Entries Tagged 'Idaho' ↓

I approve. (Go Vandals!)

Customer: “Bill says hi.”

Me: “Oh… Wait, which Bill?”

Customer: “He said to tell you, ‘The family that shoots together… has intersecting fields of fire.’”

Me: “Ooooh, THAT Bill!”

Hi, Bill. :)

They’re doing a local “best of” contest, which the sister’s delicious, open-carry-friendly BBQ joint is in.

Because y’all love me, food, and freedom, go here:

http://dnewscontests.com/

Register. (Yeah, I know, it’s annoying.) Navigate to the “Best BBQ” category. Vote for CD’s Smoke Pit. Repeat daily until June 10th.

If awesomeness isn’t enough of a motivator, you can join with me in voting out of annoyance. For some inexplicable reason, CD’s wasn’t included in any of the other categories (like best sandwich/lunch/family restaurant), and their “competition” in the BBQ category is Hawaiian BBQ. Like, a plate lunch kinda place. If that’s BBQ, they should have included Mongolian BBQ in the same category, because their idea of BBQ is effed.

I dunno if you guys have been following this or not, but we’re getting ever-closer to legitimized campus carry in Idaho. As I’ve been stupid-busy on campus (and building a chicken coop and visiting eastern Montana and finishing up ground school and studying for my FAA written exam and… and… and…), I’ve been sucking at keeping up with blogging about it. Thus, I defer to Joe with the latest.

Via The Inconvenience:

GRANGEVILL, Idaho (AP) – A northern Idaho sheriff says he is not advocating the illegal shooting of federally protected wolves by offering a hunting rifle and a shovel as the prize in a raffle called “.308 SSS Wolf Pack Raffle” in a region where SSS commonly stands for “shoot, shovel and shut up.”

Idaho County Sheriff Doug Giddings tells the Lewiston Tribune that the SSS in the raffle stands for “safety, security and survival.” — Read the rest here

A. It’s Grangeville.

B. I haven’t seen a wink-wink, nudge-nudge situation that epic since Monty Python. SAY NO MORE!

C. I gave them a call, and anyone interested in buying tickets can send a request by mail. They WILL ship the rifle to your FFL if you are out of the area. (Obviously it needs to be legal in your jurisdiction and all that.)

Include your name, address, phone number, number of tickets requested, and your payment (I think she said check or money order). They are $1 each or 11 for $10.

Idaho County Sheriff
320 West Main Street
Grangeville, ID 83530

Phone 208-983-1100

If you don’t want to go directly to them, for some reason, shoot me an email (laurel at politicsgunsandbeer dot com)  and I can probably pick tickets up for you within the next month or so. I believe the raffle ends at the beginning of March.

Uncle’s expectations are low.

So are mine, though his post just helped me put a finger on our exact problem right now:

…OR WHAT?

The Democrats screwed the pooch, so they got thrown out, and Republicans were the default to fill the void. We’re all shaking our fingers and telling the Republicans to beware… OR WHAT?

We oust them and go back to Democrats? (Oh, grrrrreat idea.) Vote in more “tea party” flavored Republicans? (I don’t really see that as an option unless they at the very least refuse to caucus with all the other Republicans… else, they’re just part of the Big-R problem.)

We… what?

WHAT, exactly, are we going to do?

I’m not throwing my hands up in despair, I’m saying whatever happens two years from now begins today. Many of you believe there is still a difference to be made through the standard voting process. Fair enough, but what’s the game plan if the Republicans screw up, because they probably will?

You know, the Democrats are probably secretly thrilled with this outcome. Sure, they might sacrifice some of their guys for two years, but if the Republicans blow it, they get to keep Hopey Changey for four more. And probably get both houses back.

So. Yeah. Plan?

P.S. Also from the School of Getting It: Robb.

Hank Rearden spoke with me this morning, just in time to save me from Choose Your Own Tyrant Day. (Hat-tip to The Inconvenience for that bit of wit.)

“Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?”

“Yes.”

“I volunteer nothing.”

“But the law demands that the defendant’s side be represented on the record.”

“Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?”

“Well, no…yes…that is, to complete the form.”

“I will not help you.”

The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor, snapped impatiently, “This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a–” He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.

“I want,” said Rearden gravely, “to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it–I will not help you.”

“But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself–and it is you who are rejecting it.”

“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognized. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”

“But the law compels you to volunteer a defense!”

There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.

“That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen,” said Rearden gravely, “and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition–which you cannot force–that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there–I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine–I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me–use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action.”

I checked my premises, and decided against offering my vote of confidence to a system that is inherently corrupt and immoral. I do not believe I have to buy into said system so I have some right to “complain.” In fact, I think the population has been sold that idea exactly so they will accept the system as it is. We are told there is some inherent value in earning your participation points, and that questioning exactly what you’re participating in is somehow an affront to those who have worn a uniform.

We have universal suffrage, which demands no intelligence, literacy, or knowledge of the political process, much less that those with the power to shape the government be producers. You (I have now learned) can even vote for a slate of candidates simply by selecting a party, without even knowing the names or positions of the individuals you vote for.

Voting has become a national religion, something sold to people as their “responsibility”  and “right.” It’s a participation sport, the congratulatory ribbons for which are “I Voted!” stickers and badges on Facebook. It’s exalted as the highest, purest form of attempting to effect political change by people who don’t invest an ounce of thought or energy beyond reading a sample ballot the evening of the first Monday in November.

We have the belief that, through voting, our voice is being heard. How is my voice being heard if the ideas I cherish are defeated, and those I abhor prevail? How have I accomplished anything other than giving my consent to being ruled, potentially by someone my ideological opposite?

Well, I do not consent, and that is my vote.

…you have no right to bitch about me not voting if you don’t watch this episode of South Park.

Seriously, though. Let me explain in as plain, and emotion-free language as possible why I think non-voting can be a valid course of action.

I have one issue that is a guaranteed litmus test for a candidate: Gun rights. Shocking, I know. If a candidate is anti-gun, there is absolutely no chance of me voting for them, whatsoever.

Being pro-gun does not guarantee my vote, though, because I have a lot of other rights I hold near and dear: Like my right to free speech. Or, freedom of association. Freedom both of religion and from religion. My right not to have my door kicked down and my property searched and seized for no good reason. My right to the fruits of my labor.

There are even some rights I might not personally exercise that I believe others should have, like the right to have a romantic relationship with the person of your choosing, without the state having the ability to issue discriminatory contracts on the basis of that romantic relationship. Or, the right of able-bodied, sound-minded individuals to serve in uniform, and not to have to lie about their personal lives in the process. I think you have the right to put into your body, or take out of it, whatever you wish, so long as you don’t harm other non-consenting individuals in the process.

I’m not willing to give up the rights I might not personally exercise so that I can keep the ones I do, because that’s a really, really bad precedent to set. (First they came for…) And I’m certainly not willing to give up some of my rights in favor of my other rights.

If you laid out the individual portions of a candidate’s platform as referendums, rather than as part of a “representative” package, how would you vote on each? At what point do you decide it’s okay to, effectively, change your vote for the sake of other issues in question?

Sometimes, there are issues that don’t exactly involve fundamental civil liberties, and I’m able to hold my nose and vote for a candidate I disagree with in part so long as they’re where I want them on civil liberties. However, I won’t cast a compromised vote on freedom. I just won’t do it. I am not willing to watch a freedom I cherish going down the drain and know I actively did something to help it along. I think it’s a sick, sad thing when we see it as noble and proper to offer up liberties as sacrificial lambs because heaven forbid we don’t exercise a different “right” (to vote).

So, if both of the major candidates are civil liberties failures, what are my options?
1. Vote third party.
2. Write someone in.
3. Don’t vote.

#1 and #2 are certainly options (and I’ve done both), but, well, let’s be pragmatic about it: They’re usually not gonna win. Yeah, yeah, “They’ll never win if people like you keep not voting for them!” Actually, they’ll never win unless they figure out how to run with the big dogs. They’ll never win until they find some big money and learn to campaign. Again, pragmatically, they’ll probably never actually win until we hit the reset button or otherwise get rid of the parties as we know them, because they have a monopoly on our political system. Don’t believe me? Take a look at your local “Tea Party” candidates. They’re all fired up to change the Washington status quo – with a big R next to their names! Have you seen any indication third-party ideas are actually impacting (or frightening) the party elite in any appreciable way, aside from causing them to provide enough lip service for people to be deluded into thinking they’re making a difference?

When it comes to writing in- heck, I found out here that they don’t even release who all was written in unless they get something like 100 votes. While I’m sure your vote for John Galt sure made an impression on the person counting votes (sarcasm), it actually accomplished nothing other than adding your warm body to the voter turnout, and that is a very bad thing. The last thing I want is for the Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich to be able to claim a mandate because a fantastic 78% of people turned out to vote, and therefore the people have spoken!

I have talked about this before, and I say it again: Until we get a “None of the Above” on the ballot, I can’t get behind the idea of showing up to vote just for the sake of showing up to vote. Have you ever heard a newly-elected official say, “Hey, folks, I know you only voted for me because I sucked slightly less than the other guy, so I’ll try to not let you down” or “I know my position on [Issue X] is not popular amongst my voters, so rather than having tens of thousands of constituents go without representation on that issue, I’ll change MY position.”? No, they are either so stupid or so evil as to behave as if every vote cast for them was cast by a 100% devoted fan. Both parties know they can get away with producing utter shit for candidates, and people will turn out to vote for two reasons: A) They’re convinced their party is inherently better than the other party (lesser evil), regardless of how much the actual candidate in question sucks, and B) Someone tells them they better vote because someone fought for their right to do it, or something equally guilt-trippy.

Well, sorry, folks. I know the Democrats are very bad news, but Republicans also scare the bejeezus out of me, so there’s no inherent value in the equation for me. And as to the other bit, I get really, really mad about people using the military to advance their agenda, especially when it involves some other guy’s service. I don’t claim to speak for those who have served, and really wish others wouldn’t, either.

I did ask The Inconvenience how he feels about the “you should vote because someone sacrificed for it” thing, though. He pointed out that it’s kinda like the idea that he fought for your freedom of religion–just because that’s true doesn’t mean people aren’t free to be atheists. The idea is that those who fight for liberty fight for your right to make choices, and that doesn’t just mean the choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. You’re free to vote for neither, too.

In case it isn’t perfectly clear, none of what I’m saying applies to apathy. I’m talking about reaching the conclusion not to vote after research and thought. Furthermore, if there is even one candidate or referendum issue you can truly support, then yes – you should go vote! If you choose to leave blank, vote third party or write-in on all the other races, it’s irrelevant to me. I just think showing up to vote just to engage in the act of voting is missing the mark, and frankly counterproductive.

I will be voting this year. We have four referendum issues on the ballot tomorrow, which I will vote yes or no on. I also intend to vote for Walt Minnick as my representative. Yes, I’m bad at national politics, because I’m voting for someone who actually (more or less) represents what I believe, instead of voting based on national power balance games or what have you. Sorry. I haven’t yet decided what I’ll do for all the other races.

If you haven’t informed yourself about what you have the opportunity to vote on tomorrow, you should. If you have informed yourself and find the best thing you can do is abstain, you won’t find any criticism here. If you have informed yourself and have found candidates or issues you can truly support, congratulations: You’re in the minority, and you’re fortunate. Enjoy it.

I’ve had a couple emails wondering why I’m being so quiet about politics. The truth is, I’m just pissed off across the board, and if it weren’t for Walt Minnick I wouldn’t be going to the polls at all.

Remember that Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich episode of South Park? Yet another election is shaping up to be just that. We have the Obama Cheer Squad in one corner, and the Knee Jerk Reaction in the other. Oh, yay. I can hardly wait to choose between social and economic freedoms, yet again.

I’m not gay, in case you missed that memo. None of my closest friends are gay, at least not that I know of. Gay rights really do not affect my daily life. However, on principle, I will not throw homosexuals under the bus for the sake of the rights I do exercise on a daily basis. I will not participate in systematic bigotry under the guise of “family values.” If your family values are so flimsy as to require the support of a government as corrupt as ours, you have way bigger problems than you want to admit. What kind of faith is found at the point of a sword?

Anyway, I will not get behind bullshit “Tea Party” candidates who profess to stand for liberty while crying for MOAR WAR ON DRUGS! and LESS GHEYS! because heaven forbid Joe smokes a bowl instead of drinking a fifth of Idaho Silver, or our kids learn that Janie has two momies at their public school. Waaait just a sec, Mr. Tea Party – shouldn’t you be more worried about getting our kids out of public school, period? Aren’t you kinda missing the big picture, here? Hmm?

*crickets*

So, hey. You can thank Raul Labrador for getting out the vote (for Minnick), with brilliance like this, on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

“Mr. Minnick’s vote is a disappointment to me, and disappointment for most Idahoans,” Labrador, a state representative from Eagle, said in a statement on his campaign website. “His vote seems especially inappropriate on Memorial Day Weekend. The Clinton Administration found a practical solution to this problem which guarded the military’s integrity. But Nancy Pelosi wanted to appease her base. I am surprised Walt Minnick chose to support her social and political agenda rather than the values of Idaho.”

Mr. Labrador: You’ve never worn a uniform, yet you think it’s proper to invoke what is or isn’t appropriate on Memorial Day to advance your agenda? You don’t speak for this Idahoan, and in fact you can kiss my freedom-loving ass.

If things completely go to hell in the next session, and Walt Minnick defects from the Blue Dogs and screws us all – which the GOP keeps insisting is going to happen – I guess you can blame me. All I know is he’s the only guy on the ballot who seems to have any grasp whatsoever on the idea of keeping the government out of my bedroom, doctor’s office, gun safe, and wallet.

You know, one of these days y’all are going to show up to find PGB has been re-named: “You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas Panama.” Is the concept of just leaving us all alone that hard to grasp?