Our Ever-Engaged Leader

[filkertom]

Iraq is in the middle of an insurrection of our making.

Condi Rice went before the 9-11 Commission today for three hours, and didn't say much substantive.

And where's Dubya?

On vacation, at the ranch.

Today's Washington Post White House briefing (free registration required) lets us know the busy agenda of Our Fearless Leader:

Scott Lindlaw of the Associated Press reports that Bush will be "leading a tour of his ranch for hunting, fishing and land-conservation advocates" today, and might not even watch Rice on TV.

"Aides said Bush had given no indication of planning to watch the testimony Thursday live on television. Rather, Bush intended to receive updates from his top advisers, a senior administration official said. Bush was attending his usual national-security meetings in the morning."

Jeremy Pelofsky of Reuters reports that Bush's guests will include representatives of "the National Rifle Association, Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever."

CBS News reports that "The president will also, later in the day, sit down for an interview with Ladies' Home Journal."

Above and beyond the fatuity of his schedule while all Hell is breaking loose halfway around the world... doesn't anyone see the irony of the names of those hunting groups which claim to be for conservation of their targets? "Ducks Slightly Limited By High-Velocity Lead Poisoning" and "Pheasants For Awhile" are more like it. And then, Ladies' Home Journal. Yeesh.

Worst. President. Ever.

Comments

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Here's something you might enjoy. (Requires Flash)

http://i.neilrogers.com/images/carlos/dishonestdubya.swf

[poltr1]

Hey, I'm still waiting for him to join his dad in a day or two of.....quail hunting.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Much as I hate to disagree with you, often the hunters are the most strongly for conservation. With the natural predators dead or moved to other habitats, the hunters fill the predatory role. If not for them the breeding rates might outweigh the food supply, and extinction would follow.

Usually hunters are the most strident against the destruction of the habitats, and they're extremely careful about details like proper licensing. Not to mention reasonably clean hunting.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, yeah, I know. I do know. Here in Michigan, we have the annual deer kill to make sure that they don't overrun the darn state. It's just... gaaah. It's the names that get me. They're trying for poetry, or at least iconography, and they get hypocrisy. If they called themselves "Duck Hunters United For Conservation" or "The Greater Pheasantry" or something, I probably wouldn't notice.

I take that back. Here is the entirity of the Ducks Unlimited mission statement: (http://www.ducks.org/about/mission_statement.asp)

Ducks Unlimited conserves, restores, and manages wetlands and associated habitats for North America's waterfowl. These habitats also benefit other wildlife and people.

Perfectly straightforward, right? So why is most of the rest of the site about duck hunting?

Not much better at Pheasants Unlimited (http://www.pheasantsforever.org/mission.php). And then you find their page on Youth & Education (http://www.pheasantsforever.org/education.php):

Pheasants Forever believes that the future of conservation and our hunting heritage depends upon today’s youth having the desire and capabilities to carry on the great traditions of this organization....

(Italics mine) In other words, teach 'em to kill while they're young.

Sorry, I just have really, really bad reactions to guns, and to hunters, and to people who form political action committees to rationalize killing things as "preserving nature". If that makes me closed-minded... well, on this one, I am.

[(Anonymous)]

Sigh ...

So open mindedness is just for causes and ideas you support? Talk about hypocrisy ...

But when one lumps all members of a group into a single stereotype, and then spouts indignant righteousness? Just shows that the left and right are both sides of the same coin. Each wants others to think and do as they do. Neither run the middle and display the true tolerance they both so enthusiastically wish other do believe they do.

Am I a hunter? No. A gun owner? Yes, a _responsible_ gun owner, utilizing a locked storage cabinet, trigger locks, separate ammunition locker, when and if I have any. Misusing any implement can lead do destructive results. Look at the majority of vehicular incidents on a daily basis. Now there certainly is a weapon to be feared.

I also know several hunters that are more concerned with conservation and preservation that with “killing things”. I also know several people who talk a good deal about conservation and ecology, but would never get involved in cleaning a river, maintaining a nature area or get involved with the local conservation groups. Talk is cheap, such as it is. Action certainly does speak louder than words.

Sorry to bother and such. This is, after all, your little space in the world. However, I could not let this one pass without some comment. Also, to clarify, I am also from Michigan. I am neither left nor right. I did not vote for Bush, nor have I ever voted for a standing President. I have, however, voted in every election I have been eligible for vote in, more than I care to think about.

Good day.


Any

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Hey. I'll even cop to that. I will publicly say that I am closed-minded regarding guns, and hunting activism, and laws which make it easier to kill things, and politicians who pander to gun lobbyists.

And, yes, duh, the Left and Right are by necessity opposite sides of the same coin. I say "by necessity" because that's the way they've shaken things down, mostly prompted by the Right's turning "compromise" which used to be the entire point of government, into a dirty word.

Responsible gun owner? Bully for you. I do know several. But don't you dare bring up that fatuous, fallacious "people are killed by cars" nonsense. A car's primary, intended use is transportation. A gun's primary, intended use is shooting things. The vast majority of guns are purchased for hunting or personal protection, which means their primary, intended use is shooting living things.

And, yes, you can always find individuals on both sides with nuanced agendas, and some who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and some who talk the talk but won't walk the walk. But this particular meeting highlighted three groups -- two who advertise themselves in their mission statements as being strictly conservationist but in all the rest of their material as being hunters, and the N.R.A., which is pretty much All Guns All The Time (and if you don't believe that given the decades of evidence, then we really never will have a meeting of minds). And I can guaran-damn-tee you they weren't all hanging out together with Dubya to talk about wetlands restoration.

As to my "little space": Hey, that's why I let people in. :) I myself have voted twice for standing Presidents - Carter in '80, Clinton in '96. I am given pause by your last statement - "more [elections] than I care to think about". That happens to be another bug in my bonnet... the lack of appreciation by most Americans of how precious and rare our electoral process is, and how important their votes are.

Aaaah. It's five in the morning, and I need more sleep.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes entirely the reaction I expected.

A couple of things.

1. My point was the misuse of a common implement, not guns do not kill people, etc ad nausea. Of course people kill people. In many more creative ways than ever before. Yes, one of an automobiles intended purposes is transportation. However, when people forget that they are in control, to use the term loosely, of a 2300 kg bundle of kinetic energy. They blast the radio, eat, shave, put on makeup, talk on the cellphone, read, speed, etc instead of paying attention to what they are doing. One can definitely cause more death and destruction with a motor vehicle than with a gun. This I have seen first hand.

2. As far as my comment about left and right … I love the duh argument – so concise and to the point. Here is the point. You say that the right as soiled the idea of compromise. I say that both left and right have .. neither is willing to truly compromise. This was my point … that both sides are the same with polar ideology. But then again, these are opinions and I have no intention of trying to change yours. I have long ago learned that one can not change the set mind, no matter what method is applied.

3. As far a Bush and the war and such is concerned … I support neither the war nor the current administrations foreign policies. Then again, the United States has made a career of making foreign policy blunders …. Way before Cuba or South American or Vietnam …. One could go on and on. Neither party has a glowing track record for governmental success. I DO support all of the military personnel in the middle of this mess … they are trying to do their jobs, for minimal pay and maximal risk.

4. NRA … so little time … everyone always brings up the NRA. I am not a member nor intend to be. They support the second amendment, responsible gun ownership, hunting, etc etc etc. They are, after all, the National Rifle Association. I have to admit that I do support some of their ideals, while others I highly disagree with. Second Amendment …. Good idea. Assault weapons … BAD idea. All part of this compromise idea that I am so infatuated with. Also, these groups do not necessarily teach youth to “kill at an early age”. This idea is ludicrous. Only one part of the NRA and some related groups deal with hunting. I can only really talk about the part that I know or have experienced. Safety and responsibility is a majority part of youth firearms training. Think shooting sports in the Olympics. But here was are at the changing of the minds issue again, thus here is where I stop.

5. One last note before I go. My comment about voting in more elections than I care to think about was one about my age. I take my responsibility as an American citizen very seriously. I also I irritated by the fact that less that 30 percent of this county votes, then complains about the results. So your assumption, if I also assume – something I try not to, that I was complaining about having to vote, simply shows that you might not be reading to the meaning but just the points you want to hear. Then again, maybe it was just real late.


I like you, Tom. I like to read the different ideas and thoughts of others so that I can make my own decisions and opinions. For the most part, I simply listen and learn. Meetings of the minds are either meetings of like minds or arguments, for the reasons I have stated. I have always agreed to disagree, because, for the most part, this is all that may occur.

Well, that certainly was more than I intended … sorry for the excessive length.

Good day.

Any

Getting back to the whole "Worst. President. Ever." thing...

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

You, of course, realize that Dubya took 166 days of vacation between his inauguration and August 2003, according to this article. Of course, his daddy took 543 days off in four years. By comparison, Ronald Reagan--you know, the really old guy--took only 335 days off during two terms.

Clinton? 152.

Of course, with the way Dubya works when he's actually in the White House, we should encourage him to take more time off.

Personally, this November, I'm voting for him to take the ultimate paid vacation--send him back to Crawford, Texas on the government's dime. I say this, of course, because once you get elected president, you get 100 percent pension when it's over.

Still, compared to having him in office, that's getting off fairly cheap.

Re: Getting back to the whole "Worst. President. Ever." thing...

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

He won't be getting a pension if the son of a bitch and his entire misbegotten pack of thugs is frog-marched in chains before the Hague.

But *sigh* yeah. I'd settle for early retirement. Anything. Just get him out of there.