The rifle is a DPMS 20″ upper on a polymer lower, and I keep the gun zeroed with mil-spec XM-193 55-grain ammo. It’s a pretty fair shooter, even with a trigger that’s only so-so; a trigger replacement is on the agenda. Still, we managed a couple of 1-1/4″ groups today after putting a zero on the new Simmons 24X scope. This should be a great coyote-killer, and I suppose if ISIL ever invades Colorado, I’ll be more than ready.
You know, the Kansas businessmen who donate to political causes – just like wacko-bird leftie George Soros. The Koch brothers who are libertarians, not conservatives, who also donate millions to such raging right-wing causes as the New York Museum of Natural History, (donation: $20 million, and that facility now has a David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins), the Lincoln Center (donation: $100 million), and the New York Public Library (donation: $100 million)?
As Wichita’s Koch family has learned the hard way, the surest way to make mortal enemies in contemporary America is to build a hugely successful business, stick to your principles, and care about the future of your country.
A bantam-weight among those enemies is The Kansas City Star. Not above the occasional rabbit punch, Star editors jabbed away with a recent story headlined, “Conservative Koch group launches TV ad attacking Orman in Kansas Senate race.”
Never mind that the Kochs are libertarians, not conservatives. What intrigues about the story is that hundreds of groups run ads every campaign season. To single out just one sponsor by name when that sponsor is running perfectly legal ads in its own state suggests something deeper than a bias. It suggests a disease, specifically KDS—Koch Derangement Syndrome.
Among those afflicted is self-styled environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The day before The Star article—a coincidence?—he, too, singled out the Kochs, this time for questioning the agenda of that day’s million-madman climate march in New York. “They are enjoying making themselves billionaire by impoverishing the rest of us,” ranted Kennedy. “Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely.”
Let’s just point out that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a fucking idiot. The Koch brothers certainly have not stripped away a penny of the Kennedy fortune, amassed by bootlegging, rumrunning and political machination. Nor have they impoverished anyone else by making the billions of dollars that they earned – that’s right, Mr. Kennedy, you economic imbecile, they earned – by providing goods and services for which many people are willing and even anxious to pay, and oh by the way producing thousands of jobs in the process.
But the Kochs are unmoved by the endless litany of slander from the Left. These right-wing fanatics just keep on plugging, along the way also lending support for gay marriage, along with being generally libertarian on most social issues, which hardly endears them to the social-conservative Right.
In fact, the Koch brothers are precisely the kinds of people more Americans should try to emulate. They are successful through their own efforts, through providing value to their customers. They are outspoken men of principle who do not waver in the face of (generally unfair) criticism. They are men straight out of an Ayn Rand novel, and America could use more men of similar caliber.
Less than a week now until what may prove to be a wave mid-term election, and the legacy media is shocked – shocked, I tell you! – to find the GOP is widening their leads in several key races. Excerpt:
Over the past several weeks, a dozen stories or more have painted the Colorado race between Republican Cory Gardner and Democrat Mark Udall for the U.S. Senate seat there as neck-and-neck. CNN and the mainstream newspapers have repeatedly said the race is too close to call.
But as FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten tweeted at last week’s end, “There hasn’t been a live interview non-partisan sponsored poll showing Udall leading in Colorado in 6 weeks.” In fact, RealClearPolitics.com, which keeps track of all polls, said, “Gardner has now led in every poll but one since mid-September. His lead is likely ‘real’; Udall probably needs a late break or for the polls to be simply incorrect to pull this out.”
Polls are what pols are, but Udall has run a lousy campaign and will probably lose. At this late date, it looks like Governor Hickenlooper will survive by the skin of his teeth, but the recent polls are still within the margin of error and Colorado Republicans have a huge enthusiasm gap.
So, what’s different between 2010 and 2014?
Well, in 2010, the GOP lost two Senate seats they probably should have picked up, and that was because they chose crappy candidates – yes, I’m talking about Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, both of whom were poor candidates and the latter of which frankly came off as a nut.
There seems to be much more discipline and continuity among GOP Senate candidates this year. Has the GOP figured out that, to govern, you first have to win?
Stranger things have happened. We’ll find out in six days.
This just in from the “Oh please no!” category: Son: Jeb is ‘Moving Forward’ on 2016 Run. Excerpt:
George P. Bush told ABC’s “This Week” that his father is “still assessing” a presidential bid, but suggested it was more likely that he would seek the White House this time. The ex-governor declined to run for president in 2012 despite encouragement from Republicans.
On reflection, it’s probably also appropriate to place this in the “who in hell thinks this is a good idea?” category, and maybe the “yes, let’s please let the GOP throw another Presidential election” category as well.
A couple of relevant points:
- Aren’t ruling dynasties supposed to be dramatically in opposition to what America is all about? Yes, I know, Hillary Clinton is making noises about running as well, but Hillary is lugging around more baggage than a Samsonite factory and it likely unelectable.
- The first two Bush administrations weren’t what you’d call earth-shaking or even particularly memorable – why would we want another one?
Granted that the most successful Presidents have normally been Governors – that is executive experience that’s hard to come by in, say, the Senate, which may yield some insight into the ineptitude of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Blvd. But not every Governor would make a good President, and there’s nothing in Jeb Bush’s resume to make one think he should be promoted.
What’s more, another Bush nomination would be tantamount to the GOP just giving the election away uncontested. There may not be another Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings, but surely we can do better than Bush the Third.
We can suggest just how the GOP should react to another Bush candidacy:
It is interesting to look at the political landscape here in the U.S. these days. Terms have largely reversed from what the dictionary definition would imply, particularly where the term “liberal” is concerned. It is common these days to use the term “classical liberal” to describe advocates of, well, liberty, people like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Or one could use the term “libertarian” and I often use that term to describe my own stated opinions, but that word is also used by a rather minor political party that is not very good at the actual practical art of politics.
Yesterday over in PJMedia, Andrew Klavan had a good short article on the topic: How The Left Hijacks Liberalism. Excerpt:
Many leftists seem to have confused their political opinions with their virtue. They may have disagreements among themselves from time to time, but if there’s one thing they know it’s that all those on the right are wicked. I wish I could share their conviction that everyone who disagrees with me politically is bad, but I know there are many good and decent people who vote Democrat.
The question is: Why? Why do they vote that way?
The modern Democrat Party is leftist. We know that leftism is bad for people. We know leftist welfare policies have destroyed the black family. We see how feminism turns women into weak, quivering, delicate creatures fearful of a word or gaze. We understand how multiculturalism empowers the most intolerant and violent of terrorist thugs. What is it that makes nice folks attach themselves to a political position that does so much damage?
I think it is because they are liberal and the left has hijacked liberalism.
It is also common among those on the left to point out that some conservatives are anxious to interfere with people’s sex lives, and that criticism, to be fair, is not unwarranted.
But it is the left that wants to interfere with a citizens’ right to self-defense. It is the left that wants to regulate how a taxpayer may manage and develop their own property. It is the left that wants to abrogate freedom of association by forcing business owners to cater to people to whom they have a moral objection. It is the left that promises all things to all people, without bothering to find out who will have to labor longer and harder to pay for it all.
That’s the trap the Democratic party has fallen into today. Unfortunately for the country, there’s an old political truism that applies: When you borrow from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s vote.
Something a tad different for the last Saturday of October – and don’t forget to check out our Tapiture page for more of the Feminine Aesthetic!
This just in from the always-worth-reading Dr. Victor Davis Hanson: The Politics of Victimhood. Excerpt:
The questionable assumption we often accept about suffering is that enduring terrible experiences automatically make one an expert on the broader issues related to the causes of suffering. That’s why like other public victims of gun violence, (former Arizona Congressman Gabrielle) Giffords has spoken out as if her experience has made her an authority on gun policy. Thus she has attacked politicians for disagreeing with her on the issue of guns not by making a coherent argument, but by conjuring up her own experiences and sentimentalizing other victims of gun violence. Having created a fog of emotion, she then argues for policies, such as more restrictive background checks for those buying guns, even though there is no evidence that such procedures keep guns out of the hands of those determined to get them. After all, the man who shot Giffords had undergone a thorough background check. Worse yet, such emotionalism sets aside the critical Constitutional issue––the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
Invoking overt displays of emotions is a staple of the gun-banners; it is likewise a staple of such kooks as anti-vaccine kooks and animal rights lunatics. It is, after all, much easier to try to evoke an emotional response than it is to prepare a fact-based presentation and conduct a dispassionate analysis of the issues.
It’s important to note that, while both parties indulge in these kinds of histrionics, the most passionate appeals to emotion and the most irrational arguments are – with a very few exceptions – made by those on the political Left.
Setting aside gun control for the moment, look at the arguments – and I use the word “argument” in the broadest possible sense – by the radical animal rights nuts. Every argument against animal use, be it for food, research, entertainment, or even keeping as pets, is strictly emotion-based. They argue against eating animals on the basis of the “suffering” of farm animals, even though they have no way of quantifying that suffering, and have no idea of the impact their own diets cause – those diets being by and large the product of monoculture plant agriculture, which causes animal death and suffering in vast quantities.
They neither know nor care about this savage hypocrisy; just like gun-banners neither know nor care that disarming the law-abiding will only produce an entire new set of helpless victims for adherents to the toxic urban thug culture that is infesting many of our larger cities.
Dr. Hanson concludes: The trump card of suffering might be politically useful, but using it is a dishonest tactic that inhibits informed deliberation and debate. Relying on emotion and sentiment, no matter how understandable they are as a response to suffering, have since ancient Athens been the agents of bad policies and dangerous political decisions, and tactics for pursuing political advantage at the expense of the public good. They have no place in our already conflicted and divisive public political discourse.
Today, our Imperial City is awash in politicians, lobbyists and advocates of every stripe, and nine of ten are pushing for policies that are not only bad but, as Dr. Hanson points out, dangerous. They argue with emotion as their opening card, and very little if any pols or anyone else seems able to present a dispassionate analysis of fact.
To someone like yr. obdt. who has for the last ten years or so run a business whose main purpose is teaching problem-solving and cause analysis to high-tech companies all over the world, that is a situation that is increasingly frustrating.
Another hunting season over – this one cut short, as the inestimable Rojito developed some sort of electrical trouble and remains even now in an auto shop in Granby. Mrs. Animal cheerfully drove up from Denver to rescue loyal sidekick Rat and yr. obdt., but we returned to the city with nothing to show for our efforts except, as always, great memories of time spent outdoors. The one outstanding thing in this abbreviated hunt were the numbers of Shiras moose evident in our mountain stomping grounds; we saw no less than four on opening day, a young bull and three cows. That bodes well for yr. obdt. if I ever manage to snag a coveted Colorado moose tag.
And, on this return to regular blogging, let me once more thank Robert Stacy, Smitty and Wombat-socho for the Rule Five links. Appreciated as always, guys!
Speaking of that return to regular blogging, here’s an interesting bit of commentary from Forbes on the United States’ two very different “gun cultures” and how at least one county sheriff sees the two: How Gun-Control Legislation Is Affecting This Election. Excerpt:
Actually, a majority of sheriffs in New York and Colorado publicly oppose the new gun-control laws. Sheriffs are in a unique position to speak out, as nearly all of America’s 3,080 sheriffs are elected. These sheriffs aren’t standing alone like Gary Cooper in “High Noon.” Polls show that a lot of the men and women who protect us support the Second Amendment. In 2013, a survey of police officers by the National Association of Chiefs of Police found that 86.8 percent of those surveyed think “any law-abiding citizen [should] be able to purchase a firearm for sport and self-defense.” Also, a survey done by PoliceOne.com of 15,000 law-enforcement professionals found that almost 90 percent of officers believe that casualties related to guns would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident. More than 80 percent of PoliceOne’s respondents support arming schoolteachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms. Virtually all the survey’s respondents (95 percent) said a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds wouldn’t reduce violent crime.
Cops – at least the cops surveyed here – are people of uncommonly good sense, probably in part because of the inexorable onslaught of human stupidity they deal with on a daily basis. An old retired state policeman once told me that every criminal he ever dealt with had a combination of three personality traits, greedy, mean and stupid – that proportions varied but all three were universally present.
These, of course, are the people that will completely and totally ignore any gun control legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, that ignorant state or Imperial legislators may pass.
There is a gun culture in the United States, a culture of responsible, law-abiding shooters and hunters. Some keep guns for recreation, some for sport, some for defense, some (like yr. obdt.) for all of the above. Of all the nations in the world, only the United States, in its Constitution, recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as an inalienable right that we retain by virtue of being free, law-abiding citizens. And those of us who choose to own guns, for any reasons, don’t like seeing politicians who are utterly ignorant of the differences between citizen and thug try to abrogate those rights.
That’s why three former Colorado legislators find themselves unemployed now. That’s in part why Governor Hickenlooper finds himself in a tight race against a GOP challenger now.