Voila andy........
"Oh, deer": Are flamethrowers really necessary?
Published: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Updated: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The regular deer hunting season in Dutchess County opens this Saturday, Nov. 15, but there’s something a little different about this year.
No, the deer still haven’t figured out the advantages of Kevlar vests, nor have they multiplied to the point where only nuclear hunting can be prescribed to limit the pest problem. And no, Vice President Dick Cheney is not coming back to Dutchess County for another government and tax-sponsored hunt like he did last October. It’s something quite expectedly different. Put simply, there are more guns out there this year than ever before. And hunters and media pundits alike say all the credit is due to President-elect Barack Obama.
A minor media storm followed the Nov. 4 election results. Gun sales have increased dramatically despite the uncertain economy. In fact, The New York Times reported in an article on Nov. 6 that gun sales increased 14 percent in October, compared with last year. This comes after mostly flat line sales throughout the summer and a similarly “weird” 17 percent increase that had occurred only as recently as May.
Both gun sale increases occurred exactly around the times that the President-elect’s campaign surged into the spotlight. His Democratic nomination in June, which had become inevitable in the month prior, and his solid lead in the presidential race throughout October have been used as an explanation for the spike in gun sales by all major and minor publications, including the Associated Press, The New York Times, the Salt Lake Tribune and even The Huffington Post. In fact, in almost every media story on the subject, the link between gun sales and Obama has been the focal point.
In light of such information, one could make the argument that there is no sport on Earth more politically charged than hunting. When a sport’s profitability is directly linked to politics, and in this case to a presidential election, tensions inevitably run a little high. Party politics affect hunting in a way they simply don’t affect other sports. This extends beyond steroid use investigations and federal commissions to investigate the source of college basketball stars’ spending money; hunting is intertwined with politics in an unique way, thanks in large part to the fact that hunters need the government’s permission to purchase the equipment that is necessary to their pastime. Oddly, the federal government has just never felt obliged to oversee tennis racket and baseball bat purchases in the same way that it monitors gun sales; then again, it’s been quite some time since a vice president put his friend in the hospital as a result of a tennis accident.
So the government keeps its eye on the firearms market. But in 2004, a 10-year-old Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired under the George W. Bush administration and a Republican House and Senate. The bill, which banned such hunting essentials as bayonet mounts and grenade launchers, was put on the backburner, and in turn moose hunting with high-powered assault rifles from helicopters by vice presidential candidates, not to name any names, was allowed. The fact that hunters had continued to pursue their sport for all those years without their flash suppressors was, needless to say, nothing short of miraculous.
But now, with a Democratic administration looming, hunting enthusiasts fear that the ban will be reinstated and their hunting and gun ownership privileges will be encroached upon.
Jim Pruett, owner of Jim Pruett’s Guns and Ammo in Northwest Houston, summed it up brilliantly for The New York Times, saying, “[Obama] wants to take our guns from us and create a socialist society policed by his own police force.” In turn, with that fear in mind, mothers like Rachel Smith of Midloathian, Va. have rushed to gun stores to pick up those special 20-gauge shotguns like the one she got for her 10-year-old son Austin.
Yes, that’s right: There is essentially no minimum hunting age. A quick search of the frequently asked questions section of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Web site brings up the following question and answer exchange (judgments sold separately):
“Q: Can I take my young child (or an unlicensed person) with me while I am deer hunting?
A: Yes, and we highly recommend it! Just make sure the child (or unlicensed person) is not hunting or assisting in any aspect of the hunt (like driving deer). Bring an extra pair of binoculars and plenty of snacks. Have a good time!
Q: Can my son or daughter hunt small game while I hunt deer?
A: Yes, but your son or daughter must have a Junior Hunting license and cannot actively participate in the big game hunt (including driving deer).”
The result of such a policy is that we are now faced with a situation where crazed mothers are running out to get their children guns so that evil Democrats don’t take those blessed things away from them. In other words, the country with more gun lust than any other on the planet is now going into a gun-buying bonanza. Except the majority of new guns being sold aren’t just small air rifles like those that Dick’s Sporting Goods sells for $99 (after rebates, of course), nor are they the slightly bigger and badder versions for $125. No, this new crop of guns features great civilian hunting tools like the Colt AR-15, more famous for its military name, the M-16—the type that is so obviously essential for taking down insurgent deer, or entire battalions of them, for that matter.
Unfortunately, there is a downside for us Dutchess County residents: We can’t go blowing deer heads off with high-powered assault weapons, as, like it or not, they are banned for hunting purposes in New York State. Instead our options are limited to only silly normal rifles to be used in one of six major gun clubs in the area, or on any unsuspecting deer not near a major road or in a residential area.
Come Sunday, as the 750,000 New York hunters begin to stretch their happy little trigger fingers for the upcoming game and warm up to unleash athletic, magazine-loaded hell on the deer, I’ll be in the stands watching and cheering them on. And maybe, just maybe, come next year we can buy up some Tomahawks and a few F-16s and really get the sport going.
The major problem here is that the Spanish team photo was determined to be racist, not by the host nation or those it was posing as being first, but rather by a bunch of European men who sat down and decided that this was racist. The bullfighter episode goes unnoticed not because it is any less "harmful" but because noone can make a story/buck out of insulting another ethnicity if there is no prior history or strife between them.
With the Spanish though, their brutal "racist" attack of all “asians” everywhere, as Susan Smith would have you think, is an entirely different story. Why? Because firstly the Brits/Americans have history on the Spanish. In other words they can always write an article and use the Eto'o or Henry stories (where these men were jeered for the color of their skins by fans at a Barcelona match and the media respectively) to create a biased such that makes it seem like Spain as a country is racist. In turn using that background as leverage they can then say that this is another good example of that point.
It is our nature to then play the association game and go well if this is 1 and this is 3 then that must be 2 right there. We are all now groomed to be that way, and that is absolutely perfect for the media. If a reporter, or even better an editor, can stir strong feelings either for or against a topic, or better on both sides, they’ve done their job, i.e. they've got you interested in a topic, finally, and they can now go on to churn out copy articles, quotes and further issues of that publication as you continue to read up on the "latest developments" in the story.
But wait isn't it just a bit wrong though?
Whether or not the Spanish team photo is racist, I don’t know.
But what I certainly know is that a bunch of white europeans have no basis to be arguing on either side. Unless the Chinese themselves, stand firmly against the photo with real, quality reasons, and not just so as to garner media attention for their organization, queue Susan, then the whole issue is pointless. The only thing we are doing is senselessly lapping up what an editor has thrown out for us due to our extreme need to fulfill some political correctness clause. A PC stance which has gone so far that nowadays making fun of the majority remains accepted publically while equivalent behavior to minorities is desperately frowned upon.
I’m not advocating we start squinting, or beating up on minorities NO! I am a minority myself let's keep that in mind, even though you'd have to check my passport to prove it.
But what I am saying is that if your child/little brother or sister came up to you tonight, did that same gesture with his or her hands and said something that that media would consider appallingly racist, I highly doubt you could hold yourself back from laughing and finding it all just too cute and would instead publically string up the kid and accuse him or her of racism.
But now because these are older men we can’t giggle in that same way anymore as we are much more concerned with displaying a public PC and accepting profile, until that is we get behind closed doors and make fun of our local chinese food vendor's accent.
This ad wasn’t in any particular way malice or cruel, that is beyond obvious and is clear even in the statements of the Spanish players themselves. It is us who have allowed it to be viewed that way instead of making it out into what it really is; a silly, not funny, joke.
The Nik