February 5, 2005

"...Tai Kwon Dodos, Attack!!!..."

 

         - Battle Cry of the Dodos,

           just before they chase the Last

           Melon over the cliff, from the animated

           feature "Ice Age"

 

 

 

To All,

     At times it seems that the path of evolution leads to a dead end, when it comes to Preservationists and their pet hypotheses:

 

 

The Heirs of Scrat:

     AP writer Michelle Morgante is reporting over at the San Jose Mercury News' website about yesterday's California State Fish and Game Commission vote on a petition to ban lead-based hunting ammunition in California.

 

    In two 3-1 votes, with only Fish and Game Commissioner Bob Hattoy voting for the petitioners, the Commissioners rejected the requests by the Center for Biological Diversity that were introduced over the recent holiday period.

 

    If all will remember, the petitions asked the Commission to ban hunting ammunition containing lead statewide, while asking for an emergency (read immediate) ban of lead ammunition in the various counties that could be considered the "home range" of condor. Both petitions were effectively rejected for what amounts to a lack of scientific evidence that lead ammunition is the sole source of lead responsible for a negative impact on protected condors.

 

    Given the wide ranging habits of the condors, large areas of the state faced an immediate ban on the use of lead hunting ammunition had the commissioners agreed with the petitioners.

 

     Recent coverage of the condor-lead issue has noted the propensity of condors to consume, among other things, garbage and other odds and ends found on the ground. Condor chicks have died due to garbage ingestion over recent years, yet scientists such as Michael Fry, of UC Davis, seem to discount these other forms of lead and heavy metals found in the environment as the potential culprit (Lead wheel weights that have come off of cars, commonly used for balancing, seem to have been overlooked in recent studies.).

 

     Fry also rejects publicly any comparison of lead ingestion by other raptors and condors as not applicable. Marsh hawks were noted in Ms. Morgante's article as not being as threatened, due to the propensity of these more modern raptors to "cast" pellets of indigestible material. (Additional comparisons of condors to turkey vultures, who presumably compete for the same food sources as condors, were not noted in the article.).

 

     Of course, things do not end with this commission hearing. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the Center for Biological Diversity and the other co-petitioners will file a lawsuit in Federal court attempting a lead ammunition ban by judicial fiat.

 

     But this "federalization" of the condor-lead issue has the potential to backfire on the petitioners, since it will most likely bring about responses by interested parties as to the efficacy of the condor rehabilitation effort nationwide. Issues such as the afore-mentioned propensity of condors to consume garbage, or other behavior traits such as landing on power towers or running into wind mills, will have to be taken into account as to the long term survivability of the condor in the modern age and whether further efforts to "restore" the condor without additional study are worthwhile.

 

     Likewise the potential ability of the condor to effect "taking" of private land will have to be taken into account, given  revelations that condors have been tracked by GPS systems over wider and wider areas of the American West. Ranchers, farmers, and other landowners have already born the brunt of environmentalist efforts to appropriate their property without benefit of compensation. Further confiscatory inroads through "critter" listing will only engender greater opposition to restoration efforts in general, at a time when certain valid efforts are showing progress.

 

   Lastly, the "spotlight" of truth will end up focused on the Center for Biological Diversity and it's allies should any action proceed to the courts. Given the recent jury verdict awarding some $600,000.00 to a rancher libeled by the Center, their credibility (or lack of it) may become a key point in any representations that they may make in judicial proceedings. In turn, their allies in the condor-lead effort might find themselves in the same ethically-challenged category as the Center, given the likelihood of interested parties making sure that evidentiary record on condors has more information in it than some press releases from Tucson and one study from UC Davis.

 

     Firearms rights activists, among a host of others, will need to remain vigilant over the next few months over this issue. But in the meantime, they and all others who petitioned the Fish and Game Commission to reject the petition to ban lead ammunition have much to be proud of in the recent effort. And, of course, activists should make it known to the Commissioners that voted for better science on the issue that their efforts and consideration are greatly appreciated. It only takes a minute to write the Fish and Game Commission and express appreciation for their efforts.

 

     The Fish and Game Commission can be contacted at:

 

            Robert Treanor, Executive Director

            California Fish & Game Commission

            1416 Ninth Street

            P.O. Box 944209

            Sacramento, CA  94244-2090

 

            Phone #  (916) 653-4899

 

            FAX # (916) 653-5040

 

            Email at: rtreanor@dfg.ca.gov

                            or

                          fgc@dfg.ca.gov

 

 

Story can be found at:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/
breaking_news/10821247.htm

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/
10814873.htm

 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005/02/03/919492-cp.html

 

 

 

In Case Of War, Break Glass:

     The talk shows and Blogosphere are all a-twitter about the recent comments by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, USMC, concerning combat in Afghanistan.

 

    In a recent appearance in public, the commander that some have called a "Marine's Marine" was quoted as saying:

 

     "...Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of

         a hoot....you go into Afghanistan, you got guys who

         slap women around for five years because they

         didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no

         manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to

         shoot them...".

 

     Naturally, certain politically correct individuals (such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations) have taken umbrage at the general's public comments.

 

     But a deeper analysis of the general's statements indicate greater forethought than what is currently be ascribed by the general's critics.

 

     Many are familiar with the traditional concepts of an "officer and a gentleman" that require chivalry towards women. But in the modern era, that chivalry is compounded by the feminist concept that domestic abuse towards women is unacceptable under any circumstances, cultural relativism notwithstanding.

 

    As such, it is not hard for the average American to imagine how any dedicated Modern Marine would deal with the sight of women being oppressed by chauvinists from another land. Add to that their involvement in a guerrilla war that would give aid and comfort to the Islamo-fascist enemy, and it is easy to see how Gen. Mattis would prefer peep sights over more personable forms of persuasion.

 

    This, in turn, leaves the General's critics on the wrong side of human rights as well as being in support of a concept (the subservience of women) long since made obsolete in the U.S. by the 19th Amendment.

 

     As such, this leaves them discredited in the public eye, where one begins to wonder whether their defense of the indefensible is the harbinger of darker things. It is all well and good to be tolerant of other peoples and customs. But it is certain that large numbers of American Citizens-cum-voters would take it personally should public figures countenance a return to the 12th Century where gender-based suffrage is concerned. Perhaps it is time for CAIR and it's supporters in the Legacy Media to re-evaluate their stands against equality, and perhaps take a public position in opposition to the unequal treatment of women in the future. Otherwise, they will lose what little credibility they have left.

 

Story may be found at:

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView
&id=1425&theType=NR

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/
20050204-9999-1n4marine.html

 

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104
&article=26996

 

 

 

Hell Has Frozen Over Update:

     It seems that the Prince of Darkness (Satan, not George Soros) better have laid in a good supply of LaCrosse boots this winter, what with the recent editorial that was found yesterday in the Los Angeles Times.

 

    It seems that the very editorial section that gives succor to Robert Scheer and Arianna Huffington is yielding to fairness by noting the success of the White House's outreach to the African-American community and, more specifically, African-American ministers and churches.

 

    In fact, the Times' Editors apparently even think that it is a good thing that some prominent African-Americans are "hedging their bets" by having dealings with the Republican Party. The Times Editors note-

 

    "...Black leaders engaged in dialogue with both parties

        will only give their constituents greater political clout,

        which they desperately need...".

 

     How African Americans (versus the NAALCP and the Black Caucus in the Congress) could need greater clout under President Bush remains a topic of controversy. While at the same time that President Bush had trouble cracking the 10% barrier (only 10% of African Americans voted for President Bush in the recent election), he has also put highly qualified African Americans in some of the top levels of the Cabinet ( Colin Powell and, now, Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State, Rodney Page as Secretary of Education).

 

     But it also is clear that African Americans are noticing the differences between President Bush and his predecessor, when it comes for the rubber to meet the road. Something is truly blowing in the wind when Juan Williams, of the Fox News Panel, takes issue with fringe Democrat opposition to Condoleeza Rice's nomination last week. Whether this will lead to a wholesale shift in political identification, at the expense of the lockstep fealty to the heirs of Henry Wallace, will depend upon the African American community's acceptance of the standard principles of political pragmatism.

 

      After all, for the next two years the Congress will be under Republican control. Political largesse, such as it is, would be less likely to issue forth to those who seem to take delight in hammering the Administration time and again over slights unseen. The very grease that makes politics work, along with the acquiescence of the Times Editorial board, would seemingly indicate that it is time for yet another proven political maxim to take effect-

 

     "...When you can't beat 'em, join 'em..."

 

 

Warning- Please use gloves when handling cryogenic materials such as the Times Editorial, which may be found at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-blacks4feb04,
0,1000305.story

 

 

Common Ground:

     Bob Cusack and Elizabeth Fulk write at HillNews.com about the positions of DNC-Chair-Apparent Howard Dean and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on the issue of gun control.

 

     It seems that both men represent a more mainstream wing of the Democrat Party, one where there is a realization that the people want firearms for a variety of lawful purposes.

 

     In the case of Howard Dean, it even seems that he has the "right sort" of opponents, when gun issues are the topic of the day. Cusack and Fulk note that no less an "august body" as the Brady Bunch "...lambasted Dean for saying the issue of guns crossing state borders had been resolved. The group said the remark was ' totally untrue and unsupportable.' The group last year said it did not support Dean because ' he has chosen to run to the right of the Democratic Party on gun issues'...".

 

     Cusack and Fulk even point out that gun control advocates were "heartened" in 2004 when Dean's bid for president "crumbled" after the scream heard round the talk radio circuit.

 

     In essence, it would seem that key Democrats are adapting to the political and philosophical realities in the America of today. The very party that has made it it's business to fight for self-determination and choice may be finally adding self-defense and the choice as to the technological means to do so to it's world view. What is more, these Democrats are, in the case of Reid and Dean, in important leadership positions in the Party of Jackson and FDR.

 

     This is not to say that firearms activists should reduce their vigilance on Second Amendment issues. But it would seem that common ground found between firearms activists and former left-of-center "opponents" might involve such issues as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, along with the general issues related to private property takings. Given that it was a short decade ago when Fringe Democrats led the charge to confiscate firearms on a national scale, the current progress is thus quite heartening to behold. If such coalitions can be built and maintained, it might just be that the historical goals of firearms rights activists might be in the offing. With help and concurrence of reasonable Democrats, the perpetuation of the individual right to keep and bear arms might be attainable in our lifetime.

 

Story may be found at:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/
News/Frontpage/020305/gun.html

 

 

Respectfully,