out their egos and the fiction dispensed as news by these two media giants. We need another dose of reality for newspapers like the NY Times today, and I assure you that the Internet is looming on their horizon as well.
For Hearst and Pulitzer, there was an incident similar to “Rathergate” at the beginning of the Spanish American war. Following the explosion of the Battleship US Maine in the harbor in Havana Cuba in 1898, both the Journal and the World published a so-called “suppressed” cable message that purported that the death of the 260 crew members was not an accident. The public furor resulting from the story based on the false cable served as a major incentive for President McKinley to declare war with Spain. So much for the idea that a fake document cannot influence history in a substantial way if its veracity is allowed to go unchallenged.
Almost one hundred years later, we have seen the rise and fall of yet another form of journalism--the network news broadcast. We just don’t buy what they report as news anymore. People have too many sources of news to buy a single viewpoint, and the cable news shows and more importantly, the internet, will go down in history as the reason for the change.
I am proud to be, in a small way, a part of this revolution. The fact that you just read this posting to my blog indicates your desire for another point of view. I hope you will keep reading in the future.
Rather’s retirement is simply an obvious effort at damage control—they still want Dan’s sullen scowl on the Sunday and Wednesday “60 Minutes” segments. Stay tuned for more high quality, partisan BS—we’re counting on you Dan.
What we are witnessing today is the culmination of yet another evolution in the way information—specifically news—is disseminated in our society, and it is a GOOD THING. Other forms of media have endured this type of evolution and survived—TV News will too, but not without major changes in the names involved and the motives behind the decision making process. On behalf of the Internet Bloggers I’d like to say that “We have only begun to fight…”
Take the written media, specifically newspapers, for example. William Randolph Hearst, publisher of the NY Journal, and Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of the NY World amassed fortunes running their ”Yellow Journalism” empires in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and yet competition in the newspaper industry served to ultimately balance out their egos and the fiction dispensed as news by these two media giants. We need another dose of reality for newspapers like the NY Times today, and I assure you that the Internet is looming on their horizon as well.
For Hearst and Pulitzer, there was an incident similar to “Rathergate” at the beginning of the Spanish American war. Following the explosion of the Battleship US Maine in the harbor in Havana Cuba in 1898, both the Journal and the World published a so-called “suppressed” cable message that purported that the death of the 260 crew members was not an accident. The public furor resulting from the story based on the false cable served as a major incentive for President McKinley to declare war with Spain. So much for the idea that a fake document cannot influence history in a substantial way if its veracity is allowed to go unchallenged.
Almost one hundred years later, we have seen the rise and fall of yet another form of journalism--the network news broadcast. We just don’t buy what they report as news anymore. People have too many sources of news to buy a single viewpoint, and the cable news shows and more importantly, the internet, will go down in history as the reason for the change.
I am proud to be, in a small way, a part of this revolution. The fact that you just read this posting to my blog indicates your desire for another point of view. I hope you will keep reading in the future.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Six Dead In Wisconsin...Film At Eleven
Here we go again. In Wisconsin today another moron has gone off his rocker and shot and killed a half dozen other hunters in an argument over a tree stand located on private property. Several more people were wounded.
Just watch the media celebrate this news event with endless coverage and listen to the politicians and professional “TV talking heads” pontificate about “what we as a society need to do to stop such incidents.”
Would everyone just stop for a few minutes here and think, please?
The anti gun spin has already started, even on Fox News. “What kind of gun did he use,” they all ask. Like it matters to the dead people what caliber the bullets were, what length the barrel was, or whether the gun’s stock was wooden or composite. “Did it look like a military weapon, or did it look like an antique?” Pluueaseeeee!
This story has made it all the way to the country of Turkey. (Is Turkey hunting legal in Turkey…just wondering?) In the Turkish Press they say:
“Vang, a naturalised American citizen originally from Laos, was carrying a high-powered SKS assault rifle, that was out of ammunition, when he was arrested.”
Well thank God that his evil “SKS Assault Rifle” ran out of ammunition or the entire state of Wisconsin might be dead. And this from Louisville, Kentucky’s Fox41 News:
“Asked to leave, the trespasser, wearing blaze-orange and carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle, opened fire on the hunters and didn't stop until his 20-round clip was empty, leaving five people dead and three wounded…Van was carrying an SKS 7.62-mm caliber rifle, a cheap but powerful semiautomatic weapon, authorities said.”
“Police identified the shooter as Chai Vang, 36, a hunter from St. Paul, Minnesota, who is a member of the Twin Cities' Hmong community. While authorities do not know why he allegedly opened fire, there have been previous clashes between Southeast Asian and white hunters in the region."
"Locals have complained that the Hmong, refugees from Laos, do not understand the concept of private property and hunt wherever they see fit. In Minnesota, a fistfight once broke out after Hmong hunters crossed onto private land, said Ilean Her, director of the St. Paul-based Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans.”
Could this story be any more perfect for the media? “Another dang foreigner has committed a heinous crime with a GUN.” AHHHHHHHHHH, everyone run for the hills.
Now here is a little information—some call it facts and figures—to augment the hype that you’re going to be inundated with over the next few weeks. First of all, as you may recall by reading my previous postings, I grew up hunting on my grandfather’s 350 acre farm. I own three rifles and two shotguns. As of this moment, I also happen to not own any bullets.
In spite of having access to the property today, I have not spent a single minute in the woods hunting for the past twenty years because of my fear of this exact situation—poachers—and getting shot, accidentally or otherwise. Our land is literally overrun each fall with individuals that know they are on private property and that they do not have permission to be there hunting.
My uncle used to place a salt block in a clearing across the lake from our houses so we could enjoy watching the deer feed in the late afternoon. He stopped when someone shot a doe within one hundred yards of my mother’s house. The trespassers tear down the “posted” signs that my cousin places around the property almost as quickly as he puts them up. My mother asked the game warden what she could do about the poachers and he told her, paraphrasing, “that if she could call him and hold the intruder until he could get there that he would write them a ticket.” Needless to say we haven’t seen many tickets written.
My first point here is this. We don’t need more laws that will take my guns away from me. My guns, residing comfortably in the closet, are not a threat, and three of the five are of the hated “semi-automatic” variety. What we need is effort and money spent to enforce the laws that we already have on the books. It’s already against the law to shoot at somebody, folks. I can’t throw a chair or a rock or a punch or a basketball (did you see what the NBA players were up to this weekend) at you without risking running afoul of the law.
My second point has to do with the bad reputation people like Mr. Vang give gun owners and the hunting population. You never see national headlines that read “300,000 armed citizens take to the woods on opening day of deer season, no one killed…” No, of course not. Yet it happens every year in many if not most states. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, they close schools and businesses shut down because they know that on opening day of deer season most of their students and employees are going to be in the woods, in camouflaged attire, chewing tobacco, and looking for something to shoot—LEGALLY.
My final point is to address the weapon that Mr. Vang was wielding (you only wield a weapon when committing a crime, right?) The SKS is an inexpensive imported rifle designed by a Russian named Simonov in 1947. It was replaced in the mid 1950's by the AK-47, another weapon of military origin that is vilified by the anti-gun mobs and the media. The Chinese and various other countries also manufactured the SKS with Russian approval.
While the SKS is rugged and quite capable of surviving being carried through the woods in all kinds of weather, it is not a “sniper” weapon or even considered to be that accurate. In fact, it sorta sucks when it comes to long range hunting, so I propose that Mr. Vang was enthusiastic but not very well informed when it comes to his choice of weapon.
There are any number of standard looking hunting rifles like my Marlin 22 magnum that cost a lot less than the SKS and which are equally deadly at any range within 100 yards. I’ll also point out that, while this weapon is not legal for deer hunting due to it’s small caliber, it was quite capable of terrifying a number of rabbits and squirrels with great frequency in Lower Alabama in the early 1970’s. By the way, the standard clip holds ten rounds.
What the logic out there seems to be is that scary looking guns with large(r) capacity ammunition magazines are more trouble that “average” looking guns with small(er) capacity magazines. I propose that any old inexperienced moron with a great big old dangerous looking gun is no more a threat than a polished killer with a pea shooter.
The crime is shooting at people, not owning a certain type gun.
Get It?
Just watch the media celebrate this news event with endless coverage and listen to the politicians and professional “TV talking heads” pontificate about “what we as a society need to do to stop such incidents.”
Would everyone just stop for a few minutes here and think, please?
The anti gun spin has already started, even on Fox News. “What kind of gun did he use,” they all ask. Like it matters to the dead people what caliber the bullets were, what length the barrel was, or whether the gun’s stock was wooden or composite. “Did it look like a military weapon, or did it look like an antique?” Pluueaseeeee!
This story has made it all the way to the country of Turkey. (Is Turkey hunting legal in Turkey…just wondering?) In the Turkish Press they say:
“Vang, a naturalised American citizen originally from Laos, was carrying a high-powered SKS assault rifle, that was out of ammunition, when he was arrested.”
Well thank God that his evil “SKS Assault Rifle” ran out of ammunition or the entire state of Wisconsin might be dead. And this from Louisville, Kentucky’s Fox41 News:
“Asked to leave, the trespasser, wearing blaze-orange and carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle, opened fire on the hunters and didn't stop until his 20-round clip was empty, leaving five people dead and three wounded…Van was carrying an SKS 7.62-mm caliber rifle, a cheap but powerful semiautomatic weapon, authorities said.”
“Police identified the shooter as Chai Vang, 36, a hunter from St. Paul, Minnesota, who is a member of the Twin Cities' Hmong community. While authorities do not know why he allegedly opened fire, there have been previous clashes between Southeast Asian and white hunters in the region."
"Locals have complained that the Hmong, refugees from Laos, do not understand the concept of private property and hunt wherever they see fit. In Minnesota, a fistfight once broke out after Hmong hunters crossed onto private land, said Ilean Her, director of the St. Paul-based Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans.”
Could this story be any more perfect for the media? “Another dang foreigner has committed a heinous crime with a GUN.” AHHHHHHHHHH, everyone run for the hills.
Now here is a little information—some call it facts and figures—to augment the hype that you’re going to be inundated with over the next few weeks. First of all, as you may recall by reading my previous postings, I grew up hunting on my grandfather’s 350 acre farm. I own three rifles and two shotguns. As of this moment, I also happen to not own any bullets.
In spite of having access to the property today, I have not spent a single minute in the woods hunting for the past twenty years because of my fear of this exact situation—poachers—and getting shot, accidentally or otherwise. Our land is literally overrun each fall with individuals that know they are on private property and that they do not have permission to be there hunting.
My uncle used to place a salt block in a clearing across the lake from our houses so we could enjoy watching the deer feed in the late afternoon. He stopped when someone shot a doe within one hundred yards of my mother’s house. The trespassers tear down the “posted” signs that my cousin places around the property almost as quickly as he puts them up. My mother asked the game warden what she could do about the poachers and he told her, paraphrasing, “that if she could call him and hold the intruder until he could get there that he would write them a ticket.” Needless to say we haven’t seen many tickets written.
My first point here is this. We don’t need more laws that will take my guns away from me. My guns, residing comfortably in the closet, are not a threat, and three of the five are of the hated “semi-automatic” variety. What we need is effort and money spent to enforce the laws that we already have on the books. It’s already against the law to shoot at somebody, folks. I can’t throw a chair or a rock or a punch or a basketball (did you see what the NBA players were up to this weekend) at you without risking running afoul of the law.
My second point has to do with the bad reputation people like Mr. Vang give gun owners and the hunting population. You never see national headlines that read “300,000 armed citizens take to the woods on opening day of deer season, no one killed…” No, of course not. Yet it happens every year in many if not most states. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, they close schools and businesses shut down because they know that on opening day of deer season most of their students and employees are going to be in the woods, in camouflaged attire, chewing tobacco, and looking for something to shoot—LEGALLY.
My final point is to address the weapon that Mr. Vang was wielding (you only wield a weapon when committing a crime, right?) The SKS is an inexpensive imported rifle designed by a Russian named Simonov in 1947. It was replaced in the mid 1950's by the AK-47, another weapon of military origin that is vilified by the anti-gun mobs and the media. The Chinese and various other countries also manufactured the SKS with Russian approval.
While the SKS is rugged and quite capable of surviving being carried through the woods in all kinds of weather, it is not a “sniper” weapon or even considered to be that accurate. In fact, it sorta sucks when it comes to long range hunting, so I propose that Mr. Vang was enthusiastic but not very well informed when it comes to his choice of weapon.
There are any number of standard looking hunting rifles like my Marlin 22 magnum that cost a lot less than the SKS and which are equally deadly at any range within 100 yards. I’ll also point out that, while this weapon is not legal for deer hunting due to it’s small caliber, it was quite capable of terrifying a number of rabbits and squirrels with great frequency in Lower Alabama in the early 1970’s. By the way, the standard clip holds ten rounds.
What the logic out there seems to be is that scary looking guns with large(r) capacity ammunition magazines are more trouble that “average” looking guns with small(er) capacity magazines. I propose that any old inexperienced moron with a great big old dangerous looking gun is no more a threat than a polished killer with a pea shooter.
The crime is shooting at people, not owning a certain type gun.
Get It?
Sunday, November 21, 2004
What You See Isn't What You Get
I’d like to apologize for the lack of new posting recently, but I’m tired. You see, for the past few weeks I’ve been charged with designing a real life illusion and this week we started construction.
By building an illusion, I mean that I am in charge of construction of the set for the Agatha Christie play ”The Mousetrap” that our local theater company, The Island Players, is staging this winter. For those of you out there that like me are not long time regulars in the theater business, “The Mousetrap” is the longest continuously running play in history, having been staged in London’s west end theater district since 1952.
By the assertion that I am new to the theater business, I mean that I have acted in exactly two plays in the past 35 years, one in grade school in the late 1960’s and one this past spring when I played the character Hannibal in John Patrick’s play “The Curious Savage.” Let’s just say that I’m a character in real life, but my acting skills need a little work I believe. I’m still eager to learn.
Working with the theater is fun, but it can also be very hard, demanding work. The show must go on...as they say. The coolest part of working with The Island Players is that they occupy a 60 year old building that was originally constructed as a single screen movie house, and it sits about 50 yards from the Atlantic Ocean. Every time I drive up and park my car there I think about how lucky I am. I bet we have the only community theater on the entire east coast of the US with such a great venue.
My 25 years of design and construction experience do give me a certain advantage when it comes to theatrical sets. The only thing is, a set doesn’t have to withstand rain (well, sometimes they do), wind, and other environmental conditions and your average set only has a lifespan of a few months if not weeks.
The whole process really makes me crazy as it goes against everything I’ve ever practiced in building industrial smokestacks and houses for Habitat for Humanity. Just about the time you get everything framed with lumber, covered with foam or wood or whatever, painted, furnished, and decorated, then along comes the end of the play and it’s time to tear it all down again and start over. It’ really sorta sad, as you can really come to feel like a place depicted by the set actually exists and you’re comfortable sitting there in a chair looking at the bedroom door or whatever.
The current setting is a Manor House in post World War II England—14' high walls, giant fireplace, large arched entryways and a 12’ high palladian window. We will even have a snow machine outside the window. If things work the way I plan, it is all gonna look absolutely real and look 150 years old to boot.
I’ll post a picture in a few weeks when things start to come together. In the mean time I have a few rants rattling around my skull that I will try to get out in the next few days.
By building an illusion, I mean that I am in charge of construction of the set for the Agatha Christie play ”The Mousetrap” that our local theater company, The Island Players, is staging this winter. For those of you out there that like me are not long time regulars in the theater business, “The Mousetrap” is the longest continuously running play in history, having been staged in London’s west end theater district since 1952.
By the assertion that I am new to the theater business, I mean that I have acted in exactly two plays in the past 35 years, one in grade school in the late 1960’s and one this past spring when I played the character Hannibal in John Patrick’s play “The Curious Savage.” Let’s just say that I’m a character in real life, but my acting skills need a little work I believe. I’m still eager to learn.
Working with the theater is fun, but it can also be very hard, demanding work. The show must go on...as they say. The coolest part of working with The Island Players is that they occupy a 60 year old building that was originally constructed as a single screen movie house, and it sits about 50 yards from the Atlantic Ocean. Every time I drive up and park my car there I think about how lucky I am. I bet we have the only community theater on the entire east coast of the US with such a great venue.
My 25 years of design and construction experience do give me a certain advantage when it comes to theatrical sets. The only thing is, a set doesn’t have to withstand rain (well, sometimes they do), wind, and other environmental conditions and your average set only has a lifespan of a few months if not weeks.
The whole process really makes me crazy as it goes against everything I’ve ever practiced in building industrial smokestacks and houses for Habitat for Humanity. Just about the time you get everything framed with lumber, covered with foam or wood or whatever, painted, furnished, and decorated, then along comes the end of the play and it’s time to tear it all down again and start over. It’ really sorta sad, as you can really come to feel like a place depicted by the set actually exists and you’re comfortable sitting there in a chair looking at the bedroom door or whatever.
The current setting is a Manor House in post World War II England—14' high walls, giant fireplace, large arched entryways and a 12’ high palladian window. We will even have a snow machine outside the window. If things work the way I plan, it is all gonna look absolutely real and look 150 years old to boot.
I’ll post a picture in a few weeks when things start to come together. In the mean time I have a few rants rattling around my skull that I will try to get out in the next few days.
