Man alive ... one little groundbreaking, first in over 100 years, landmark decision on the 2nd Amendment and this place becomes an NRA chat site! For my two cents I have a short barrel, pistol grip .357 silver Rossi revolver that rests in my night stand - easy access from the bed should any perpetrator decide he no longer needs his upper intestines. The weapon I really want (within my family) is the one still in possession of my father that he keeps promising to deliver on - my Grandfather's WWII military issued sidearm - the famous .45.
One other question, for Titus. You wrote:
Me? I'll take my Remmington .308 all day long. Give me a good scope, a good rest and a clear day... and I'll "ring the bell" at 400 yards ...
If that is so, and I have no cause to doubt you, then why may I ask is that "OBAMA 08" sign, unapologetically glaring across the road from you attached to an aging barn, sitting there completely unscathed??!!
Besides that, regarding this sibling firearm rivalry, all I can say is that possession is 9/10 of the law...
****
Regarding the political .... Obama gave a speech in Missouri recently on "his" patriotism trying to deflect the chatter questioning it. This right on the heels of a speech in which he attempted to deflect prejudices (in the voting booth) based on his race. The only problem is that no one has attacked either. And believe me, I listen to and read what Titus once described as a "right wing manifesto", so were it occurring, I would be the first to know. We question his views on America, his opinions regarding her and her history, and how he defines what America "should" be. That and the naivety he brings to the table regarding foreign policy and our enemies, but no one as far as I can tell thus far has referred to him as a Benedict Arnold or the like. We're not calling him a traitor for goodness sake, just his interpretations of and plans for our nation. The flag pin was an issue only because Obama made it one - it was HE that publicly announced (as an IL legislature) why he wouldn't wear one in the wake of 9/11. Clearly he is attempting to frame the debate in such a way that any criticism of his pacifist (regarding foreign policy) and socialist (regarding economics and health care) tendencies are to be seen as an attack on his "patriotism", thus invalid or illegitimate. It is a cheap political tool and disingenuous in the extreme. And one I hope McCain and his 527 friendlies don't fall for.
****
North Korea, that old chest nut.
This week Pyongyang handed over, to Beijing, 60 pages of documentation offering a look at their "entire" nuclear development past. In response President Bush announced that he was erasing trade sanctions imposed on North Korea under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and notifying Congress that, in 45 days, the administration intends to take North Korea off the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism, the infamous "terrorism blacklist." And to further demonstrate that it is serious about forgoing its nuclear weapons, North Korea planned (I don't know yet if it happened, I assume it did) the televised destruction Friday of a 65-foot-tall cooling tower at its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. The tower being a key element of the reactor of course.
John Bolton, the former Bush UN Ambassador (who is seen as "the" foreign policy hawk making the rounds with the talking heads) described this as "shameful", and that it, "represents the final collapse of the Bush foreign policy [regarding N.Korea].
I don't know if I'd go that far, but the problem as I see it is that although the North Koreans declared much of their ongoing plutonium "work" and nuclear programs dating to 1986 in this 60 page document, there was next nothing about their already developed (or purchased) stockpile of nuclear weapons, nor suspected uranium enrichment programs, NOR their alleged role in helping Syria build a reactor. How does one get off the terrorism blacklist absent these? Bush referred to it as "action for action." I'll give him this, it IS an improvement over what transpired in the 90's. Clinton's dealings in this realm, supported whole heartily by the principles in his party, was a dismal failure that only enabled and emboldened Kim Jong. Which means no matter the "level" of progress Bush makes here, Democrats have no legitimate room to criticize him (not that a little thing like legitimacy would stop the likes of Pelosi, et al).
****
On a side note - during the speech Barry quoted Mark Twain (he was in Missouri after all), noting that their favorite literary son defined patriotism as "Always supporting your country but only supporting your government when it deserves it." This got a laugh and was meant to explain why he has opposed everything Bush. And it raised my eyebrow. Quoting Samuel Clemons? Obama? First, he referred to him as Mark Twain. He was born in Missouri as Samuel Langehorn Clemons. The name Twain, his pen name my dear Barak, was one taken from his experiences on the Mississippi (that's the river, not the state Barry). The phrase is a notation of water depth used by river boat captains and crew that literally translates into "noting two feet" (of water). But then again I don't expect the good Senator from IL to be familiar with all this ... somehow I doubt that Huck Finn was on Reverend Wright's summer reading requirements for his flock. I can only imagine what he'd do with the phrase "white washing" let alone references to Huck's boyhood friend. At any rate perhaps I can take this opportunity to familiarize Senator Obama with another of Clemons's quotes. Especially given that Barak has defined as the hallmark of "his" patriotism one which must be inherently critical of his government's response to 9/11 and the subsequent disarming of Saddam Hussein:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. "
No comments:
Post a Comment