While a waterfowl hunter and sympathetic to hunter's rights, conservation, and habit protection for wildlife, I have always been perplexed by some of deer hunting practices I see each season. I just have a few questions to pose to some in the deer hunting population, who give the rest of us who hunt a bad name:
When hunting in a ditch beside a state road, who has the right of way if a deer presents itself on the other side of the road? In other words, does a passing car have to yield to your shot?
When driving during hunting season, is it best to keep the shot gun fully loaded or with just one chambered shell in case you see a deer on the side of the road?
What is the optimal number of beers to consume before legal shooting time?
Is it possible to hunt deer without a CB radio?
When trespassing on some one's land, does a bag limit apply? Since you really aren't there legally in the first place, do all the rules fly out the window?
What in the world is a "sound shot"?
Again, when trespassing and confronted by the land owner, are you ever concerned about ceding thought leadership for your hunting practices to your dog? When informed that a deer hunter is hunting posted land, the most common answer is "my dog can't read your signs". Well, your dog can't open its own bag of dog food either, but does he decide where you are going our for dinner on Saturday nights?
How many pickup trucks rushing to the spot of a sighted deer broadcast over the CB radio does in take to constitute a demolition derby?
Do earplugs help when shooting from the cab of your pickup?
Does a deer killed spotlighting at night count against your season limit?
I know most deer hunters are good and ethical hunters who respect the outdoors and follow the rules. I know many such deer hunters. However, the small minority of hunters who road hunt, who travel with their loaded shotguns in the rack in case they see a deer, and who rarely hunt without beer really make it tough on the rest of us. If the animal rights and suburbanites who think a goose is born with a bow around its neck ever outlaw hunting, we will know who we have to thank.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Whaddaya Think?
When George Bush declared the economy "pretty good", democrat Chuck Schumer made sure he came out with the retort that the president is out of touch with real people. If the sitting president were a democrat and made the same statement about the economy, would Chuckles have made the same comment?
How long will it be before every college and high school student has an iPhone or similar device?
Is there any doubt that our republic would be better off with term limits - for everyone, congress, state legislatures, local councils? Two terms for the House, one term for the Senate.
As we stand today, does anyone have any doubt that all members of congress have this priority list 1) Get re-elected 2) Support the party line, if it does not get in the way of getting re-elected 3) Get federal money for the district/state so they can get re-elected?
Since Iran has supposedly shut down its nuclear enrichment program, how long will it take before George Bush gets the media "high-five" for stopping this dangerous activity?
Two years ago the press was aghast about the lack of affordable housing. Now the housing market is correcting and home prices in many places have fallen. Guess what the press is? Aghast.
How long will it be before every college and high school student has an iPhone or similar device?
Is there any doubt that our republic would be better off with term limits - for everyone, congress, state legislatures, local councils? Two terms for the House, one term for the Senate.
As we stand today, does anyone have any doubt that all members of congress have this priority list 1) Get re-elected 2) Support the party line, if it does not get in the way of getting re-elected 3) Get federal money for the district/state so they can get re-elected?
Since Iran has supposedly shut down its nuclear enrichment program, how long will it take before George Bush gets the media "high-five" for stopping this dangerous activity?
Two years ago the press was aghast about the lack of affordable housing. Now the housing market is correcting and home prices in many places have fallen. Guess what the press is? Aghast.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Okay, I admit it...I watch"The Hills"
So let's get the cat out of the bag early...MTV was pretty new when I was in college. I know there are many walking the planet today who cannot imagine life before MTV, but such was the reality once upon a time, and shockingly we muddled through. I started watching MTV in college, and like a lot of things in college, like drinking too much once in a while, it just sort of stuck. I am not sure there are too many people my age that still watch MTV, but I do on occasion. I realize from the advertisements on MTV that I am far removed from the target audience. I don't need acne medicine, I don't use TAG body spray, and thankfully it has been many years since I have had to wear a condom.
As I learned many years ago, nothing is ever totally worthless, because it can always serve as a bad example. Watching "The Hills" the past couple of years, like the slow motion train wreck that grabs your attention and won't let go, I have learned several things and recognized that bad examples abound on popular culture. I know that just because you are good looking doesn't mean you have anything of substance to offer anyone or to society at large. This applies to both males and females. I have learned that males on "The Hills", and possibly many males in LA, have a limited command of the English language. They rarely speak in complete sentences with subjects and predicates and they rarely convey thoughts beyond single word answers to posed questions. They also wear wool stocking caps in Southern California during the day time. Isn't part of the allure of Southern California the fact that you can leave your woolly caps in the closet year round? Maybe sweating heads is a fashion statement, maybe they simply forgot that they are wearing wool caps in 85 degree weather, or they forgot to take them off their heads 5 years ago when they arrived in LA from Northern New England. I have concluded that the male characters on "The Hills" must be dumber than the average dolphin...not intending to slight the intelligence of dolphins.
Therefore it is a complete mystery to me, why the girls on "The Hills" spend time with these guys. Okay some of the relationships I can figure out. For those who saw Forrest Gump...Stupid is and Stupid does. If there is any doubt that I can haul the mail with respect to my acumen of "The Hills" I am getting ready to blow that out of the water. I can understand why Audrina dates guys like Justin Bobby...any questions there? Justin, the fake hard-ass who probably couldn't throw a football past his shadow and likely has no clue what hand his baseball glove goes on as a righthander. Let's just make this clear, the only person I have seen on television dumber than Audrina is Justin. At first I liked Audrina, I thought she was good to Lauren after the Heidi debacle. However the way she let herself be completely manipulated by someone as obtuse as Justin is beyond comprehension. The most creative deflection he could think of when he got busted making out with the redhead in front of his pseudo girlfriend was "you just see what you want to see". What is he talking about? Uhhh, okay Justin, what is your plan-B to get out of this jam. Thankfully Audrina sent him packing back to the hair salon where he works. Next up? Jason. Why would someone cute, seemingly bright, and as genuine as one can be on "The Hills" waste their time chasing Jason? Lauren seems to have a lot going for her. She is an intern who drives a $ 60K car, so something must be going right for her. She wasted how many years chasing Jason, who mastered his lines of "Huh?" and "I don't know" better than anyone in television history. Does this make any sense? I thought Heidi was going to be a good character and seemed to be a good friend to Lauren, until she met Spencer, whereupon she dumped her entire life for a guy who wants to fill his dining room with arcade games. I am not sure Spencer is smart enough to play the arcade games however, since they sat unused in the dining room the entire season. He could have had his friends over to play them, or show them how they worked, but he has no friends....but he does have a beach house...or mommy and daddy have a beach house. Remember when Heidi stabbed her friend in the back to get promoted and then asked her to transfer all the contacts from her old cell phone to her new one? That was great. Oh, and didn't she quit on the next episode? The train wreck really was in slow motion then because most people would have quit on the spot. I do like Whitney, I think she is the best of the bunch. She seems very well grounded has never been played by the morons parading around as the male characters on the show. I think she is bright and is lone admirable character on the show.
So I am totally embarrassed that I watch this show. I thought the season finale was a dud. Couldn't Heidi have started balling for us instead of standing there with a quivering lip when Spencer walked out? I have also learned that I do not want my daughters to emulate anyone on the show (okay maybe Whitney) and if they bring home a doofuss like Justin, Jason, or Spencer expect him to sit outside by himself in the cold when we have dinner together. He will finally get to make use of his woolly stocking cap that way.
As I learned many years ago, nothing is ever totally worthless, because it can always serve as a bad example. Watching "The Hills" the past couple of years, like the slow motion train wreck that grabs your attention and won't let go, I have learned several things and recognized that bad examples abound on popular culture. I know that just because you are good looking doesn't mean you have anything of substance to offer anyone or to society at large. This applies to both males and females. I have learned that males on "The Hills", and possibly many males in LA, have a limited command of the English language. They rarely speak in complete sentences with subjects and predicates and they rarely convey thoughts beyond single word answers to posed questions. They also wear wool stocking caps in Southern California during the day time. Isn't part of the allure of Southern California the fact that you can leave your woolly caps in the closet year round? Maybe sweating heads is a fashion statement, maybe they simply forgot that they are wearing wool caps in 85 degree weather, or they forgot to take them off their heads 5 years ago when they arrived in LA from Northern New England. I have concluded that the male characters on "The Hills" must be dumber than the average dolphin...not intending to slight the intelligence of dolphins.
Therefore it is a complete mystery to me, why the girls on "The Hills" spend time with these guys. Okay some of the relationships I can figure out. For those who saw Forrest Gump...Stupid is and Stupid does. If there is any doubt that I can haul the mail with respect to my acumen of "The Hills" I am getting ready to blow that out of the water. I can understand why Audrina dates guys like Justin Bobby...any questions there? Justin, the fake hard-ass who probably couldn't throw a football past his shadow and likely has no clue what hand his baseball glove goes on as a righthander. Let's just make this clear, the only person I have seen on television dumber than Audrina is Justin. At first I liked Audrina, I thought she was good to Lauren after the Heidi debacle. However the way she let herself be completely manipulated by someone as obtuse as Justin is beyond comprehension. The most creative deflection he could think of when he got busted making out with the redhead in front of his pseudo girlfriend was "you just see what you want to see". What is he talking about? Uhhh, okay Justin, what is your plan-B to get out of this jam. Thankfully Audrina sent him packing back to the hair salon where he works. Next up? Jason. Why would someone cute, seemingly bright, and as genuine as one can be on "The Hills" waste their time chasing Jason? Lauren seems to have a lot going for her. She is an intern who drives a $ 60K car, so something must be going right for her. She wasted how many years chasing Jason, who mastered his lines of "Huh?" and "I don't know" better than anyone in television history. Does this make any sense? I thought Heidi was going to be a good character and seemed to be a good friend to Lauren, until she met Spencer, whereupon she dumped her entire life for a guy who wants to fill his dining room with arcade games. I am not sure Spencer is smart enough to play the arcade games however, since they sat unused in the dining room the entire season. He could have had his friends over to play them, or show them how they worked, but he has no friends....but he does have a beach house...or mommy and daddy have a beach house. Remember when Heidi stabbed her friend in the back to get promoted and then asked her to transfer all the contacts from her old cell phone to her new one? That was great. Oh, and didn't she quit on the next episode? The train wreck really was in slow motion then because most people would have quit on the spot. I do like Whitney, I think she is the best of the bunch. She seems very well grounded has never been played by the morons parading around as the male characters on the show. I think she is bright and is lone admirable character on the show.
So I am totally embarrassed that I watch this show. I thought the season finale was a dud. Couldn't Heidi have started balling for us instead of standing there with a quivering lip when Spencer walked out? I have also learned that I do not want my daughters to emulate anyone on the show (okay maybe Whitney) and if they bring home a doofuss like Justin, Jason, or Spencer expect him to sit outside by himself in the cold when we have dinner together. He will finally get to make use of his woolly stocking cap that way.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
I Think it Comes Down to Trust, or Lack of it
I am not sure why the Dems are so enamored with raising taxes. They hope to get new taxes enacted ASAP by hoisting the populist message that their new taxes are only on "the rich".
There are several problems with this however for all of us. First, what is the hard definition of the mushy term "the rich"? Is this based on net worth? Is this based on W-2 earnings? What level is determined to be "rich" and who gets to decide? There have been proposed tax schemes in the past where rich has been defined as a household earning more than $ 200,000 per year, or $ 100,000 per year, or $ 78,000/ per year. Get the picture? Rich is a term that bends to meet the need of the argument for the specific tax increase. I can tell you that when raising a family of 3 kids, $ 100,000 and even $ 200,000 is not rich. It is a good foundation to support your family and gives you some options in education and lifestyle, but rich? Hardly.
The next problem is this; when has there been a tax, once enacted that went away, or shrank without tremendous angst and taxes hikes elsewhere so any reduction is revenue neutral? Answer, somewhere between never and rarely. The problems with increased taxes are obvious, the question I have is why, when the economic risks are so great, are the Dems willing to take these risks to increase the federal coffers?
I think it is because the Dems do not trust people and markets. They cannot fathom that the market, the aggregate of millions of people making independent decisions on a daily basis that will determine their daily state if not the long term outcome of their lives, can arrive at a state through the invisible hand that can be better than the heavy hand of government intervention. The Dems want a minimum of guaranteed success for everyone, no matter the individuals role in their own outcome. They do not trust democratic process nor capitalist free markets. Therefore, like a nosey mother who cannot cut the apron strings with her children, the Dems have to micro manage decisions for everyone, no matter how little people may want government meddling.
The Democrats have been called arrogant and elitist in their notion that they know better than the citizenry how to spend their assets produced through a lifetime of work. I think there may be an element of truth to this, but I think the larger driver is that they just do not trust the free market to allocate resources in the most efficient and just manner. This is where the democrats have left the building that our founding fathers created for all of us. They just don't trust markets and by extension they do not trust you and me and the decisions we make. The truth is that markets are "smarter" and more effective than any individual or group of leaders. If they could just learn to trust markets and trust those who exist in those markets, they might fare better at the ballot box and also leave a little more cash in the private sector...where it belongs.
There are several problems with this however for all of us. First, what is the hard definition of the mushy term "the rich"? Is this based on net worth? Is this based on W-2 earnings? What level is determined to be "rich" and who gets to decide? There have been proposed tax schemes in the past where rich has been defined as a household earning more than $ 200,000 per year, or $ 100,000 per year, or $ 78,000/ per year. Get the picture? Rich is a term that bends to meet the need of the argument for the specific tax increase. I can tell you that when raising a family of 3 kids, $ 100,000 and even $ 200,000 is not rich. It is a good foundation to support your family and gives you some options in education and lifestyle, but rich? Hardly.
The next problem is this; when has there been a tax, once enacted that went away, or shrank without tremendous angst and taxes hikes elsewhere so any reduction is revenue neutral? Answer, somewhere between never and rarely. The problems with increased taxes are obvious, the question I have is why, when the economic risks are so great, are the Dems willing to take these risks to increase the federal coffers?
I think it is because the Dems do not trust people and markets. They cannot fathom that the market, the aggregate of millions of people making independent decisions on a daily basis that will determine their daily state if not the long term outcome of their lives, can arrive at a state through the invisible hand that can be better than the heavy hand of government intervention. The Dems want a minimum of guaranteed success for everyone, no matter the individuals role in their own outcome. They do not trust democratic process nor capitalist free markets. Therefore, like a nosey mother who cannot cut the apron strings with her children, the Dems have to micro manage decisions for everyone, no matter how little people may want government meddling.
The Democrats have been called arrogant and elitist in their notion that they know better than the citizenry how to spend their assets produced through a lifetime of work. I think there may be an element of truth to this, but I think the larger driver is that they just do not trust the free market to allocate resources in the most efficient and just manner. This is where the democrats have left the building that our founding fathers created for all of us. They just don't trust markets and by extension they do not trust you and me and the decisions we make. The truth is that markets are "smarter" and more effective than any individual or group of leaders. If they could just learn to trust markets and trust those who exist in those markets, they might fare better at the ballot box and also leave a little more cash in the private sector...where it belongs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)