Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Watch That Backcast

When flyfishing, especially on the small streams I am apt to frequent, it is important to watch your backcast or you are liable to end up with your fly caught in a tag alder or some other streamside vegetation.  This is problematic for a number of reasons, least of which is losing the fly to the vegetation, so it is quite important to watch that backcast.

I mention this after reading a story which Drudge links to under the headline New Obama rules may prohibit citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters…  Drudge’s link actually takes you to an ESPN story headlined Culled out Obama administration will accept no more public input for federal fishery strategy, which begins this way.

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

Some strategy.  Obama, and the Obama adminstration, seem hell bent on destroying economic prosperity, whether directly attacking it via ObamaCare (DeathCare), or via more subtle attacks on a pastime which has enthralled generations of young and old for thousand of years, fishing.

I don’t care whether you’re a worm dunker, fly fisher, bobber fisherman, catch and release enthusiast, as I am, or simply enjoy a freshly caught trout fillet thrown on the coals, while the gills of the carcass of the trout are still flapping up and down, reading that the Obama administration is even considering prohibiting fishing should raise your ire like a nicely tied fly will raise a finicky trout.

Watch that backcast, and more importantly watch the government before it snatches your fly rod or fishing rod from your hand.

UPDATE:  The Executive Editor of ESPN, Steve Bowman, has issued an explanatory, rambling note, though not a retraction, in regards to the ESPN article originally cited in this post.  It can be read here.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/09 at 01:29 PM
(2) CommentsPermalink

Marijuana Drug War Stupidity

Fifty-four (54) year old Henry Walter Wooten, of Tyler, Texas, was just convicted and sentenced to thirty-five (35) years in prison for possessing 4.6 ounces of marijuana.  This is unimaginably stupid.  Believe it or not, Smith County Assistant District Attorney Richard Vance, who prosecuted Wooten, desired to put this man behind bars for ninety-nine (99) years.  How has this benefited Tyler, Texas, or even society, in any way shape or form?

Tyler Man Gets 35 Years For Drug Possession

Linked via The Raw Story via Fred Lapides.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/09 at 12:58 PM
(4) CommentsPermalink

Healthcare Deficit Neutrality is Smoke and Mirrors

The following hypothetical conversation, from a Greg Mankiw post titled The Problem with Deficit Neutrality, is a conversation, which though hypothetical, is actually apt to be heard in real life, from the halls of Congress to the lowliest inhabited hovel.

Friend: I am going to take off a few days from work and fly down to Bermuda for a quick vacation.

You: But isn’t that expensive?  Won’t that just add to your growing debts?

Friend: Yes, it is expensive.  But my plan is deficit-neutral.  I have decided to give up that half-caf, extra shot caramel macchiato I order at Starbucks twice every day.  I really don’t need that expensive drink.  And if I give it up for the next three years, it will pay for my Bermuda trip.

You: Well, then, how are you going to solve the problem of your growing debts?

Friend: I am going to figure that out as soon as I return from Bermuda.

You: But in light of your budget problem, maybe you should give up Starbucks and skip the Bermuda vacation.  Giving up Starbucks could be the easiest way to start balancing your budget.

Friend: You really aren’t any fun, are you?

Posted by John Venlet on 03/09 at 12:01 PM
(0) CommentsPermalink

19 April 2010: Bring Your Sidearms and Longarms To The Banks of the Potomac

On April 19, 2010, there will be a Restore the Constitution rally on the banks of the Potomac river.

Spreading the word via Western Rifle Shooters Association.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/09 at 11:40 AM
(1) CommentsPermalink

Census 2010 Question 9 Symbolic Protest

Personally, I want nothing to do with Census 2010, and I have encouraged individuals to skip Census 2010 as a polite, peaceful expression of civil disobedience.

Each individual must decide for themselves whether they will participate in the census though.  Some individuals may only answer the how many individuals reside at this address question, while other individuals may answer all ten (10) questions the census form puts to them.  My census form will be recycled, which is environmentally friendly, right?

If you are an individual who is inclined to completely answer all 10 questions put to you on the Census 2010 form, either because you feel it is your duty, or you fear the compulsion, the force, which can be brought to bear against you by the government in the form of fines for non-compliance, Mark Krikorian, in a post at National Review’s The Corner, has a suggestion for Sending a Message with the Census.

...I have a proposal. Question 9 on the census form asks “What is Person 1’s race?” (and so on, for other members of the household). My initial impulse was simply to misidentify my race so as to throw a monkey wrench into the statistics; I had fun doing this on the personal-information form my college required every semester, where I was a Puerto Rican Muslim one semester, and a Samoan Buddhist the next. But lying in this constitutionally mandated process is wrong. Really — don’t do it.

Instead, we should answer Question 9 by checking the last option — “Some other race” — and writing in “American.” It’s a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, “American” was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.

So remember: Question 9 — “Some other race” — “American”. Pass it on.

Krikorian’s proposal is only a symbolic protest, unlikely to raise any eyebrows.  In fact, the census data compilers will probably think individuals who answer Question 9 in the manner suggested by Krikorian were simply confused by the wording of the question as presented by the census form.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/09 at 08:53 AM
(0) CommentsPermalink