Check them out
'cause they're all
better than me.
And if you have Alphecca on your blogroll, thank you!
And please
let me know
so I can add you to this list!
He's scared! He's on the run! It's time to bring out the BIG GUNS. Here's Critter examining his "assault weapon." Notice the 30-round magazines... Be afraid, be very afraid...
The Pink Pussies are locked, cocked, and ready to rock!
The perception that Democrats are hostile to the rights of gun owners has damaged the party in the last two elections and will do so again in 2004 unless they change their ways, the Democratic Leadership Council said yesterday.
Al From, founder of the centrist DLC, and Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas said the antigun image perpetuates the idea that Democrats are "cultural elites," alienating them from mainstream voters.
And pay attention to this:
"It is very clear that silence is not golden for Democrats on the gun issue," [Democratic pollster] Mr. Penn said, adding that Democratic Party pays a steep price for its antigun image while the Republicans' pro-gun image doesn't cost them any votes.
"The formula for Democrats is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes" in current gun laws, Mr. Penn said, adding that polls show the term "gun safety" is received better than the more commonly used term "gun control."
If Democrats could neutralize Republicans' advantage with gun owners, Mr. Penn said, as much as 21 percent of swing voters would come their way.
"This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on," Mr. Penn said.
So that's the new stealth tactic for Democratic candidates. They'll replace the phrase "gun control" with "gun safety." Which boils down to a calculated scheme to try and convince Republicans that "yes, we support the Second Amendment" but in the interests of 'gun safety' we just want a few controls on who can own and carry a gun."
So the DLC is quite correct in saying that the gun control issue hurts Democratic candidates. But one of their pollsters is suggesting that they simply pretend to support gun rights. Frankly, I'd rather have a candidate who simply speaks what he believes (wouldn't we all...)
Aside from Gen. Wesley Clark -- who hasn't issued a clear statement on his position on gun control -- the only candidate with a verifiable record in favor of Second Amendment rights is Howard Dean.
Needless to say, we in Vermont enjoy the fewest restrictions on firearm ownership and concealed-carry. I do remember clearly, about a week or two after the Columbine tragedy, that Dean appeared on (as a regular) the PBS show The Editors and when the subject came up, plainly said that what was needed "wasn't more gun control" but rather trying to find out why these two kids were so angry. Exactly!
As I've said before here, I like many of Sen. Joe Leiberman's positions but his anti-gun stance puts me right-off. The only Democratic candidate I can consider -- at this time -- is Howard Dean. And he looks pretty good on many (not all) of the issues I care about. And frankly, President Bush has lost some lustre in my eyes. I don't know that anyone could have handled 9/11 and the aftermath better than he did but I do know that he (and his administration) seem listless, un-focused, un-involved with the day-to-day problems that Americans face.
It would be SO WELCOME if he could just issue one speech the way Ronald Reagan used to, where he acknowledges the economic problems we (in America) are going through and offer us the Reagan optimism and encouragement needed to spur us on and get things going again. Yes, the markets aren't doing badly, but unemployment is a big problem and investment is still lethargic and we really need a vocal, eloquent "cheer-leader" rooting us on.
I know I'm veering way off-topic about Democrats and "the gun issue" but like the fool I usually am, I'll plow-on.
I'm not a single-issue voter. I have about ten issues I care about. At the very top is gun-rights and an un-adulterated respect for the Second Amendment. Self-defense is a primary function of all living creatures, including humans.
Some animals are lucky enough to have these defensive abilities built-in. They have fangs (sometimes poisonous) and claws and superior vision and so on... Men and women don't. But besides eating and procreating, self-defense is an absolute, hard-wired-in compulsion in our brains. Self-defense is a natural, firmly fixed right of survival firmly planted within us by evolution.
So that's one issue. It's built into us. Another is more prosaic; yes, the natural drive is to perpetuate ourselves, hence our sex-drives. But as thinking creatures, and for whatever (nature, nurture, genetic) reasons, we all express this in different (and sometimes non-reproductive) ways. I believe the right to fall in love with another person of our choice (I'm talking consenting adults here, folks, not children or barnyard animals) should be supported -- not just tolerated -- as a choice as natural as whether we would rather eat meat or vegetables or both. Anything that encourages stable social --of any makeup-- (read: Family) units should be celebrated.
There are other issues on my list (I've made it no secret that I am "pro-life" and "small government" and "pro-Israel", etc.) but they fall farther down in priority. Howard Dean gives a good accounting of himself on my top two concerns. I am not committed or declared yet for anyone but I must tell you that he is certainly a favorite.
I know that Dean has said he'll support closing the "gun-show loop-hole" and I feel that that's a red-herring because legitimate FFL dealers already have to run "Brady Bunch" checks on purchasers -- so we're really just talking about folks in the parking-lot -- but as long as such legislation doesn't extend to personal transactions from home or newspaper ads or between friends (or actually, in that parking-lot...)
I don't think Dean really does more here than mouth something the coastal-elites want to hear. He never supported such a thing for the ten years he governed Vermont. I could be wrong but he governed a state without any controls -- and he supported that and clearly stated he didn't think Vermont needed any more controls -- so I'll trust him for now. Bush hasn't shown much vocal support for the Second Amendment and, in fact, has said that he would support the extension of the phony "assault-weapons ban."
I'm sorry this became such a long-winded post. Heck, I usually don't even post on Saturdays but I'm off this weekend and I'm feeling opinionated today...
Update: My buddy Greg at The Hobbesian Conservative disagrees strongly with my take on Howard Dean and guns. He says:
Sorry, Jeff, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think Dean wouldn't roll over on gun owners in a New York Second if he thought it would win him votes. True, he never signed gun laws in Vermont, but he never repealed any either.
Well, it's certainly possible, though Dean hasn't rolled over on most of his other positions so far. In Vermont (and I do live here actually) he was known for a hot temper and for not compromising on very much. Anyway, as I've said before, I'm not committed to anyone yet. But Dean is certainly in the running. However, Greg makes good points in his post that you should read.
Reader Brad T. agrees with Greg and writes in to me:
...I understand that actions speak louder than words, but you may not be aware just how far Dean has gone lately speaking in favor of a renewed "assault-weapon" ban. Dean not only favors renewing the ban, but also favors strengthening it.
Check out the anti-gun website, Candidates on Guns, they support the whole anti-gun agenda including the harsh super-sized version of the assault weapon ban renewal bill known as H.R. 2038. This site has links to surveys of all the presidential candidates on gun issues, specifically including the question of stregthening the "assault-weapon" ban. Dean's answers are linked, here at the CSGV 2004 Candidate Survey button. You won't like Dean's answer. [Note, click the button for the PDF file.]
I don't know if your personal Marlin Camp Carbine would fall under the new harsh restrictions of H.R. 2038, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did since the bill does go after Mini-14 rifles and M-1 carbines. As mealy mouthed as Bush is on the gun issue, he is no worse than Howard Dean, and possibly much much better. Recall that Bush signed the CCW reform bill while governor of Texas, and also even more telling, Bush signed gun lawsuit immunity legislation while the spotlight was upon him for his presidential candidacy of 2000. Actions always speak louder than words.
--Brad T.
According to this website, Dean has, in fact, said that he supports a strong "assault weapons" ban and that he would also -- given the chance -- oppose the legislation protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuits. If so, then I cannot and will not support him. Thanks Brad, for pointing this out to me. And, alas, I don't like Bush that much. So I'm a voter without a candidate. I'm so alone... And I hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils. So I'm back where I started -- supporting the Reynolds/Lucas ticket.
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using nonviolent means for a "final victory."
And:
Mahathir -- known for his outspoken, anti-Western rhetoric -- criticized what he described as Jewish domination of the world and Muslim nations' inability to adequately respond to it.
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," Mahathir said, opening the meeting of Islamic leaders from 57 nations. "They get others to fight and die for them."
Actually, you schmuck, Israel has pretty much had to go it alone in it's fight against it's neighbors. While America has provided foreign aid to them, it's their soldiers, their weapons, their courage and strength that is all that stands between their survival and their annihilation by the mutant arabs.
Look in the dictionary under "damned-fool" and you'll see Mahathir's picture.
A senior editor at The New Republic has published a column on the Internet that deplores the violence in the film "Kill Bill" and criticizes Harvey Weinstein, the co-chairman of Miramax, which released the film, and Michael Eisner, chairman of the Walt Disney Company, as "Jewish executives" who "worship money above all else."
I thought this kind of crap went out of style with Nehru-jackets. This is why I have such a hard time taking "the left" seriously.
Update: Gregg Easterbrook has issued an apology. But as InstaPundit points out, why did it take him so long? In fact, why did he wait until the New York Times picked up the story? Roger L. Simon isn't impressed. But better late than never. I don't think Easterbrook is really anti-semitic but I don't know. Blog writers tend to shoot-off-their-mouths in rather quick fashion and sometimes regret what stupidity they wrote later. I certainly do as Kim du Toit and others can attest to. But I'm not a professional writer and I'm not being paid to maintain a blog representing a national magazine. As Roger points out, Easterbrook needs to examine what he writes before pushing the "publish" button. Still, to err is human and with me it's a way of life.
Some nice folks have been added to my "friends" blogroll.
Danny O'Brien's Blog O'DOB is a young whipper-snapper who has a good post on eminent domain regarding Lakewood, Ohio. He writes far more coherently about this case then I did last June. I like his thoughts on religion and the way some in the blogosphere treat it too.
Sketches of Strain by another queer cat-lover, David, is a blog I actually have bookmarked in my browser. Not just because he likes cats, he also smokes. Actually, he just rights really well. So go hang out there.
By the way, here's a picture of a cat who likes guns, just for Dean Esmay! Now everyone knows why I feed her so promptly!
Most folks would like Alphecca to stay as is. So I guess it will for now. I think. The one big surprise was how many people are using computer monitors with resolutions of 640 and 800. So I've adjusted the font here back to regular size so it doesn't look so large for them.
...Because we don't have nearly enough government intrusion in our lives. Now, safety regulators want to hound us into buckling-up our seatbelts when we drive. From the Washington Times:
In many automobiles, a chime, buzzer or dashboard light reminds drivers to fasten their seat belts. These warning systems are not allowed to last longer than eight seconds, according to federal regulations.
On Tuesday, the National Academy of Sciences, an agency that advises Congress on scientific matters, recommended scrapping the eight-second restriction. Drivers who aren't in the habit of strapping themselves in need longer -- and louder -- reminders, according to the academy's report.
Um, what about cars sold in New Hampshire, where seatbelts are not required by adults? Will they build special versions of all cars for them? Look, I wear my seatbelt and I think others should too, and some states' cops can pull you over merely for not wearing it. Isn't that already enough harrassment? Would the federal government please just get the hell out of our lives?
By the way, it isn't so much crashes with other cars that makes me buckle-up; it's crashes with deer and moose that put the fear of God into me...
Via the Spoons Experience I discover that I am definitely living on the wrong side of the isle. Man! If only I could somehow force myself to accept the liberal view of life under total control and regulation of the state, I'd have the left throwing money at me. I'd love to try it but I suspect my gag-reflexes would prohibit me from swallowing that much bullshit in one sitting...
I'm not the only one trying to decide on a direction here: My buddy Say Uncle is asking for advice though the only thing I can think of is for him to keep on keeping on. I love his blog.
The spirit of "Bezerkeley" over at John's Usefull Fools. So uh, how do you really feel?
My friend Matt at Stop the Bleating! takes on the folks who knock the NRA. The link isn't working yet so scroll down (well, of course, read it all!) to the post entitled, "MORE INTERNICINE WARFARE IN THE PRO-GUN CAMP." You know, I have mentioned, linked to, and quoted the NRA a heck of a lot of times here. In fact, only once in the past year have I been critical of the NRA. They are the six hundred pound gorilla that fights (for better or worse) for gun owners in this country. I'm a member and I agree totally with Matt when he says:
Just as schisms do great damage to religions, distracting them from their real purposes, internecine warfare does terrible damage to the pro-gun movement. Pro-gunners who attack the NRA in order to demonstrate some sort of superior ideological purity do little but weaken our common cause, in my humble opinion. Ben Franklin is supposed to have said, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately," and I think that's quite true in the case of this particular movement. So I wince everytime I see pro-gun organizations attacking one another publicly over questions of strategy and tactics.
Yes! And maybe if the detractors tried to get themselves ingrained into, elected to NRA executive posts, things would be better. But for better or worse, they're all we've got. The GOA is far to shrill to be taken seriously by mainstream America. The NRA only barely makes it. Let's improve it rather than scorn it.
I'm not going to comment anymore on Rush Limbaugh. Yes, I think he's a drugger and in general principle I think drugs are a non-crime. But in his case, he was so adamant about locking up other drug users that I have repeatedly stated that this hypocrisy means he should do time as well. My dear blogson feels differently (and the link isn't working yet so I'll print it here):
...I see his point, although hypocrisy -- while it may be morally relevant -- is legally irrelevant to a drug possession charge. Furthermore, Rush has not been arrested, and it seems increasingly unlikely that he will be. Words tape-recorded by his supplier and printed in the National Enquirer -- even if admitted by Rush -- cannot prove a case where physical possession is the crime. They have to get a warrant, and go find the stuff -- and I'd be willing to bet his place has been sanitized.
I agree. And if Limbaugh hadn't been so vocally nasty and vicious to others with moral failings, I would never have mentioned the whole thing. But he was, and with 20 million listeners, he influences a whole lot of folks. Under those circumstances, he should receive what he has dealt. I have to say that most bloggers disagree. My secret girlfriend at Indigos Insights has a more rational view about it all. I really do agree with both of them, but the bitter taste Rush has left in my mouth makes it impossible to forgive him. Not until he asks for forgiveness and changes his ways.
I don't actually agree with Swen on everything he says here. He's right that most government employees are only interested in the "government benefits" and don't care (more) than their civilian counterparts. But I have known two rangers who worked for our (federal) parks services and they really did go into that line of work, and for our government, because they loved our national parks so dearly that they would do anything to protect them. These two men (in this case) only wanted to be in our majestic outdoors parks and preserve them for all to enjoy.
This is just a personal reaction and usually I agree with everything Swen writes. If this was about some CPA's in a company somewhere I would nod in agreement. But I really think that folks who specifically go into our parks service must feel some kin-ship with our great national parks and forests. It certainly isn't for the money so it must be for the love of it. And I will never fault someone for loving, and wanting to protect, our precious wonderful natural resources. I know that my friends, and I'm sure most of their co-workers, are dearly in-love with our forests and parks. They're not getting rich doing this. They are getting satisfaction from their efforts.
As regular readers (my favorite folks) know, I am making some changes here. My most noticed regular post, the Weekly Check on the Bias is moving to Monday mornings (which is why you don't see it here today.) And I'm considering moving my everyday blog and postings to my other site (not active at the moment so don't bother going there) Tarazet.com. It would be a Movable Type site with comments and such so there would be a lot more interactive discussion with you. Alphecca (this site) would be dedicated to my weekly bias report on guns.
I want to take YOUR opinions into account on this, and for some time I've also wanted to know a bit more about my visitors. So here is a totally anonymous poll that I hope you'll take a few seconds to fill out. Moving the weekly thing to Monday is a done deal -- it will be far better and in-depth because I usually have Sundays off to devote to it. The rest is up in the air though I think a seperate site would work for everyone. Alphecca would become a weekly magazine with a lot more content. What do you think?
Unfortunately, this form only seems to work and automatically send me your "votes" in Internet Explorer. I can't seem to make it work in Netscape/Safari -- they just bring up a new email window... Sorry about that... If one of you kind gurus could tell me "why" and how to fix it I will.
The National Rifle Association doesn't call it an enemies list, but deep in the recesses of the organization's Web site is a long, long compilation of the names of groups and individuals that the N.R.A. considers unfriendly.
I'm happy to report that I'm on the list, but my name is truly one among very many. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is there, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Children's Defense Fund and the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs are there. The United States Catholic Conference, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Y.W.C.A. of the U.S.A. are all there.
Naturally he thinks this is awful and to be honest, I find the whole thing a bit silly myself but I certainly can see a reason to at least list corporations or other groups that sponsor or give money to anti-gun groups so that we can take our business elsewhere. Listing individuals (or I suppose public figures) seems a bit extreme though I certainly see the need to list federal and state legislaters who push for gun control as a warning not to vote for them.
But Herbert seems to find this all a dark motive, as if the list puts them in danger even when their own words and deeds are visible for all to see.
I think he's being hysterical here but here's some other "enemies lists" I found via Google:
Here's a list of abortion opponents maintained by a far-left group in Pennsylvania by the state Executive Director of Planned Parenthood.
I could go on but I think you get the point. People love lists and "the left" is just as guilty of maintaining these things as "the right." So uh, Herbert? Get over it.
Bitter Bitch is correct that trigger-locks for guns is a bad idea for most folks. Firstly, as she points out, it is not an excuse for lax basic gun safety and oversight. If there are kids in a household, guns should be kept locked up and un-loaded with just one of them kept directly on the responsible adult or under constant supervision by that adult. It goes without saying that kids should be kept under constant supervision as well anyway and should be taught the fundamentals of gun safety from an early age.
That said, another problem with trigger-locks is that when you most need that gun -- under the worst situation where someone bursts into your home -- you may not have the time to fumble with a key (or even find the key) or remember the combination, and it could cost you and your loved ones their lives.
One last point about Rush Limbaugh: Some have said that he was under constant physical pain. I know something about that since I've suffered from Cluster Headaches for almost 30 years, Gout for about 20 years, and month long bouts of Sciatica from a herniated disk in my lower back (that eventually drove me from construction work.) Sorry, but I didn't run out to the local pusher to buy illegal drugs. I know pain and I've lived with it legally.
Say Uncle comments on when dogs fight and what to do. One of the suggestions is (if available) turning the water hose on them. I was just wondering, would this work in Congress?
Rule by elitism, or the "Annointed." That's the subject of this thoughtful post by Kevin at The Smallest Minority.
I've been mumbling for the last two weeks that I'll be moving the Weekly Check on the Bias report to Monday mornings. That will happen this coming week. It will allow me to produce a better, more comprehensive report since I generally have lots of time on Sundays to produce it.
So this is just a warning that you won't see the report this Wednesday but instead will see the new improved version a week from today. And I have the coming weekend off so it should be a doozy.
And in keeping with that, please do email interesting links to me of obvious media bias against the Second Amendment and gun rights in general that you think I should be aware of since I can't catch everything -- especially from local or small newspapers and magazines around the country (or world!)
You know, I keep trying to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and he keeps disappointing. From the Palm Beach Post:
The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries.
Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitats.
This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the endangered straight-horned markhor in Pakistan; license the pet industry to import the blue-fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina; permit the capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S. circuses and zoos; and partially resume the international trade in African ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected.
Yes, we'll certainly help these rare animals along by encouraging the capture or killing of them. Maybe Bush really is as stupid as liberals make him out to be. Howard Dean is looking better and better by the minute as my choice in 2004.
First of all, I'd like to mention the newest addition to my "good friends" blogroll, Dean Esmay, the fine proprietor of Dean's World. Dean defends the original definition of the liberal tradition (as opposed to what it has come to mean these days.) He supports our efforts in Iraq, gun rights, etc. Check it out and add him to your bookmarks. Incidentally, you might want to check out a huge discussion there about why gays, feminists, etc. should be carrying firearms. Quite a bit from all sides of the issue sparked by one perceptive post!
Of course you all should be reading Publicola anyway but check this out on all that is going on over at the S-Train Canvass (about the blogger who used a firearm to defend himself.
I have to get to work (yes, on a Sunday) so I'll have more tonight.
ST. LOUIS -- A judge temporarily blocked a law that would make Missouri the 45th state to authorize concealed guns.
Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer ruled Friday that the law needed a further review by the state Supreme Court and would have caused irreparable harm had it taken effect Saturday.
The judge cited comments from debate at Missouri's constitutional convention of 1875 that carrying concealed weapons is "a practice which cannot be too severely condemned" and is connected to "incalculable evil."
And:
Supporters of the law predicted that they eventually will prevail.
"The plaintiffs went judge shopping and they found what they wanted," said attorney Kevin Jamison, president of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. "Their petition is unbelievably frivolous. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the law."
The plaintiffs in the case include public officials, members of the St. Louis Clergy Coalition and the nonprofit Institute for Peace and Justice.
The group cited a section of the Bill of Rights from the 1945 Missouri Constitution that declared the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" -- and a similar clause in the 1875 version of the Missouri Constitution.
The Missouri attorney general's office argued the constitutional clauses express a reservation, not a prohibition on concealed weapons.
So this is sad news for the law-abiding folks in Missouri. Hopefully this will be righted by a higher court. I think everyone there should start wearing guns in plain-view. That might make the folks who filed the suit withdraw it since it would plainly be better if the weapons were concealed just on a decorum basis...
Last week I came down pretty hard on Rush Limbaugh. I said that he deserved everything coming at him because he had shown no mercy in his pronunciations against others he perceived as having moral failings. I really launched into him because -- as I admitted up front -- I don't like him and because I think he's a hypocrite. I received another comment critical of me and rather than post it there I thought I'd put it here where more are likely to see it (I am fair about that.):
You know, I don't listen to Rush, but I did watch his TV show for the few months it was on. I just don't recognize anything from that show in the rant you published. Sure, he was occasionally cruel, but in the same mocking way as David Letterman (just not as good). If David Letterman came up with a problem like this, would you have the same attitude?
"brutaly, viciously sarcastic and nasty to anyone with (what Rush considered to be) faults"? That's just the sort of wild, unsupported, and slanderous comment you would criticize Rush for, right? I know I would. How about some actual quotes where Rush is bashing someone for having "faults" rather than because of their political activities? And even if you do come up with a few quotes, that won't justify the universal nature of your claim.
When you say that Rush is a hypocrite for being nasty, right after you say that you want him to go to prison, not for being a drug adict, but because he offends you, I don't think you quite appreciated the irony.
--Dave G.
I'm going to start with the last point first -- I do want him to go to jail -- for being a hypocrite -- because he has called for that for others. Look folks, he's now admitted that the charges are mostly true (he says there are some distortions and exaggerations.) He's being accused of buying huge quantities of these drugs illegally -- quantities large enough (over a thousand pills at a time) that if he had been caught with them, would have had him charged with possession with intention to distribute. There are folks doing long stretches in prison for possessing far less than he's accused of.
Now understand, I am against the whole "war on drugs" and if he was just another schmoe on the street I'd say, go to re-hab and be done with it. But here's what he's had to say on the issue:
[TV show 1995]
Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
[radio show 9/23/93]
What he's saying is that if there's a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it. And I don't know how--how to do it, but if I was going to do it, I'd do it. If there were a gun here, it wouldn't fire itself. I've got to reach for it and--and pull the trigger. And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we're blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they're weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we're going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn't. It's not our responsibility.
[radio show 1/15/96]
In fact, I'm reminded--I had this story about three weeks ag--maybe it was before Christmas, maybe it was as far back as November--but there were a couple of drug convictions out in--I think it was a Colorado court. And these guys had--had done some really bad stuff, and there were mandated federal sentences for the crimes they had committed. And the judge apologized to the criminals while sentencing them because he thought it was too severe. He apologized and the com--the community was outraged. So we've gone from a judge sentencing a mother who makes her child beg six months in jail, to judges apologizing for getting dope dealers and crack dealers and drug salesmen off the streets with too severe a sentence.
[radio show 12/16/94]
So we're not going to get on--we don't fault these animals for a lack of discipline, but we get on human beings who are fat for lack of discipline and you know it and I know it. But here's the thing that struck me about this. We have alcoholics and drug addicts in our society, don't we? And what do we say about them? Well, they can't help it. Why, it's genetic. Why, they have a disease. Why, put one thimbleful of scotch in front of them and they can die.'
We totally exempt them from any control over their lives, do we not? Some athlete will spend two years snorting lines of coke. He can't help it.' You know, it's--it's just--it's not--it's--it's genetic. These people--they're predisposed to having this addictive syndrome. They--they can't help--yeah, like that line of cocaine just happened to march into the hotel, go up to the athlete's room and put itself right there in front of him on his blotter.
[radio show 10/13/95]
Now get this: Bob Johnson, drunk, driving around Minneapolis, threatening to shoot himself with a BB gun--Wonder where Al Cowlings was this night?--was drunk and calling people on the phone. Lis--listen to this. Bob Johnson was once listed in legislative directories as a school social worker, quote, "recognized for work in fields of youth and family problems and alcohol drug prevention."'
Another Democrat--another--folks, these people are taking it really hard, you know, these Democrats, threatening to kill themselves with a BB gun, getting drunk. Here--a guy who had been cited, who had been recognized for his great work in alcohol and drug abuse is drunk on the highways. This is just--it's tragic, but it's just--it's outrageously funny. And he is just the latest in a series of Democratic legislators in Minnesota accused of crimes including shoplifting, spouse abuse and insurance fraud. Conflict resolution, Democrats and all their good social works, and still, look at what ha--it just--it's--it's hypocrisy. ...
[from his book, The Way Things Ought To Be, pages 53-54]
It's easy for people to say that if they shoot up on heroin the only people they're hurting are themselves. But that's not true. ... Drug abusers destroy their families ... If we legalize these vices, we erode the societal support for prohibitions against crimes such as murder. The erosion of the moral fabric of society is a gradual, insidious process.
And this just from a casual search of the web. It's clear that he does not think drug-abusers should be forgiven or excuses made for their addictions. They should be held responsible and punished and that illegal drugs are causing the moral fabric of society to decay. And look at the scorn he heaped onto a Democratic legislater who was arrested for drunk driving!
By the way, you say you don't listen to his radio program. I never would but for a couple of years at one place of employment the boss blasted the radio show all afternoon and I couldn't help but hear it.
As for quotes of his vicious comments, here are some more from another casual search:
[TV show 4/11/94]
Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentleman, I just--he was a worthless shred of human debris... [after his suicide]
[some more quotes reported in FRQ, a professional broadcaster magazine]
When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult ; it's an invitation.
Speculating on why a Mexican national won the New York marathon: "An immigration agent chased him for the last 10 miles."
On NAFTA: "If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the Homeless Olympics...[Events would include] the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip."
How charming. Even in politics, he piles on about as viciously as anyone I've ever read (including me!) Here's a way-out-of-line quote of his about Tom Daschle from Spinsanity:
You seek political advantage with the nation at war. There is no greater testament to the depths to which the Democratic Party and liberalism have fallen. You now position yourself, Senator Daschle, to exploit future terrorist attacks for political gain. You are worse, sir, than the ambulance-chasing tort lawyers that make up your chief contributors. You, sir, are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to patriotism, you are a disgrace to this country, you are a disgrace to the Senate, and you ought to be a disgrace to the Democratic Party but sadly you're probably a hero among some of them today...
Way to demoralize the troops, Senator! What more do you want to do to destroy this country than what you've already tried? [pounding table] It is unconscionable what this man has done! This stuff gets broadcast around the world, Senator. What do you want your nickname to be? Hanoi Tom? Tokyo Tom? You name it, you can have it apparently. You sit there and pontificate on the fact that we're not winning the war on terrorism when you and your party have done nothing but try to sabotage it, which you are continuing to do. This little speech of yours yesterday, and this appearance of yours on television last night, let's call it what it is. It's nothing more than an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism for your own personal and your party's political gain. This is cheap. And it's beneath even you. And that's pretty low.
Sorry, but when someone has made a career of vicious attacks and nasty sarcasm then I don't feel bad turning the tables on them. "As you sow, so shall you reap." Exactly!
Update 10/13 Dave responds:
Thanks for responding to my email. I'd like to respond to your response.
I'll agree that several of the quotes were nasty, but I never claimed Rush
is a nice guy. I thought a lot of the things he said and did were over the
top (not what he said about Daschle though, I agreed with that). As for the
quotes about drugs, I didn't see anything hypocritical in any of those
quotes.
What if I say that drug addicts are weak-willed and that being addicted is
shameful when I'm an addict? That doesn't make me a hypocrite as long as I
am ashamed of my addiction and consider myself weak-willed. What if I say
that drug addicts are ultimately responsible for their own addictions when
I'm an addict? That doesn't make me a hypocrite as long as I take
responsibility for my addiction. What if I say that drug addiction harms
others besides the addict when I'm an addict myself? That doesn't make me a
hypocrite if I acknowledge and regret that I have harmed others. What if I
say that drug addicts should be sent to jail and I'm an addict and try to
keep from being sent to jail? That doesn't make me a hypocrite as long as I
didn't say that drug addicts should volunteer to be sent to jail. Surely,
that I am an addict myself does not disqualify me from criticizing drug
addicts, it puts me in an advantageous spot to do so.
If Rush starts blaming society, his mother, or the pressures of constant
liberal criticism for his drug addiction, if he starts whining about how
people shouldn't judge him because he was a helpless victim, if he says that
it was personal problem that didn't effect anyone else and so it's none of
their business, then you can legitimately call him a hypocrite. Until then,
well, you are just spilling bile.
--Dave G.
I'm going to let Dave have the last word because I'm such a fair guy because frankly, I'm exhausted of the subject and I don't think we'll ever agree about this. I do appreciate his comments (and everyone elses on what I prattle about around here.)
