|
 |
 Copyright ©2003-2008 Anthony Canales |
|
 Anthony Canales is the President of the San Fernando Valley NRA Member’s Council. He works as a Quality Control Manager in Glendale, California. He is married with one son. The opinions expressed in 'News Briefs' belong soley to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Rifle Association of America or the NRA Members' Councils of California. |
|
Home
03-20-2008
12-31-2007 |
|
May 24, 2005 "...Scene 21:
ARTHUR: ' Then we'd best leave them here and carry on on foot. Dis-mount! ' TIM: ' Behold the cave of Caerbannog! ' ARTHUR: ' Right! Keep me covered. ' Squire: ' What with? ' ARTHUR: ' Just keep me covered. ' TIM: '
Too late! '
-Part of Scene 21 from the film, "Monty Python and The Holy Grail", where a revisionist version of Arthur has a tougher time dealing with Lagomorpha than a certain President from Plains.
To All, Don't you just love it when a few U.S. Senators try their hand at film remakes? :
Run Away, Run Awaaayyy!: In popular music it is said that fish gotta swim, and birds gotta fly. So it should surprise no one that Senate "centrists" would sell out all principles but those that would preserve personal privilege. As such, last night's "Deal of The Century" on the Democrat's judicial filibuster was just about as predictable as the moon and the tides (or at least the vote tallies in Barnstable County, Massachusetts).
But the results of the agreement signed will reverberate across the political spectrum for months to come.
For example, the Democrat leadership is going to have to somehow persuade pro-abortion activists that they were going to lose the vote on cloture if they intend to stay in Nan Aaron's and Ralph Neas' good graces. (Buena suerte.).
Likewise the Republican leadership is going to have convince conservatives (Even the normally centrist Hugh Hewitt has shown more than a bit of reservation over a deal largely brokered by John McCain) that all of the moderates needed to hold the Republican Majority were going to bolt from the fold despite all admonishments. (Easier to prove given past history, but infuriating nonetheless.).
Given that neither base will accept this kind of "splaining" on so critical an issue for long, the two leadership groups will most likely begin touting that what was gotten for the deal was the best possible outcome for it's side (What is known in the business as "half a loaf is better than none"). Since this kind of deal-making tends to sell best with the "corporate" donors so prized by each party, business as usual (to paraphrase Senator Lindsey Graham) will continue for the foreseeable future.
Now, while it may be a bit early to figure on all the winners and losers, a "first slice" review might allow for the following-
WINNER- President Bush, who has just gotten six important judicial nominees past a four year bottleneck.
WINNER- Senate Republican Political Capital Account, which is being replenished at a time when it faces a large draw-down over possible future Supreme Court nominees ( What some could call the "reasonable- ness" factor).
WINNER- Senate Democrat tactic of filibustering opposition judges, thus largely preserving the current activist bent of the Federal Judiciary and maximizing their ability to influence the country under the current electoral circumstances.
WINNER- Lamestream Media, who can still overawe, cajole, and otherwise seduce Seasoned Solons despite a record of late that includes Rathergate, the collective works of the New York Times, and Newsday's own sensitivity found in it's coverage of religion.
LOSER- John McCain. The Republican base, so important in Presidential Primaries, will never forgive him. Maybe the Reform Party will have him.
LOSER- Ben Nelson. When (not if) Harry Reid and the Senate Liberals filibuster the next judicial nominee not covered by the Agreement, the payback in 2006 is going to be "expensive" in the least.
LOSER- The Federal Judiciary. Positions in the Appellate Courts will go unfilled, which means a bogged down system and a workload for judges that would choke Secretariat. In addition, a judiciary so independent as to defy being held accountable to the people in a democratic republic is just asking for it (electoral reform, that is.).
LOSER, HONORABLE MENTION- Senator Susan Collins, deal signatory- Perhaps Portsmouth Naval Shipyard can be converted into some kind of summertime water ride, once the BRAC committees have their say.
Senator Joe Lieberman, deal signatory- Ditto, for the sub school at Groton.
As all parties involved leak what they thought the "intent" of the dealmakers was, a clearer picture of the agreement's limits will be available for activists eventually. Given that time will be needed to study the full implications of the deal, it is best that one does not resort to that "Holy Hand Grenade" of politics that is otherwise known as a revolt of the base. Stay tuned.
Story link may be found at: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050524/D8A99NOG0.html
Push Me, Pull You: It seems that Illinois' Governor Blagojevich has an interesting choice to make in the near future, if the reporting in the Chicago Sun-Times is accurate.
Recent actions by Pro-Second Amendment legislators in the Illinois Legislature has produced a bill that would accept the burden of back-round checks at gun shows for a reduction of the time that Illinois police officials can "hang on" to gun records (The new legislation calls for firearms sales records to be destroyed after 90 days, rather than go into Mayor Daley's "Sue 'Em 'Til They Go Broke" filing cabinet.).
But the dilemma is that Blagojevich is warning that he will veto the legislation, despite the probability of pro-gun forces coming up with enough votes to over-ride his little red pencil. It seems that he prizes a database that can be used as a party favor to The Boys in Chicago more than regulating private party transfers by law-abiding citizens.
Now, it is well known that Blagojevich is having troubles of late (20% approval ratings are nothing to sneeze at.). But it should be no mystery as to why he is in the tank (literally) when he is more focused on harassing hunters and law-abiding gun-owners than, for example, enforcing transparent governmental contracting procedures in the Windy City. Perhaps he is best advised to just fold his hand after this latest "check-raise" by the firearms rights movement. Otherwise, he might just find himself going home in dressed only in a rain barrel and a smile in the near future.
Story link may be found at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits22.html#
Ya Think?: Observation of The Year kudos goes to Bill Gertz in a recent "Inside The Ring" column found at gertzfile.com.
In an item on the activities of those trying to raise funds to purchase long-range shooting gear for American troops in Iraq and Pakistan, Gertz quotes Brian Sain of Americansniper.org on the following:
"...'The military is finding its troops are experienced in using armored convoys but lack knowledge about using snipers against insurgents'...he said. ' In a war, you need people that know how to shoot'...".
Now, if only that sentiment could be properly absorbed by the gun control movement, then the long range shooting movement could be safeguarded for the foreseeable future.
Story may be found at: http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/InsidetheRing.html
Picking and Choosing: Early in January of 2005, California's hunters were confronted with the specter of a ban on traditional lead ammunition for the sake of safeguarding the recovery of the California Condor. Only an intense lobbying effort by the state's hunters and firearms activists halted a precipitous ban concocted by the professional environmentalist movement.
Likewise San Francisco's electrical power customers face the possibility of future electrical shortages should an environmentalist lawsuit close down a host of Altamont wind generators over the deaths of eagles and hawks. Like hunters, the citizens of San Francisco will have to join the political process if they wish to avoid a severe diminishment of their lifestyle.
The key link between the two cases lies in the presentation by environmental activists that even the harm to a few protected local birds is too much, let alone the threat to migratory populations of other Federally-protected raptors. Key activities such as hunting, target shooting, and electrical power generation are to take a back seat to species protection, no matter the cost, practicality, and prognosis of long-term success.
But in a Los Angeles Times article of May 22, 2005, writer Marla Cone reports that the recovery effort for bald eagles on Santa Catalina is running up against a brick wall made up of a combination of competing animal and habitat restoration projects that don't have the money and manpower assets needed to help insure the Catalina eagle recovery effort. A draft governmental report recommending the termination of the eagle recovery effort is being proposed, given the low probability of a success measured in the ability to remove an estimated 100 tons of DDT from the sea floor as well as the ability to eliminate the need for human intervention in the eagle's existence.
Cone notes that the primary cost driver for the eagle recovery effort is the presence of DDT on an ocean floor dump site off of Palos Verdes that dates back to the 1940's. Fish that are contaminated with DDT are allegedly finding their way into the eagle's diet, casting negative prospects on the ability of the eagles to reproduce without massive human intervention. (Cone does not explain how bottom fish are getting close enough to the surface to be caught by eagles, nor how fish that exist at shallower depths are becoming contaminated from DDT on the ocean's floor. Cone does note that the human intervention in the Catalina eagles case extends to eggs being removed from nests and relocated to facilities in San Francisco.).
Interestingly enough, environmental scientists and groups are divided on the value of the Catalina eagle recovery effort. University scientists are on both sides of the draft plan, and even such groups as Santa Monica's "Heal The Bay" are speaking of only supporting those recovery efforts that have a high probability of success. Otherwise, there is the intimation that settlement funds previously adjudicated for the eagle recovery should be diverted instead to other efforts.
If all will remember, the environmentalist movement vociferously opposed the Bush Administration's re-introduction of cost-benefit analysis on environmental remediation proposals during the 2000 and 2004 Election cycles. And as noted before, they tried to ban ammunition despite the negative cost-benefit of the condor program .Yet in 2005, they are trying to redirect environmental settlement funds to more "promising" efforts using (what else?), cost benefit analysis.
It does not matter whether one ascribes truly sinister attributes to the environmental movement, or just some of the individuals within the movement itself. Nor does it matter if it was only "accidental, but with good intentions" that the Green Movement generates the kinds of unintended consequences that we are seeing with these particular efforts. But what does matter is that there is such a track record from the environmentalist movement so as to justify a healthy skepticism when they "cry wolf" in the future. This would, deservedly so, extend to environmentalist opposition to the Endangered Species Act reforms being proposed by Congressman Richard Pombo. Without meaningful reform of the ESA, the chances of further misuse of environmental recovery efforts may threaten hunters and firearms owners again in the future. Stay tuned.
Story may be found at:
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales SFVMC-NRA
Copyright 2005 Anthony Canales All rights reserved. |
|
