05 December 2012

Forget the GOP

No, I don’t mean I’m ready to abandon the Republican Party in favor of the Libertarian or any other party, or none at all. I’m referring to the 2012 election post-mortems that so many pundits, political operatives, and people on Twitter (but I repeat myself) have engaged in over the last few weeks.

I believe that the message of freedom and fiscal responsibility is the right message. I believe that some (all) of the messengers are imperfect, but that is not the chief reason Democrats won the lion’s share of major elections this year.

I believe that the century or more of Marxist influence has born its bitter fruit. There are now simply too many people who were never taught to do what is right, or worse, were taught that what is right is evil.

It has taken a century because parents do love their children, and try to teach them to do right. The counter-culture of the 1960s and ’70s really exemplifies the other side, the ones who said things like “Don’t trust anybody over 30,” and “Question authority.” This kind of thing was actively promoted in the universities, and the products of those times became teachers of younger children.

I have a draft post started where I put forth the idea that collectivism has its roots in self-loathing, but it seems more likely to me now that the prevalence of the attitude that society, or government, and not individuals, bear responsibility for caring for those who need it is simply the result of that idea being drilled into children’s heads for 100 years. (It took me a while to write these two final paragraphs on this post, too.)

It is simply going to take time–I hope less than 100 years–to get enough people to adopt a philosophy of personal responsibility and accountability that we can begin to reverse the abrogation of these things. There are already reports of this happening in the younger generation. This is one reason the Occupy gatherings were taken over by leftist organizations, rather than being huge populist gatherings like the peace protests in the ’60s (or at least like they’ve been portrayed to us). So like the #damnhippie song says, teach your children–and grandchildren–well.

03 December 2012

Call me Purist

OK, here’s a random thought spurred by a tweet.

First, the tweet contents. It was a joke: “Do you know the difference between a hunter and a fisherman? A hunter lies in wait. A fisherman waits and lies.”

This got me thinking about something that has bugged me for a while about the modern sport of hunting: blinds and stands. (And associated with those, things like lures and decoys.)

“Hunt” is an active verb. It is defined by my American Heritage Dictionary, as it relates to animals, as the act of pursuing, seeking out, searching for, or searching through (as in “I’ve hunted those woods many times”). It is not defined as “soaking a cloth with doe urine, fixing it to a post or a tree, and climbing the tree to sit on a seat built there and wait for a buck to come to you.”*

A good hunter is not necessarily one who comes home with the biggest set of antlers. A good hunter is one who actively seeks out the area where the game lives, then pursues the game as it moves throughout that area until a clean shot can be made (and is successful).

And I don’t really want to do that, which is probably why I’ve never hunted.

*Now, the taking of game for food with no consideration for sport is a different matter. When one’s survival is at stake, there is nothing wrong with fishing in a barrel, so to speak. As long as the owner of the barrel is OK with it.