Bitter – Page 118 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Family Values

I’ve been a fan of defending the Duggars ever since Mark Morford attacked them for believing in family and, very bizarrely, tried to claim they had dysfunctional views on sex. I’m still not sure how having north of a dozen and a half happy and fairly healthy children reflects any sort of bedroom problems.

Now, they make me proud again. Apparently, they took an exchange student out target shooting over the holidays.

I’m not sure what Jim Bob Duggar’s NRA grade was when he was in office (their online archives don’t go back that far), but I can definitely applaud him for teaching his kids about keeping their fingers off the triggers.

He adds, “All of the older boys, including John David, are well-trained in gun safety and always supervised when handling guns.”

The only complaint I have is that Jim Bob is a man with 9 daughters. While I’m sure the boys are all quite protective of their sisters, it could never hurt to include the girls in the family firearms training.

They are a family who claim to live debt-free, don’t look to the government to support their large family, have a large family by choice rather than irresponsibility, and seem to have fairly normal children who certainly come off as quite happy in life. And they have guns. I’d say that’s much better tv than half the crap on today.

Business Models that Fail

Typically, a business model for success involves offering a product or service people want to buy, taking their money, and enjoying your profits. That’s not a terribly hard concept, but it is one that still seems to be over the heads of most entertainment companies.

I wrote a post on December 2 about why supposed copyright laws are getting in the way of my ability to give the music companies the price they seek for the products they are trying to sell. You’d think, in this modern era of digital music and hundreds of daily flights between the UK and US, that I would have the products by now. You would be wrong.

We have received the DVD, as well as one cd. I’m still missing two cds, and now one of those may not be shipped out at all. Amazon.co.uk sold out of their stock, though they still have an affiliate selling. Unfortunately, said affiliate doesn’t want to sell to the US, and Amazon’s UK store doesn’t know if they will get it back in stock. Dear music companies: If it’s selling out, it is popular to warrant offering as, at the very least, a digital download. And our damn yankee money should line your pockets just as easily as the pounds & Euros you’ll take from other countries. (The only redeeming element of this story is that Amazon’s UK store has offered us free shipping if they ever get the other disk back in stock. Oh yeah, and there’s one more disc from this artist that we’d like to buy, but again, none of the smaller retailers through Amazon want to deal with an international order.)

On the other side of the pond, we have Amazon.com willing to sell a cd single for a song from the concert encore directly to US consumers. Yay! Only it should have arrived by today. Instead, it has not shipped. The only thing I can deduce from their sudden re-listing of the status of the cd recently is that they are having trouble getting copies here in the US.

Seriously, music executives, I want to buy your product. You can even mark it up at ridiculous rates and it’s likely I will still buy it. Why won’t you take our money? And more importantly, why are music company investors not firing all of your executives for refusing to sell products that make a profit?

HSUS Final Fundraising Push

It’s about time that they sent out honest pleas for money.

Image by Jungleman and found via HumaneWatch.

Getting the GOP Back in Line

Many readers of this site are Republicans or generally right-of-center voters. Yet, when we look at the battles we’re facing with the Second Amendment, it’s not uncommon that Republicans are a source of more than a handful of our problems. In Pennsylvania, we finally managed to get Castle Doctrine out of the hands of an anti-gun Philly Democrat in the state House last year only to be stopped by Republican members of the Senate who wanted to load it down with anti-gun amendments. At the federal level, we saw a huge number of Democrats earning their pro-gun ratings by passing good legislation, putting up a fight for even more great legislation, and holding off opponents in the administration. In other words, for gun rights to move forward, the Republican leadership needs to get its act together and start seriously working with gun owners if they want to earn our votes and help in the next election.

Americans for Tax Reform and The Daily Caller are hosting another RNC Chair debate next week. They have a site set up to submit questions and vote on your favorites. Last year, I believe they did feature a question about guns, but it was only a question of how many guns the candidates owned. As both a gun owner and a volunteer, the question was absolutely meaningless. The RNC Chair isn’t setting official policy of the party, and even if they own one gun for every Republican in the country, it doesn’t tell me crap about the role they are supposed to fulfill.

I would think relevant questions to the party chair candidates would include topics about how they see gun owners as part of their voter outreach strategy, and what messages they have for candidates and incumbents at all levels to build up their grassroots teams to include gun owners. These are the kinds of relevant messages that need to come from the party/brand leaders. I could care less what the RNC Chair has done before on the issue, as long as they are willing to talk to Republican candidates for office about how vital gun owners are on Election Day.

During the last RNC Chair election process, I was open to the idea that Michael Steele could bring a bit of fresh thinking to the party. He knew what it was like to run in a tough state, and to say that the Democrats had played dirty to hurt his candidacy is an understatement. Unfortunately, he spent the RNC into the ground, and stupid mistakes have been the highlight of his term. In 2010, it turned out not to matter too much. People were just that angry with the Democrats. But in 2012, we’ll have the very top on the ticket to worry about, along with defending many more seats. Even though the Democrats still control the White House and Senate, Republicans will shoulder an unfair amount of blame for anything bad that happens, regardless of which party is responsible. Voters who aren’t paying close attention will simply remember that Republicans “won” in 2010, not the real balance of power. We can’t really afford to not have money going into that fight, nor can we afford stupid distractions from the RNC.

Fixing the State Police Problems

This is apparently about a week old, but we missed it in the rush up to the holidays: Governor-elect Tom Corbett is replacing the State Police Commissioner who has been working with Mike Bloomberg’s political group to push more gun control.

The new appointee comes from the Attorney General’s office, so hopefully he’ll stay out the gun control fights and we’ll no longer have to deal with a Commissioner pushing a personal political agenda with the weight of his office behind it.

A New Challenge for Pro-Gun Efforts

RIP Sen. Michael O’Pake

In 2008, Sen. O’Pake was A rated and endorsed by NRA. It’s not uncommon for a Democrat outside of the Philly area, but it is still notable because he represented an area with a very high number of hardcore MAIG mayors.

Gun owners need to get involved in the Democratic Party efforts to fill the seat at primary time. In addition to being a likely solid blue district, the local GOP doesn’t seem to give much thought to gun rights based on the attitudes of the last two challengers. In 2004, the Republican refused to even respond to NRA’s questionnaire. In 2008, the GOP candidate received a whooping C-. Hopefully, local gun owners can make sure the candidate looking to fill the seat are both pro-gun by putting pressure on the local leadership and candidate hopefuls in both parties.

Losing a pro-gun Democratic Whip in the Senate when it is the GOP senators causing the hold up with Castle Doctrine could make it harder to pass as a clean bill next session. We’ll really need to boost our efforts and outreach with other friendly members of the minority and majority parties who will stand up for our rights against the leadership.

In the meantime, our thoughts certainly go out to Sen. O’Pake’s family and friends.

Waiting for the EPA to Chime In

I love NORAD’s Santa tracking efforts. They put out all kinds of cute stuff and news for kids throughout the holiday season. I just lay this out there to show that I’m not a grinch about Christmas or all bureaucrats. But, I’m not sure how I feel about the FAA getting in on the “fun.”

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety inspectors at the North Pole certified Santa One, the reindeer-powered sleigh piloted by Santa Claus, for its Christmas Eve round-the-world delivery mission. …

Unlike any other pilot, Santa has special permission from the FAA to fly thousands of domestic and international short-haul and long-range flights in one night. In keeping with the FAA’s science-based proposal to give pilots more rest, Santa will arrange his flight plan based on his circadian rhythm. Mrs. Claus also assured FAA safety inspectors that sheâ€™ll make sure he gets plenty of rest before the flight on Christmas Eve.

The release opens and closes with talk of regulation. Maybe it’s the fact that, even as a child, I never really liked rules when I wasn’t ever the child misbehaving, but I don’t like the idea of passing on the immediate acceptance of a regulatory culture to our children. My answer to kids who ask question about how Santa flies safely? Magic. He’s not flying safely because of bureaucrats. He’s flying safely because he’s magical. Let’s embrace a little bit of magic during the holiday season instead of turning to the federal government for all of our answers – even those about Santa.

However, I do have to thank the FAA for trying to keep EPA off Santa’s back. They did address the green-aspect of Santa’s sleigh:

The sleighâ€™s onboard systems have been upgraded with state-of-the-art, NextGen technology that will allow Santa One to maintain cruising altitude for as long as possible before making a continuous descent into cities and towns around the world. While maneuvering on rooftops, an advanced, onboard runway safety system will help reduce the risk of incursions between the sleigh and chimneys.

Santaâ€™s reindeer-powered sleigh is already energy-efficient, but the NextGen technologies will further reduce Santa Oneâ€™s carbon hoofprint. The shorter, faster routings means that Rudolph and the other reindeer will consume less hay, resulting in fewer greenhouse gases.

At least FAA’s answer to Santa is to just give clearance for his sleigh. EPA’s would be to shut it down, lest we risk reindeer poo contaminating our water supplies and cookie crumbs littering our lawns.

Solutions We Know Won’t Work

There’s one thing I really don’t understand about many in the gun control movement. Â I’m baffled when I read things that show just how unserious they are about pursuing policies that might address problems they perceive in society. Â I’m not just talking about the organized political folks in DC whose job it is to tie every criminal use of a gun to their top policy item of the day. Â I mean the few out there who still support serious gun control and who aren’t paid to promote a specific policy agenda.

I thought of this because of a foreign newspaper editorial that spends 6 of 11 paragraphs talking about a specific drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of a child. Â So, considering the death of this child has caught their attention so deeply, one might assume they would be interested in suggesting specific solutions that would result in fewer child deaths and drive-bys. But no. In fact, they actually admit that their solutions won’t solve the problems illustrated by the case they highlighted.

It would also help in reducing the number of homicide cases associated with the use of licensed firearms. Of course, this measure will not work against those who seek out illegal firearms, as was the case with the Prasongsil brothers.

Also worth considering in a public debate would be the issue of whether the number of guns of a certain calibre permissible for each individual, should be limited or not.

They don’t even pretend that the last suggestion has anything to do with the case of drive-bys!

I also think back to a conversation my grandmother and I had at dinner while Sebastian and I were out in Hawaii. Here’s the cliffnotes version:

Grandmother: So is Sebastian into your little gun hobby?
Bitter: Yes. He’s a competitive shooter, he’s active in a gun club, and he even bought me a gun for Christmas one year.
Grandmother: [attempts to mask her disappointment in having a libertarian gun nut granddaughter] Oh, well that’s good that you have that in common.
Bitter: [probably enjoys breaking stereotypes a little too much] Yeah, we enjoy it quite a bit. He got me into a new shooting sport for a while, but lately things have been so busy that we haven’t had the time.
Grandmother: Well, you know, it wouldn’t be such a problem if we could just fix a few things – like closing the gun shows.
Bitter: [looks at Sebastian] Um, do they even have gun shows in Hawaii?
Sebastian: [recalling what he did know about Hawaii gun laws] I’m not sure that’s an issue out here.
Bitter: [knowing where this is going] I’m pretty sure you guys don’t have a “gun show loophole” out here in Hawaii. In fact, I’m pretty sure your laws are so strict they have put a big damper on lawful gun ownership.
Grandmother: Well, there was this shooting recently, and the gun came from a gun show.
Bitter: You’re sure about that?
Grandmother: Well, I think he may have robbed someone.
Bitter: So, wait, he bought it lawfully at a gun show or he stole it from someone who may or may not have had anything to do with a gun show?
Grandmother: I think he stole it from someone’s house.
Bitter: Wait, you want to close down gun shows and ban private sales which may not even be legal in this state – I can’t remember off the top of my head – based on a crime that appears to have nothing to do with gun shows?
Grandmother: Well, there may have been a gun show involved. But it’s a problem that needs to be solved anyway.
Bitter: [restraining all efforts to keep from beating her head against the table]
Grandmother: If we could just limit the number of guns out there, that would help.
Bitter: [morbidly curious] Just how would you do that?
Grandmother: Well, if we could make sure they are only sold to good people, like you and Sebastian.
Bitter: We’ve passed the same background checks as other people who buy guns from dealers and get concealed carry licenses.
Grandmother: Then don’t you have enough guns.
Bitter: [chuckles] Uh, no. We still have some room to fill in the safe.
Grandmother: [horrified at the notion we’d like to own more guns]

Her solution to a crime that bothered her isn’t to address the criminal who was out on the streets, how he was able to continue his crime spree and steal a gun, or even how to address the details of the killing (which she didn’t explain, and I knew better than to ask). She just parroted the nearest talking point she could find.

I am interested in solving problems. If there’s a crime that bothers me, I want to address the roots of the problem so we don’t have to deal with that problem again, or at least minimize the number of instances in which we have to deal with it. It’s such a waste of energy and, potentially, political capital to focus on non-solutions to specific problems. I can’t comprehend the people who go on believing that ignoring the fundamental problems is the best way to truly reduce violence. How many rap sheets have we posted the show the problem in Philly isn’t about guns, it’s about why these scum of the earth are even walking the streets when they have 10, 15, and 20 page criminal records? At least the professional gun controllers are simply pushing a political agenda. It’s the non-professional ones that really baffle me.

Role Playing: Nanny State Edition

Last night, I pondered what it would be like to become a nanny-stater. Instead of being content to simply not like something, what if I felt the need to call for government to ban these things? Once I started thinking about it, I realized just how much fun this could be.

So here’s my Christmas list of things I would ban if I believed in the nanny state:

Houses with all blue Christmas lights. They make me feel cold. Therefore, they might make children feel cold. If we can save just one child from feeling cold, it will be worth it.
Olives. Beyond olive oil, olives serve no purpose other than to make my stomach churn. Â We must close the olive loophole that allows olives to be sold to the public in a form other than olive oil.
Holiday inflatable yard decorations. One home in our neighborhood has so many of these, they had to cut back their only tree to accomodate a Frosty the size of their house. Â They have a Halloween inflatable that celebrates Death. Â These disgraceful decorations are a waste of energy, and, as our neighbors illustrate, not at all green. Â We must ban them to save the planet.
Wonderful Christmastime. It’s for the children. Â Seriously, this song is all sorts of wrong, and it’s too easy for little ears to hear the jingle and start repeating it. Â It must be banned so we can allow our children to grow up in a world without Paul McCartney holiday tunes.

This is just the beginning. Â I can already see the ways I can make the world a better place just by using the force of government to ban things I don’t like. Â Have a little fun with your own lists below.

Warming our Hearts this Holiday Season

If you’re a wine snob, a free market nut, or just generally hate swindlers and thieves, then I’ve got news to warm your hearts in time for Christmas. Two-thirds of Pennsylvania voters support dismantling the state liquor system this year.

Fresh from the crack research team at the Department of No-Brainers comes a new Quinnipiac University poll this morning concluding that more than two-thirds (66 percent to 26 percent) of state voters favor selling off Pennsylvania’s state-owned liquor stores.

That’s what we call a mandate. Who knew Christmas miracles would come so early this year?

Even better, we get some holiday entertainment in this battle to free our liquor. According to one NPR reporter, the union representing state store employees is so desperate that they are crashing press conferences to argue against it:

Sign state store sale fight heating up: UFCW rep shows up at Q-Poll presser to dispute questions showing majority favor privativation. … Union guy got a tad confrontational when told press conference was for reporters, not interest groups, to ask Qs.

Of course, it looks like the union is going to have to rely on thuggish tactics since appealing to public support isn’t going to help them much. More than half of voters said they support cutting state jobs to balance the budget. With privatizing the system, we cut state jobs, and we get the influx of cash from selling the system and the products.

It will indeed be a very merry Christmas when my mom can bring up a bottle of Virginia wine for a holiday toast and not have to worry about breaking the law.