Tag: media

The Sport of Kings

KevinLeave a comment

Here’s the transcript of the portion of Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk radio show from Sunday where he interviews Jim Zumbo (available at iTunes)

Tom Gresham: Let’s bring in my good friend, long-time friend Jim Zumbo has joined us here. Just got back from a hunt and walked into a hornet’s nest. Hey Jim, howya doing?

Jim Zumbo: Boy, a hornet’s nest is an understatement, Tom. (Chuckles)

Gresham: Man alive, I’ve kind of explained before you got here what’s going on, and you wrote this piece – I guess it was just part of your blog, right?

Zumbo: Yeah, it was. In fact I just answered it if anyone wants to know exactly what I said, I just posted a new blog, and it’s a total apology, and kind of explains my position where basically activating my mouth before engaging my brain. (Chuckles)

Gresham: Aw, man. I tell ya. One of the things that’s interesting about this – let me back up. Essentially the post on the Outdoor Life blog, it says, you know, you were talking about AR15’s and I know a lot of people use AR15’s for varmint hunting and all, and you made a couple of comments about “well I just don’t think those are appropriate for hunting” and hey, look, I get it. I’m a guy who really likes nice looking guns.

Zumbo: Um-hm.

Gresham: But there are, and I have said this openly, there got some folks on our side of the fence who would be doing us a favor if they went to the other side, sometimes.

Zumbo: Um-hm.

Gresham: Because they react – now I don’t know if you have seen it, but there are actually people posting your home address.

Zumbo: That’s what I’ve heard.

Gresham: Yeah, it’s getting real ugly…

Zumbo: Yep.

Gresham: …out there, and I don’t know if this comes from a sense that they feeel as though they’ve been betrayed, and in fact on one of the blogs I’ve been saying “Well how about we just listen to the guy and find out…,” “NO, NO NO! Not going to do that.” I said well “What, do we have a ‘one strike and you’re out’ with a death penalty?” And they’re going “Yep. That’s it. Make one mistake and you’re gone.” You guys are harsh! So what did you say in your apology?

Zumbo: Oh, golly. Basically I said that I was completely ignorant of the widespread interest in AR15’s and similar firearms. You know, honestly Tom I’ve been hunting for, oh golly, fifty-some years and I find that every state for deer and only once have I seen anyone use an AR15 on a deer hunt. And I was just hunting coyotes in Southeast Wyoming the last four days and one of the guides told me that there’s a huge interest among prairie dog hunters using those types of guns and I didn’t believe him. And you know I must be living in a vacuum. I really didn’t. And I’m wrong. I can see now where there are a lot of folks, and good folks – I’ve already talked to some people today, one guy who’s a SWAT team officer and was in the military and, uh, told me I was wrong, and I agreed with him and we had a nice conversation so hopefully he’ll take my apology as well as everyone else. But one thing that bothers me is some things being said about me being unpatriotic. And, as I said in my blog, I fly the flag every day of the year in front of my house.

Gresham: Yeah, I’ve been to your house. I know there’s a flag there.

Zumbo: (Chuckles) And last year we had an essay contest for members of our military who were in harms way, and five hundred contestants, we chose one, a fellow who was, uh, hurt badly on Christmas day in 2004 two of his buddies were killed, I took him on a free hunt to Botswana. And this year we’re taking two more members of the military on a free hunt to uh, for elk and moose, so my gosh, I absolutely support everything our military does.

Gresham: I know that.

Zumbo: And our current government. So I hate to see me placed in some kind of a…

Gresham: Well a lot of these comments are waaay over the top and off-the-wall, I mean and all you’ve got to do is look at some of these internet deals. The other thing is you always, you gotta have to remember that the internet is not necessarily the real world?

[Commercial break]

Gresham: Talking with my good friend Jim Zumbo. He’s the hunting editor of Outdoor Life, and has his own TV show on the Outdoor Channel, and he and I have hunted together various places over the years. And, uh, you’re occasionally, it’s a bad deal when you watch a friend have a train wreck or a car wreck, and I just watched Jim step in it big-time. Is that fair, Jim?

Zumbo: (Chuckles) Totally fair. Absolutely.

Gresham: OK

Zumbo: Never seen anything like it.

Gresham: Basically posted, you just wrote something on your blog, on the Outdoor Life blog, and it just caused a firestorm like I’ve never seen before, and essentially it was…

Zumbo: What a legacy to put on my tombstone, huh?

Gresham: Oh my gosh! Well, I’ve got to tell you, the thing that has probably has ticked people off the most, is when you said an AR15 is a “terrorist’s rifle.”

Zumbo: I know. I absolutely understand that, and, uh…

Gresham: ‘Cause I can tell you, I own three of them, and I love them! So, what’s going on?

Zumbo: Well, Tom, again, I’ve seen one in use in my life and, you know, people are amazed that I’m not really fascinated with guns, I’m a, I’m a hunting writer.

Gresham: Right.

Zumbo: And if I wasn’t in this business I’d probably own five guns, and I really don’t keep up with what’s going on. Last year for the first time I was fishing in Alaska. We went out in a boat, we were fishing for halibut, and someone had an AR15 and I shot at some kelp and it was a lot of fun, but I, at that point in time, again this is my opinion, I just didn’t think it was suitable for the deer woods and man, am I wrong!

Gresham: (Chuckles) Look, we’re going to start a deal about you being a kelp-killer, too. Look, I understand what you’re saying, because…

Zumbo: Let me say one thing…

Gresham: Go ahead.

Zumbo: Tom, a blog is – I’m sure you know what a blog is. When I started writing this my boss said “This is your opinion. It’s not Outdoor Life’s opinion, it’s nobody’s opinion – none of your sponsors – say what you want to say. Wake up in the morning and blog and say whatever the heck it is, and that’s what I did, and unfortunately I didn’t think this through. I had been hunting coyotes in Wyoming, the wind blew sixty miles an hour all day, I came back into camp tired and exhausted and I should have gone to bed. But I got into this discussion with a guide who told me about many hunters who were using AR15’s and similar weapons for prairie dogs, and I thought, you know, “there’s a controversial blog” and I thought I’d get maybe ten or fifteen comments and the last time I looked I’ve had 2800. But, uh, again, I totally apologize. I didn’t realize how many folks use ’em, and – you’re going to love this – I just talked to Ted Nugent, and Ted said “Zumbo, you know you and I go back a long ways but you screwed up. So now Ted and I are planning on a deer hunt. We’re using AR15’s. How’s that?

Gresham: Outstanding! Good for you guys.

Zumbo: Now that’s a true story! I’m not making that up!

Gresham: No, I know. You know, look. I came to this slowly. See, I came to guns kind of the same way that you did. I’m basically a hunter, and like to shoot and all. And every body knows, I’ve said many times on this show here, that I’ve never had a huge interest in military guns and don’t really know a lot about them, but I kinda got into the ARs slowly. Actually, I bought one – I’d never shot one – I bought one when they were going to have the Clinton gun ban, the Assault Weapon Ban of ’94? I said “You know, if they’re going to ban ’em, I’m going to buy one.” And that’s what got me into it. Well, after I got into it and started shooting it, I thought “This thing’s fun.” It’s kinda like – the whole time I’ve been wondering what’s everybody jazzed up about these things, then you go out and shoot one and you go “Oh, I get it. These things are a lot of fun.” Then I started finding out all the things you can do with it, and it’s a real… But, and I’ve said this a lot, I’m not saying this just now – people have heard me say it – they’re ugly. You know, AKs are ugly. ARs are ugly. Uh, they don’t appeal to my sense of what’s a pretty gun. I like nice walnut and pretty wood and all that, but I like to shoot ’em. So all that’s my way of saying I understand where you were coming from because that’s where I was before I started getting into all this.

Zumbo: Well, see, I’m probably at that, that, that level where you were when you started. Heck, who knows? I might get into those and just enjoy the heck out of them.

Gresham: OK, I’m going to give you the, uh, the last word here, and your – ’cause I’ve got a lot of people listening right now because they just found out that you’re here and they’ve all tuned in and they want to hear what Jim Zumbo who said that “I’ve got a terrorist gun” – they want to hear what you’ve got to say, so you talk directly to ’em.

Zumbo: OK. Like I said, I wrote that blog when I shouldn’t have. I was tired from a long day of hunting, and I did not think it through. And I, uh, have never shot one of those guns except once last year, and I’ve only seen one in fifty-three years of hunting in the field, and I just honestly had a perception that they weren’t really want to be perceived as, as hunters carrying around in the woods and I’m wrong. Now I realize how many folks use them, and I intend to use one myself and try it out, and uh, You know, we all make mistakes, and I just hope the folks who were offended will give me the, the opportunity to say “Hey, I’m sorry” and do all the damage control I can. Once caller said “Hey, man, you have now offered ammo to all the wrong people” and he’s probably in a sense right, and I really apologize for that.

Gresham: Well, you know, and look. I was saying earlier, you and I have probably been through at least two big battles that – where you and I were standing shoulder-to-shoulder fighting for gun rights, defending, in one case – we walked away from a, essentially from a family of people that we’d known for thirty years.

Zumbo: Exactly right. You and I both stood up for the NRA in a scenario that…

Gresham: We divorced ourselves from a couple thousand good friends because of that.

Zumbo: Yup. After thirty-five years of professionally acquainted with that organization you and I walked because it was offensive to gun writers and shooters, and I wanted to say, too, that what I said was completely my opinion. You know none of the companies that I deal with had any knowledge of what I wrote. I wrote it spontaneously. It was late at night and I shouldn’t have. So, you know I hope that they don’t bear the brunt of what I said. If they do, again I apologize, and that was never the intent for, for what I had, uh, for what I had blogged about.

Gresham: Alright.

Zumbo: I just shoulda not stuck my foot in my mouth, Tom.

The opinion I am left with is one that many, many people on many boards and in many comments have left – Zumbo just doesn’t get it. As he said to Gresham, “I’m a hunting writer”. That is, “I’m not a gun guy.” That’s pretty obvious. It’s also obvious that Gresham is trying to cover for his good friend.

I’m reminded again of St. George Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries explanation of the Second Amendment and how our law differed from England’s:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence [sic] to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”

[A separate discussion in an Appendix, specifically about the Second Amendment.]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

(Via Eugene Volokh.)

Jim Zumbo is hardly the first person to look at gun ownership through a personal prism, or allowed himself to be the tool of others, but he is the highest-profile person to have done so publicly in my memory. This is the wedge that the Brady Bunch, et al. have tried to use for decades to divide the gun-rights community – the “I’m alright, bub, but I’m not so sure about YOU” attitude, the “You don’t need that kind of gun to hunt deer” accusation. This wedge is best exemplified by the Violence Policy Center’s unabashed use of the public’s fear of “evil black rifles” in their 1988 strategic paper:

Assault weapons are increasingly being perceived by legislators, police organizations, handgun restriction advocates, and the press as a public health threat. As these weapons come to be associated with drug traffickers, paramilitary extremists, and survivalists, their television and movie glamour is losing its lustre to a violent reality.

Because of this fact, assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America’s gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America’s gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:

* It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an “old” debate.

Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an “unsolvable” problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

* Efforts to stop restrictions on assault weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby.

Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA’s image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer.

Or the “terrorist.”

* Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.

Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent 40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns, many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, many who support the individual’s right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and “plastic” firearms—a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it’s worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.

(Bold emphasis mine. Italics in original.) Zumbo just provided them with a tremendous whack on the back of that wedge. I think the overall outrage directed at Zumbo is in large part due to our shock that someone who was perceived to be a “gun guy” would think something as divisive as he obviously did, much less put it in print – a reaction best illustrated by the winner of the AR15.com photoshop contest:


(Credit to new AR15.com contributor mrbear! His first post!)

But he says it himself, he’s not a “gun guy” – he’s a hunter, and “evil black rifles” have (had) no place in his pantheon. They’re “terrorist rifles” to him, because he’s only seen one person hunt with them. (And he didn’t approve, I imagine.) I can’t find the link right now, but on some gun or hunting board Michael Bane reported that Zumbo once asked him how many firearms he owned. Bane’s response was “a lot.” Zumbo replied that he’d taken game on every continent with only seven rifles. As far too many have pointed out, it’s the same as the guy with six $40k Perrazi shotguns who thinks that handguns aren’t necessary, and concealed-weapons laws are dangerous. Zumbo is in a class of people who see hunting as the only legitimate use for firearms, and any firearms not suitable for hunting are unnecessary.

We call them Fudds, for Elmer Fudd, the clueless rabbit (or duck) hunter. What’s good enough for them is good enough, period. Nobody “needs” anything other than what they, themselves, possess. They’re blinkered. They’re so tied up in their own sport, they give no consideration to others, and they don’t even think about the right that allows them to practice their sport. See this rather pointed piece of art, also from AR15.com:


By Steve_T_M

And Zumbo’s not alone. According to a post at AR15.com, gunwriter David M. Fortier reports that outdoor writers Bill McRae and Thomas McIntyre agree with Jim’s original statement. To quote an email from McRae to Fortier:

I agree wholeheartedly with Jim on this and I don’t give a damn who does or does not like it. Furthermore, I applaud Jim for having had the courage to say what he said.

The accusation of McIntyre was second-hand, but one wonders if Mr. McRae or Mr. McIntyre will have the courage to support Mr. Zumbo’s original post publicly themselves now, given the fallout. At the time of this writing, many of Zumbo’s sponsors have publicly bailed on him: Remington, Mossy Oak, High Mountain Jerky and Spices, and DPMS Panther Arms. Cabela’s has announced in a press release:

On Monday, February 19, Cabela’s suspended sponsorship of the Jim Zumbo Outdoors television show until Cabela’s Legal Department could review contractual obligations and commitments relating to our business relationship. As of Tuesday, February 20, Cabela’s has ceased our business relationship with Mr. Zumbo.

Cabela’s strongly disagrees with Mr. Zumbo’s February 16 posting on his Hunting with Jim Zumbo blog on Outdoor Life’s Web site. His opinions on this matter run counter to the beliefs shared by Cabela’s more than 12,000 employees, many of whom are hunters, recreational shooters and firearm enthusiasts.

Outdoor Life has pulled Zumbo’s blog “for the time being,” and his television show may have disappeared from the Outdoor Channel, since it’s sponsored by Remington.

The excrement has well and truly hit the oscillating air-movement device. The real world has been influenced by the internet.

And Zumbo is apparently clueless as to why his comments caused such a sh!tstorm. Yes, he recognizes that he called a lot of people “terrorists,” but he completely misses the point for a lot of us. The “terrorist rifle” comment was bad enough, but what sent me over the edge was this:

To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

Ban. That word.

The first caller after Zumbo’s interview rejected his apology. Gresham defended him:

All I can tell you is that I know Jim. OK? And I’ve known Jim literally for thirty-five years. Jim is as good a person and as staunch a defender of gun rights as I know on the Earth. The only thing is, Jim only knows what Jim knows. You can’t know what you don’t know. He’s fired an AR one time in his life, doesn’t know anything about ’em, and probably the only thing he knows about ’em is what he reads in papers. That’s just a world he doesn’t know anything about. And so he threw an idea out there, screwed it up, and, you know, hey, he’s owning up to it. Um, of course he knows that terrorists, you know, the weapon is not the terrorist, and people are the terrorists. It was a real poor choice of words, and he said he wrote it late at night. Of course, the problem here – you know, when you write for a magazine you get to write something, then it sits there, then you send it in and it’s three of four months before it gets published and everybody else gets a chance at it, to edit it or come back and say “Hey, is that what you really meant to say?” You really shouldn’t write something like this, late at night, and hit the “SEND” button and post it on the internet for the world to see without a chance to sleep on it.

Sorry, but “staunch defenders of gun rights” don’t go using words like “ban.” Period. I don’t give a damn how tired they are.

Unfortunately, the fallout of this self-immolation provides ammunition for our opposition. Because Jim Zumbo is was such a well-respected writer, his words will, undoubtedly, be used against the rest of the gun community. Zumbo might not be a “gun guy,” but how did he miss the original 1994 Assault Weapon Ban – the ban that prompted his good friend Tom Gresham to buy an Evil Black Rifle? How could he not be aware that, with a new Democrat Congress, new attempts to pass gun bans would be quick in coming? How could he be that detached from the politics?

Because he’s a hunter, and hunting is all that matters to him.

Look at this piece from yesterday’s Chattanoogan.com:

Jim Zumbo, Hunting Editor for Outdoor Life magazine, angered firearms enthusiasts across the country with a weekend blog posting. His blog has now been suspended and sponsors are severing ties with Zumbo in spite of his apology.

Zumbo went on to say “game departments should ban them from the praries (sic) and woods.”

—

At that point, however, there was little, if anything, that would assuage an angry horde of electronically mobilized AR fans. They considered Zumbo’s remarks as being tantamount to a sellout, with Zumbo offering up “black rifles” as a sacrificial lamb for anti-gun forces.

—

Zumbo’s ill-considered blog may not have been intended to create good-gun, bad-gun categories, but it has certainly raised firebrand rhetoric to an art form. Rather than hunters being supported by recreational and competitive shooting enthusiasts, they have now become “Fudds” to shooters who feel they have been labeled “terrorists” by a “hard-core hunter.”

It’s truly not a pretty picture, but may observers say it accurately reflects a widening gap between “traditional” and “non-traditional” shooting enthusiasts.

With Congress reconsidering the Assault Weapon Ban and Connecticut and New Jersey considering legislation that would limit handgun purchases to one per month, this latest schism is already being used as further evidence of the “need” to regulate firearms -all firearms – more stringently.

Thank you Jim Zumbo.

This is a mistake that might very well cost Zumbo his profession. But as I said in my second post on this topic, the question remains, though, if he’ll educate himself enough to alter his opinion. Zumbo is a gun-bigot. Gresham even acknowledges that he was one himself once. But neither of them comment much on that fact. Zumbo blames the fact that he was tired, but if in vinum, veritas, why not in fatigo, veritas?

Gresham’s last comment was this:

I’m just saying it seems a whole lot less than charitable to me to tell a guy “You screwed up, and you can never make up for it. I will never accept your apology. There’s nothing you can do. It’s one mistake and it’s a death-penalty deal.” That does not seem right to me. I think you’ve got to let a guy say “I screwed up.”

And I agree. But it’s essential not that he just say “I screwed up,” he must understand WHAT his screwup was. Otherwise he’s apologizing for the wrong thing, and that does no good at all.

His apology, both written and verbal, was “I had no idea how many people hunt with these guns.” Not “I should have never suggested banning a firearm for any reason.”

Tam put it best this morning in the opening line of her post An Army of Davids, illustrated:

On Friday evening, a gunwriter who was apparently tired of his 42-year career put his word processor in his mouth and pulled the trigger.

There’s an epitaph for you.

UPDATE: Tom Gresham gets it. Finally. (h/t to Sailorcurt.)

And Cowboy Blob has some excellent advice for Zumbo.

Jim Shepherd of The Shooting Wire opines too. (Temporary link. Scroll down to the op-ed.)

UPDATE: Outdoor Life announces Zumbo’s resignation, but Zumbo characterizes it as being “fired” in a post at Ted Nugent’s message board. He also announces that his TV show has been cancelled. Here’s the kicker:

I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.

I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.

RTWT. Six pages of response so far.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Wow. Just… wow. DirtCrashr links to this NRA press release: “NRA Publications has suspended its professional ties with Mr. Zumbo.”

MORE: Via David Codrea, Gerber cuts Zumbo loose, too. That leaves what, Swarovski?

I hope Zumbo’s retirement plan was fully financed.

Quote of the Month

KevinLeave a comment

Via Alger, an op-ed in today’s New York Post by strategist and author Ralph Peters explains it perfectly:

Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It’s not “just politics.” It’s treason.
And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn’t “supporting our troops.”
The “nonbinding resolution” telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

RTWT.

KevinLeave a comment

Arrogance, Thy Name is Arkin.

I’ve been too busy to comment on Washington Post opinion writer William Arkin’s recent piece slamming the troops in Iraq for expressing an opinion, but his latest piece has pegged my rage-o-meter. His apology for calling our troops “mercenaries”:

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

Mr. Arkin, you didn’t just disrespect the U.S. troops in Iraq – you just insulted the majority of Americans in “flyover country.”

You know, The American People.

We don’t “hide behind the Constitution and the flag,” we revere them. It’s the liberals, journalists, dissenters and “anti-citizens” who wipe their asses with them, then “hide behind” them when called on it. Mr. Arkin has exposed himself as another Nina Burleigh, someone who despises the military, but that’s OK because they choke up when they hear “America the Beautiful.” Mr. Arkin exercises “Socially Acceptable Bigotry“:

The bigotry of America’s Left-leaning intelligentsia is based upon cold logic that unfolds in the following predictable, if venal, fashion: I’m very smart. I’m well educated. So are most of my friends. I give generously to liberal causes. I’m a kind and caring human being. I defer to nobody in my exemplary set of values. I care about equality. I believe in a just society. These values are integrated into the core of who I am. I work diligently to teach these values unto my progeny. And these are just the values that, generally speaking, have been represented by the policies and actions of the Democratic Party.

The corollary logic continues: I don’t have much respect for the values of the Republican Party. Oversimplified, Republicans stand for the rich, for the status quo, for selfishness, and for war-mongering. These logical trains of thought are tinged with intellectual arrogance and gross stereotyping. Of course, some liberals who speak ill of Republicans have an ulterior motive. They use the tactic to undermine the credibility of all Republicans, who must be evil, stupid – or both.

Reagan, and his crowd, were a bunch of cowboys. NRA supporters are dumbfucks from Wyoming. The Christian Right is the imbecilic underbelly of the South, led by money-grubbing preachers. George W. may have gone to Yale and the business school, but he’s basically a shallow frat boy and – yikes! – a Christian. Locals who line up with such thinking tend to be knee-jerk right-wingers with low IQs.

In short, the justification for bigoted comments directed at those with whom the educated Left disagrees politically is based on two foundations: 1) We’re a lot smarter than they are; and 2) We’re better people than they are. That logic leads to three inescapable conclusions: We’re right. They’re wrong. QED: All Republicans are assholes.

And all soldiers are anti-American, apparently.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Arkin suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome, and extends his illness to the troops because they’re the ones carrying out Bush’s doctrine. Australian journalist Carole Overington expressed her understanding back in 2004:

Any student of history knows that this is true. America saved the Western world from communism. America saved Australia and, for that matter, France from a system that would stop you from reading this newspaper.

Americans support the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush because they see it as part of a bigger picture. Like everybody, they now know that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was (at least, not to them) but they still think it was a good idea to deal with him, before he became one.

The price of freedom is high. You might think you would not sacrifice your life for it, but maybe you don’t have to. After all, 20-year-old Americans are doing it for you, every day.

While the majority of people polled today may not support the war, I’d imagine the numbers are a bit different in “flyover country” still. Much of the opposition, I’m certain, comes from the Jacksonians who are tired of the rules of engagement that have restricted the actions of our soldiers, and doubtlessly resulted in some of their deaths – it isn’t that they’re anti-war, it’s that they’re for unrestrained war. I’m sympathetic to that view, myself, but I know it’s the wrong one for what we’re trying to accomplish in the Middle East.

Mr. Arkin thinks those troops are “anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen.” Interesting how he feels comfortable enough to say that to people who carry guns for a living, isn’t it?

After all, it’s not like he has to risk his life to exercise his freedom of speech.

Still Trying to Make Hay.with the “Shipping Fallen Soldiers as Freight” Meme

KevinLeave a comment

Last December I got into a urination contest with Jack Cluth, proprietor of The People’s Republic of Seabrook over his apparent outrage that, well as the original story put it:

Family Upset Over Soldier’s Body Arriving As Freight

Bodies Sent To Families On Commercial Airliners

SAN DIEGO — There’s controversy over how the military is transporting the bodies of service members killed overseas, 10News reported.

A local family said fallen soldiers and Marines deserve better and that one would think our war heroes are being transported with dignity, care and respect. It said one would think upon arrival in their hometowns they are greeted with honor. But unfortunately, the family said that is just not the case.

Dead heroes are supposed to come home with their coffins draped with the American flag — greeted by a color guard.

But in reality, many are arriving as freight on commercial airliners — stuffed in the belly of a plane with suitcases and other cargo.

John Holley and his wife, Stacey, were stunned when they found out the body of their only child, Matthew John Holley, who died in Iraq last month, would be arriving at Lindbergh Field as freight.

You can read the rest of the piece for yourself. There’s even a video link of the story apparently showing a body being unloaded from a commercial aircraft.

Jack was outraged. OUTRAGED!

OK, let’s imagine something for just a second. Let’s say that Bill Clinton was still in office. And let’s say that the bodies of dead American soldiers were being shipped to their families as freight, stuffed in the cargo hold of a plane along with the luggage?

If Republicans were to get wind of this sort of Democratic perfidy, CAN YOU IMAGINE THE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH, AND THE PEALS OF RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION that would be raining down upon a Democratic Administration? And guess what? They’d have a damn good point. So why then is it acceptable for Our Glorious Leader’s Administration to be shipping the bodies of fallen soldiers as they would Aunt Ethel’s luggage? It’s simple, really; because Democrats simply lack the cojones to to raise Hell and demand that this disrespect stop IMMEDIATELY.

Yes, Jack was outraged that the Democrats hadn’t raised hell over this disrespect, thus getting themselves some much-needed positive press. After all, Clinton (blessed be his name) would NEVER have done anything so disrespectful!

But he did. The government always has. Bodies are shipped as air cargo via commercial carrier – just like they did your great-aunt Melba when it was time to send her body home. Was that disrepectful of her?

John Holley, father of Matthew Holly, protested:

What do you mean civilian aircraft? Why isn’t he flying into Miramar or North Island and having the military handle, you know, the military can handle the military. I mean he’s a war hero for crying out loud. If it was the President or some general or somebody like that, this wouldn’t be occurring.

No, probably not. But your son isn’t a general or the president. He’s a soldier. As I explained in the earlier post, bodies are shipped home via air cargo – with military escort. This is done for several reasons. First, I imagine, is economy. Should the military send all remains to the nearest military air base, as Mr. Holley asked? Should they be on a dedicated cargo aircraft? Wouldn’t it be just as “disrespectful” to ship the body on a military plane otherwise full of spare parts, mail, or other cargo? What if the parents of the fallen soldier don’t live anywhere near a military air base? Or should the military dedicate a C-37 (the military version of the Grumman Gulfstream V) for the deceased and his entourage? Wouldn’t somebody then complain about the astronomical expense?

The fact is, soldiers are shipped home honorably. Your grandmother may go back to old Virginnie as air cargo to be met by the local undertaker, but our honored military dead get an escort to ensure that they are treated properly. Noplace is this better described than by The Rocky Mountain News in their absolutely outstanding and emotional piece “Final Salute,” which I strongly recommend you read if you haven’t already. Be prepared to spend some time, and bring a hanky.

Well, once again, the “disrespectful treatment” meme has raised its ugly head. On Wednesday the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle published a “guest essay” decrying this same practice. Cynthia Hoag penned the essay after reporting that she saw a flag-draped coffin come down the baggage conveyor out of the cargo hold, under the observation of the escorting soldier, and then she watched it

disappear into the cart with the rest of the luggage. The waiting soldier stayed with the casket and rode in the cart as they pulled away.

She was shocked! Shocked, I say!

Well, her essay stirred up some controversy. In today’s edition there was a story saying that the Army was probing the report, but Northwest Airlines was saying they did everything according to procedure. The most interesting thing about the story, though, wasn’t the story. It was the comments. Like this one by “Reader11722”:

This administration doesn’t care how the soldiers are treated when they are alive (i.e., improper vests and inadequate protection on Humvees), why would they care in death? This lady is probably 100% correct and the misdeeds of this administration are about to worsen. However, Iraq is a bloody diversion. As the army attacks Iraq, the US gov’t erodes rights at home by suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like “America Deceived” from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting 2 illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran (on behalf of Israel) costing more American lives.

Yes, the moonbats were attracted to the light! (And make sure you take a gander at the book he’s hawking.) Another, “rwb100”:

Boy. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!! The lady was appalled at seeing a flag draped coffin on a baggage cart? What I want to know is why she wasn’t appalled at the fact that the soldier was even in the coffin in the first place. If you want to be appalled at something, be appalled at that!! Be appalled that our fearless leader, King George The Pea Brained, had the audacity, tumerity, and unmitigated gall to get us into this senseless war in the first place. And as for one comment I read about treating our “fallen military heroes” this way, well, as far as I am concerned, anyone who voluntarily signs up for the military, knowing full well that it just might mean having to go to war, is an idiot, not a hero. Especially those who volunteered after this war was started, with the express intent of going to Iraq. War is never the right answer to any problem, anywhere, anytime. Never!!! Now I know all of you red state republican flag waving lemmings out there probably have steam spewing out of your ears right about now, but if you would all just pull your heads out of your collective anal orifices and take a good look around, you will no doubt see as clearly as I do that you have all been sold a bill of goods by the current administration. George Bush is by far the stupidest president that this country has ever had, not to mention the most dangerous. By comparison, he makes Nixon look great! Maybe you remember immediately after 9/11 how America had the sympathies of pretty much the entire world. Everyone was in our corner then, but Bush has, in just a few short years, completely reversed world opinion about us. We are hated and reviled the world over, thanks to the backwards, mean-spirited, and paranoid policies of the Bush administration, and the sooner we all wake up and tell them NO MORE!!!!! , the better off we all will be. So again , I say WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!! End this bloody war now, and then we won’t have to see any more flag draped coffins on conveyor belts, baggage carts, or anywhere else for that matter. Now, what a wonderful world that would be!

Had to archive that one for posterity.

On a more sober note, MJL posted:

Last December I was waiting to board a flight from Atlanta to San Antonio. I looked out the window at my plane and noticed a large box being loaded into the cargo hold. I wondered what it was and then noticed a soldier standing at attention, watching the box move up the conveyor. I looked around…it was cold, freezing rain outside, and typically hectic inside the airport terminal. I couldn’t see anyone who had noticed or was watching besides the soldier, the baggage handlers, and myself. After we were in the air the first announcement the pilot made was regarding the fallen soldier’s remains and the accompanying soldier. In this case I saw nothing but quiet, subdued respect.

“Mudflap” posted:

I worked for 20 years as a customer service agent. I have worked on the ramp, inside, the warehouse and baggage service. The coffin is too big to put in a regular baggage cart. It is brought to the warehouse where freight is prepared for shipping. It is put on a open cart and does not carry extra baggage, unless it was the military’s member luggage that was accompanying the coffin. It is taken over to the freight house where the vehicle can pick it up. It has to come off the plane on the conveyor belt. It is heavy and long, and the plane sits off the ground quite a bit. There also has to be enough people to be able to lift it on and off the cart. I find the story hard to believe. In all my years at the airport, nothing but respect is paid to a coffin weather it be civilian or military.

“USAF2T2” chimed in:

As an Air Force Transportation Specialist, we handle the human remains of fallen soldiers within specific guidelines ordered by Air Force Regulations. They do return in “transfer cases” but are carefully placed level, with the heads stowed towards the nose of the aircraft – the head ALWAYS higher than the feet. NO OTHER CARGO is loaded on top of remains’ transfer cases. When they arrive at a terminal such as Dover AFB, human remains are stored in a secure area and separated from other cargo. At that point the shipment is made available to the receiving individual or agency.

So from the military’s point of view, as a RULE, we handle all with care and respect.
Do they also travel in commercial baggage area? Of course they would with they(sic) same rules applied. BTW, the baggage area is not a bad place to travel in (many pets travel that way) and when you consider how annoying some passengers are, it’s probably more preferable.

At any rate, the receiving agency is responsible for the remains once released. Since the reporter of this “story” did a poor job of doing his journalistic duty of investigating and getting the facts, all we have is a “story” which, as we know, can be as fictional as “The 3 Little Pigs”. But then had he dug into the story and found the truth, we wouldn’t be here on this site reading about it. Such is modern news, entertainment (to sell more papers/ad space) at the expense of a few.

May God Bless the family of Army Sgt. 1st Class Tony Knier especially at this time of the year when the rest of us sit around the tree and enjoy our families. Sgt. Knier truly sacrificed his life (as others) so that our children and we can continue OUR traditions and way of life; not one forced upon us by radical Islamics.

Now there’s a voice of reason. Finally, I’ll select the post by “gvenema” though there are pages more:

I don’t understand the outrage, Beenthere is correct.

I worked the Ramp 10 years ago in Minneapolis. There are no special carts for Human Remains. There is no special unloading crane painted red white and blue just for military personnel. The ramp agents have to use the equipment they have. How else are the remains supposed to be removed from the aircraft?

The outrage is over the remains being unloaded and placed into a cart.

From the article:
Northwest Airlines, on which the casket was flown, said in a statement tonight that a military escort stood at attention as three airline agents transferred the casket from the aircraft to an empty cart, then closed the privacy curtains. Northwest said it complied with all military and airline procedures.

There isn’t even a real disagreement on what happened. I guess people expect a band playing stars and stripes to follow around every casket until the funeral.

That’s how it appears to me.

It also appears that this is just another opportunity for the Left and Right to scream at each other. Reading the six pages of commentary, that’s much the impression I got. This comment by “aki009” said it well:

I have to say that we live in a day and age where I find myself having to question all the data that is being presented to me from essentially any source. I had to add photography to the list of things to question thanks to Reuters, UPI and others with their contributors who took a free hand to “enhance” images. Unfortunately such doubt can cause something genuine to fall into the questionable category.

Perhaps some day various forms of media will regain my trust.

In the meantime, ill-educated swipes from the left _and_ the right simply undermine any remaining trust I have in any form of communication from either side. Though from my perspective it seems that the left fabricates a significantly larger volume of “information” than the right.

Doesn’t it, though?

Indoctrination

KevinLeave a comment

A couple of posts below I linked to An Infuriating Man, an essay by Leo Rosten about economist Milton Friedman. In the post between this one and that one, I mentioned that I fairly recently read the book Conversations with Eric Sevareid: Interviews with Notable Americans. It so happens that Leo Rosten was one of Mr. Sevareid’s guests, and that transcript was one in the book. Taped on August 24, 1975, Sevareid introduces Rosten:

“Wisdom,” according to Leo Rosten, “is only the capacity to confront intolerable ideas, with composure. Most men debase the pursuit of happiness by transforming it into a foolish pursuit of fun. But where was it promised that the purpose of life is to be happy? To me, the most important thing in life is to matter, to count, to stand for something. In short, to have it make some difference that you lived at all.”

—

Leo Rosten has taught at Yale, Stanford, Columbia and the University of California. In addition to all else, he’s an astute economist trained at the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics. He belongs to an interesting intellectual mutation. He was a New Deal liberal in Franklin Roosevelt’s day; today he’s a neo-conservative. From old liberal to new conservative is paradoxically a function of aging and changing society. Neo-conservatives don’t believe that education or government can determine the total picture of American society.

This is the earliest reference I have seen of the term “neo-conservative.” I was a little surprised that it dates back to at least 1975.

The interview begins:

Rosten: We didn’t assume thirty years ago that the schools could solve all our problems. We never assumed that politics could solve them. In fact, this country was based on the commanding idea that the politicians should do and what the government should do is make it possible for people to pursue happiness. Now the disenchanted say, “Make me happy!” Schools can’t make anyone happy.

Sevareid: What happened? Some of the Supreme Court decisions, some of the rules from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, from the federal government, are going to instruct every high school in every local community what boys and girls can do, what sports they can play at together, and what can or can’t be done in the locker room. (Title IX passed in 1972.) This would have made Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin turn in their graves. Why shouldn’t local communities have something to say about how children are educated?

Rosten: I think the tide has to turn. The story of the growth of federal power is one of the most lamentable in American history. I think historians of the future will mark 1932 as one of the black years of American history – not that Roosevelt was a bad President, not that he didn’t do extraordinary things. His greatest talent was that of a politician. He cemented a society that was falling to pieces in very ugly ways. But what he did was start the pattern by which instead of fixing your community’s bridge you wrote to your Congressman and asked him to get Congress to appropriate $28,000 for your bridge – a pattern by which everything is taken care of by federal money. What’s wrong with this is that it prevents the most powerful engine mankind has ever known, the free market, from working.

I think we are now beginning to learn that it is foolish to assume that people in Washington know better how to run Alameda County that the men who are farming in Alameda County.

I don’t think the lesson stuck.

Rosten on the press:

Sevareid: A long time ago, during the 1930’s, you wrote the first real sociological study of the Washington press corps. A lot has changed since then. It’s now a vast herd of people. The tone has changed. The press has itself become a great controversial issue. What’s the big difference now?

Rosten: The decline of newspapers, the decline of local papers, the pabulumized news leads me to read weekly journals more than ever because they at least put things into perspective. The kind of person who now goes into journalism may also be different.

Now even the weeklies are pabulum, and the dailies are dying from decreasing readership.

Sevareid: The Watergate adventures have something to do with it. Press people have been lured and forced out of their normal roles to a degree. They’ve become actors in the play themselves. They’re writing about each other. There also is a new level of howling monkeys at news conferences. They’ve given the press a pretty bad image with lots of people. Some reporters seem to think they’re prosecuting attorneys at every encounter with officials. They don’t understand that civility is not the enemy of freedom; it’s an ally.

Rosten: I have the feeling that the editorial pages of this country, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal, are repeating the cliches of the 1940’s and 1950’s. “If a government program fails it’s because not enough money was put into it. Let’s put more money into it!” And more and more money is poured down the rat hole.

Or, as Steven Den Beste put it, cognitive dissonance leading to “escalation of failure.”

And, finally, Leo Rosten on education:

Sevareid: Leo, you’ve written about everything, thought about everything, studied everything. You’re a great generalist, which is not much in fashion any more. What’s happened to the knowledge industry? Sociologists, economists, psychologists, psychiatrists, seem rather bankrupt. Have we overburdened the human mind with too many facts? Vocabulary seems to have outrun knowledge, which has outrun wisdom. Where do we turn?

Rosten: We’ve always gone on the assumption (a good one) that education will liberate the human mind or the human spirit. There’s a second assumption that’s forgotten. Some people are meant to be educated and to learn and to enjoy the uses of the mind. Some people are meant to paint. Some people are meant to draw castles in the sand and make them into sculpture. Some people love to prune trees and gardens. What we have done is assume that everyone can potentially become an intellectual. We’ve confused learning with schooling.

It’s absolutely absurd that in this country today there should be seven million youngsters going to college. There are not seven million people who want to read Plato or Aristotle or Montesquieu. And there’s no reason why they should. We have failed to see that there aren’t enough jobs for those who learn esoteric things. For a while there was a big fling on learning Swahili in New York. Lots of kids were studying it because it was part of the Black movement, the idea of Black identity, Black liberation. It so happens that Swahili was the language of the Arab slave traders. In any event, what good does it do to know Swahili? I don’t mean “good” simply in terms of economics. What sort of good does it do?

When you’re young, when your mind and spirit are like a sponge, there is no better time to learn certain things and there is no worse time to learn certain things. I would abolish the study of some courses except for students aged thirty and above.

I was lucky as a child of the depression. I couldn’t get a job for three years. I was lonely and miserable. At the end of those three years, because I was desperate, I went back to school. I was older than my classmates, I had learned something. I had learned how hard it is to walk all day long, trying to earn a dollar. I had learned how important it is to save, to appraise people, to figure out if this or that guy can be trusted or not trusted. This is what life and the world are about.

We’re practically using the colleges as a dump into which to put youngsters we do not know what to do with. There are today 45 million people between the age of roughly 7 and 24. Their parents don’t know what to do with them. They want them to go to college and they often think that they’re being trained for jobs. But they’re not getting training for useful employment.

Someone has said that education is what remains after everything you’ve learned is forgotten. The purpose of educating young people is not only to illuminate their spirit and enrich their memory bank but to teach them the pleasures of thinking and reading. How do you use the mind? As a teacher, I always was astonished by the number of people in the classroom who wanted to learn as against those who just wanted to pass. I took pride in my ability to communicate. Generally “communicate” meant one thing. Now the young think “communicate” means “Agree with me!”

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But here’s the kicker:

Rosten: The student rebellions of the 1960’s exposed the fact that our entire educational system has forgotten the most important thing it can do prior to college: indoctrinate. I believe in the indoctrination of moral values. There’s a lot to be said for being good and kind and decent. You owe a duty to those who have taken care of you. You owe a duty to whatever it is that God or fate gave you – to use your brain or your heart. It’s senseless to whine, to blame society for every grievance, or to assume that the presence of a hammer means you have to go out to smash things.

The young want everything. They think they can get everything swiftly and painlessly. They are far too confident. They don’t know what their problems are, not really. They talk too much. They demand too much. Their ideas have not been tempered by the hard facts of reality. They’re idealists, but they don’t sense that it’s the easiest thing in the world to be an idealist. It doesn’t take any brains. This was said by Aristotle 2300 years ago. Mencken once said that an idealist is someone who, upon observing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, assumes that it will also make better soup.

To some extent, Rosten sounds like all elders complaining about youths:

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders, and love chatter in places of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. they contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers. – Socrates

I am ambivalent on the topic of “indoctrination.” My problem is with what that indoctrination entails. Rosten objects to the failure of the educational system to indoctrinate moral values. I’d say it still does. It just doesn’t indoctrinate goodness, kindness, and decency anymore. It indoctrinates “multicuturalism,” “tolerance,” “sensitivity,” “fairness,” “socialism,” and “self-esteem.” It fails to instruct in history, civics, ethics, mathematics, English, or for that matter, job skills. The education system receives “young skulls full of mush” and processes them right on through, sending them into the world with what Ayn Rand described as “a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears.”

The reasons for this are myriad. Diane Ravitch puts part of the blame (convincingly) on the textbook companies who are loath to put anything in a text that someone, anyone, might find offensive. I put a large part of the blame on the influx of socialist True Believers into the ranks of educators since the time of John Dewey. As far as public schools are concerned, we’ve abandoned the idea that education can liberate the human mind or human spirit. Schools are now warehouses, run by administrators terrified of lawsuits and too many teachers who are literally tyrannized by their charges and their parents. Indoctrination still goes on, though. Read this lovely little op-ed by Mark Bradley, a history teacher from Sacramento. I bet his classes are popular!

It would seem that if you want some good indoctrination, your only choices are homeschooling or private – often ecumenical – schools.

Indoctrination of children is not necessarily a bad thing, but somewhere along the line we stopped paying attention to what was and what wasn’t getting poured into their heads, and it started long before 1975.

KevinLeave a comment

Our “Friends” in the Media Strike Again.

For your inspection (h/t: AR15.com):

Intruder fatally shot

Fatality third in Escambia since ‘Stand Your Ground’ law passed

Law enforcement and attorneys say the local nurse who fatally shot an intruder at her Navy Point home Saturday would have been protected by state law before the “Stand Your Ground” law passed.

Then why mention the “Stand Your Ground” law at all? But wait, it gets better!

Rhonda Eubanks, 57, a Baptist Hospital nurse, was alone at her home on the 100 block of N.W. Gilliland Road, in a neighborhood southwest of Sunset Avenue, Sgt. Mike Ward said Tuesday.

Now that we’ve identified and given the location and employer of the shooter…

The woman used a .38-caliber handgun to shoot Vincent Demond Wesley, 29, of Pensacola, in the head as he charged toward her, Ward said. Investigators have no evidence that Eubanks had any formal training in shooting a firearm.

Doesn’t look like she needed any “formal training” does it? But wait – it’s coming…

Assistant State Attorney David Rimmer was at the scene Saturday and saw the location of the body of the intruder, Vincent Demond Wesley, 29, of Pensacola.

“Preliminarily, it looks like a justifiable shooting,” he said. “He was laying face-down, under the carport, only a few feet from her door.

“His head was closest to the door.”

Early evidence indicates that he was shot in the head approaching the woman’s front door, Rimmer said.

The woman was alone at her home — a mauve-shuttered house with a manicured lawn

Now anyone looking for revenge can identify the right house in that “neighborhood Southwest of Sunset Avenue in the 100 block of N.W. Gilliland Rd. – look for the mauve shutters…” But remember – she does head shots.

— about 7:45 p.m. Saturday when Wesley twice tried to enter her house, Escambia deputies said.

By the second attempt, she was armed and ready.

“It’s pretty crazy,” said Sgt. Mike Ward, a Sheriff’s Office spokesman. “(She) shot and killed the intruder.”

Deputies are not releasing the woman’s name in order to protect her.

But the PRESS IS! AND they’re giving her address, place of work, and description of her HOME! It’s apparently the PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW!

However, through neighborhood interviews, investigators have pieced together a series of events that ended with Wesley’s death outside the house on the 100 block of N.W. Gilliland Road near Jardine Road. The neighborhood is southwest of Sunset Avenue.

Just in case you MISSED THE ADDRESS THE FIRST TIME!

Starting about 7:30 p.m. Saturday, Wesley argued with someone whom investigators and neighbors could not identify.

Neighbor Debbie Palmer, 27, said she heard a gunshot as she was eating spaghetti at her neighbor’s apartment on Jardine Road, which is next door to Wesley’s apartment.

Before the gunfire, she heard someone beating on the shared wall and throwing items.

About 7:45 p.m., Wesley entered the backyard of the N.W. Gilliland Road home, deputies said in a report.

Wesley attempted to enter the home, startling the woman. Then he left and attempted to carjack a vehicle driving past the house, the report stated.

Neighbors confirmed that scenario, saying Wesley attempted to steal several empty vehicles before the attempted carjacking.

“I believe he got what he had coming to him,” Palmer said. “He had no right to steal anybody’s vehicle or anything.”

When the carjacking didn’t work, Wesley returned to the Gilliland Road home and began charging at the woman, who had retrieved a firearm, the sheriff’s report stated.

Fearing for her safety, the woman shot him dead.

The shooting death is the third of this type in Escambia County since the “Stand Your Ground” law was passed Oct. 1, Ward said.

The Florida statute — the first of its kind in the United States — allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent the commission of a “forcible felony.”

Uh, “first of its kind?” Hardly. It’s not even the most recent.

Richard Piovesan, 44, of Pensacola died in a shooting on Oct. 12, which was 11 days after the law passed. He was shot following an argument with a neighbor over money and a piece of wood.

Tyrone Fyoungious Preyer, 29, of Pensacola died in March by gunfire as he broke into an occupied home.

The most recent event has at least one neighbor thinking about protecting himself.

Since March, Charles Robbins, 50, has resided across the street from Saturday’s shooting.

So now you know where HE lives…

“I’ve been considering buying a gun ever since I moved here,” Robbins said. “This kind of tilts it in that direction. I’ve had my eye on a .45 (caliber handgun) in a pawn shop.”

Get the pistol, Mr. Robbins. Everyone who reads the paper now knows where you live and that you’re unarmed.

Read the comments. Some are excellent.

And remember: This would never happen in England. Ms. Eubanks would be sitting in a cell right now. Or more likely would be the victim of a violent crime, instead.

If you have anything to say to the “reporter” her email address is [email protected]
The dead perp:

DC Number: 312116
Name: WESLEY, VINCENT D
Race: BLACK
Sex: MALE
Hair Color: BLACK
Eye Color: BROWN
Height: 5’07”
Weight: 171 lbs.
Birth Date: 11/01/1976
Release Facility: OKALOOSA C.I.
Custody: MEDIUM
Release Date: 04/02/2006

Offense Date Offense Sentence Date County Case No. Community Supervision Length
11/29/1993 AGG BATTERY/W/DEADLY WEAPON 04/13/1994 ESCAMBIA 9305667 0Y 12M 0D
0Y 18M 0D
11/29/1993 GRAND THEFT,$300 LESS &20,000 04/13/1994 ESCAMBIA 9305667 0Y 12M 0D
11/29/1993 GRAND THEFT,$300 LESS &20,000 04/13/1994 ESCAMBIA 9305667 0Y 18M 0D
11/29/1993 RESISTING OFFICER W/VIOLEN. 04/13/1994 ESCAMBIA 9305667 0Y 12M 0D

A choir boy he was not.

Child Abuse!

KevinLeave a comment

(Via Zendo Deb):

12 Year Old Points Gun at Burglars; Group Takes Off

July 11, 2006 08:58 AM
An accused group of thugs were thwarted by a 12-year old with a gun. It happened in Greenville (SC) when police say five masked men stormed into a house and started beating up the child’s father.

FOX Carolina’s Jamie Guirola reports, Try and picture it. A 12 year old walks into the living room, sees his mother frantically protecting the baby, and several strangers attacking his father. The 12 year old rushes out of the living room, but comes back pointing a gun at the five suspects. As of Monday night, all but one are in jail.

These are the alleged home invaders without their masks. The youngest barely seventeen, the oldest just 20. George Dickert didn’t have time to think about their ages when he tells us they broke into his home and tried to rob his family.

George Dickert/Victim: “F*$# you! That’s what I was thinking.”

Sunday night, George says, one of the suspects in the group followed him into his house after he smoked a cigarette. He tells us the man pulled out a gun, threatening him. When George reached for a different gun in self-defense, a fight broke out.

George: “I work five days a week and my wife works six days a week. We’re an honest couple. We do what we have to do to make a living and some idiot decided he wanted what I had.”

When the struggle started, police say, two other men came into the house and started beating on George. That’s when George’s 12 year old son made the move credited with scaring the accused thugs out of the house, and stopping the burglary without even firing the gun.’

Or having it taken away from him! Imagine that!

George: “He did what he had to do to protect his family last night. And a 12 year old child should never have to go through that. Even if he does know what to do, he should not have to do that.”

Police later found these four near George’s home sweating and breathing heavily. Something George hopes they’ll do again if they’re convicted and sentenced to the max.

George: “…And I will press and push and do whatever it takes to make sure every individual in it gets it.”

Police aren’t releasing details about the fifth person they’re looking for. George says he has five guns in the house. His taught his son how to use each of them.

Good for him. And he’s right, his son should not have had to do what he did, but I’m glad he was able. Of course the Brady Bunch probably considers teaching his boy about guns to be a form of child abuse they’d like to see ended. After all, twelve year old boys aren’t supposed to possess firearms. Or airguns. Or rubber band guns.

As far as I’m aware, in the UK – gun control utopia, according to the gun grabbers gun control proponents er, gun safety organizations – it’s illegal for a child to have access to a gun. “Safe storage” and all, you know. In England Mr. Dickert would be looking at jail time, his collection of five firearms would already have been confiscated, and his license to own them would have been revoked.

It’s simple “common sense” legislation like this that they want to force down our throats here.

Now, on a different topic, let me illustrate “media bias.” This was a Fox News story. It’s from a decent sized city – Greenville SC has a population of about 56,000. Myrtle Beach, SC has about four times the population. The George Dickert story has one (1) hit on Google – apparently the local Fox News affiliate is the only source to have posted it to the web. Granted, it’s only been one day.

On July 7, a 12 year old boy in Myrtle Beach shot his 10 year old best friend with a .22 rifle, apparently with intent. He’s been charged with murder. Google has links to ten (10) stories on the incident. One is from a paper in North Carolina, one from Florida and one from Pennsylvania. All of the papers in question belong to The McClatchy Company, which owns five (5) newspapers in South Carolina: The State, The Sun News, The Herald, The Beaufort Gazette, and The Island Packet. The story was on Page 1 below the fold in today’s Sun News. They own papers in fifteen (15) other states. Do you think they’ll pick up the story of George Dickert’s son and spread it around the East coast?

Nah, me either.

Do you think the story of Zachary Haymon will be one told by the Brady Bunch?

I’ll be watching.

The Power of the Blogosphere

KevinLeave a comment

(h/t Instapundit)

Spread this around far and wide. The internet has a flawless memory, even when the intelligentsia and the old gatekeepers try to distort reality. From OpinionJournal:

The Bend of History

“President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict.”–editorial, New York Times, Feb. 27, 2003
“One prominent neoconservative, Francis Fukuyama, asserts in a new book that the administration embraced democracy as a cornerstone of its policy only after the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. The issue was seized upon to justify the war in retrospect, and then expanded for other countries, he says.”–New York Times, March 17, 2006

Editor? What’s an editor?

The Big Lie

KevinLeave a comment

On the way in to work this morning, the 7:30 NPR news played this quote from John “I Served in Vietnam” Kerry:

Confirming Judge Alito to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court would have irreversible consequences that are already defined if Senators will take the time to measure them.

In my judgment, it will take the country backwards on critical issues.

Really? Irreversible consequences?

But isn’t what Kerry (and the Left in general) is afraid of is the reversal of eighty years of leftward movement by the Court?

Hugh Hewitt interviews “The Smart Guys” – USC professor Erwin Chemerinsky from the Left, and Chapman University law professor John Eastman from the Right, weekly. On Wednesday, June 8, 2005 the topic was Janice Rogers Brown’s appointment to the DC Circuit, and this exchange was transcribed over at Radioblogger:

John Eastman: You know, I mean, it’s just so preposterous, I don’t even know where to begin. The reason Chuck Schumer is so upset about this, is Justice Brown is the kind of judge who will, you know, adhere to the Constitution. And when the members of the legislature, even the exalted Chuck Schumer hismelf, want to take actions that is not authorized by the Constitution, she’ll be willing to stand up and do her duty, and strike it down. That’s not an arrogance, that’s what the judges are there for, to adhere to the Constitution, and not to let the legislature roll over them and do whatever they want. You know, it really is preposterous. We’ve turned this upside down. The judges that do exactly what they’re supposed to do are demonized, and those that take a powder and let the legislature get away with every abuse, every extension of power imaginable, are touted at the cocktail circuit.

Erwin Chemerinsky: I think what Senator Schumer is saying, and is absolutely right, is that Janice Rogers Brown’s repeated statements that she believes that the New Deal programs like social security are unconstitutional, is truly a radical view. That’s not a judge who wants to uphold the Constitution. That’s a judge who wants to shred the last eighty years of American Constitutional law. Janice Rogers Brown saying she believes that the Bill of Rights should not apply to the states, would undo the last seventy years of Constitutional law. That’s not a judge who wants to follow the law. That’s a judge who wants to make the law in her own radical, conservative views.

John Eastman: Hang on, here, because Erwin…there’s a wonderfully subtle change in your phraseology that demonstrates what’s going on here. You said she won’t follow the Constitution, and then you said it’s because she won’t follow the last seventy or eighty years of Constitutional law. What happened seventy or eighty years ago that changed the Constitution? There was not a single amendment at issue in the 1930’s that changed the Constitution. Some radical, federal programs were pushed through. Some radical judges, under pressure, finally signed on them, and the notion that we can’t question that unconstitutional action that occurred in the 1930’s, and somehow that defending that unconstitutionality is adherent to the rule of law, is rather extraordinary. There are scholars on left and right that have understood that what went on in the 1930’s was…had no basis in Constitutional law, or in the letter of the Constitution itself.

They’re not afraid of “irreversible change.” They’re afraid of reversal of their changes. And, typically, they won’t come out and say that.