I get the whole macho thing and how we want a 'daddy' in the office who will protect the homestead, but running around looking like Elmer Fudd, shooting creatures that aren't that bright to begin with, doesn't exactly inspire me.
If you want to show us what a badass you are, win an Ultimate Fighting competition or something.
Unfortunately, this left hand picture is going to win (or at least solidify existing) votes for Huck, while the right hand one cost John Kerry some because people thought he looked like an idiot in the picture.
Go figure.
5 comments:
The least you could do is put up Kerry's hunting pictures:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3762770.stm
I think you have a categorical misunderstanding of what it means to be a hunter and an outdoorsman. I deal with this a lot, being someone who does participate in said activities. It really isn't about killing animals. It is about appreciating and understanding nature, and your place in it. It is a fairly philosophical and spiritual experience for many of us. Not to say that there isn't a group of people who just like to shoot stuff, but for the majority of us it is rooted in a deep and real understanding of nature, appreciating nature, preserving and conservation of nature, and rooting us in our traditions.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fwt/1998/Sharpe_ed.pdf
I do think the appeal of a hunter is a little bit to be macho, but I think they also try to speak to the values and traditions of a large sector of the population. I do think the US has a deeper rift that it fails to realize in the politics of urban vs rural. It is much more pronounced in places like Canada.
I personally still think that the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 had a lot more to do with the Brady Bill and the gun control rhetoric than about Newt trying to rein in government.
Yeah, I did have the Kerry hunting photo ready to put in here, but it didn't quite fit in with what I wanted to say.
In my defense (?), I have plenty of people in my family who like to hunt and I did go out on these treks when I was a little kid so, while no expert, the whole hunting culture thing is not entirely foreign to me.
I agree with you on the urban/rural rift and how the Venn diagram (and the Kerry hunting picture) will show that it crosses into both parties...Dems and Repubs have to show they like to eat pork rinds and shoot geese...in between reading the Atlantic Monthly.
And, while just about everything is a matter of degree, the whole game has a bit of unfairness built in...with the human holding the gun. Where do we draw the line with exploiting our technological superiority in this game? Is it OK to take an automatic machine gun out there to blow away Bambi? Is there a firm line we have to draw on what's acceptable and what's not in showing appreciation for our hunter/gatherer roots, etc?
No I agree with you. But I think for the most part it is moot, as hunters will take what they need to cleanly kill their prey. Guns are by no means as efficient as slaughter houses, even submachine guns.
I think you bring up an interesting point here though, as many hunters that I know of are 'rediscovering' methods of hunting such as archery and black powder. I don't think the 'game' is meant to be fair, as it really isn't a sport or competition. It really isn't about taking game. It is really about being out there, and coming face to face with the coldness and rawness of the world. Struggles and successes for all of God's creatures.
For certain sects of the population it likely is a machismo thing, but I don't think it applies to a very broad group of us.
It may sound completely irrational, but I feel that hunting is a direct exercise in compassion, self confidence/reliance and humanity.
Also, the meat is hormone free is can be FDA certified organic. It is being a locavore at its finest.
I think this dicussion and the misunderstandings of people on both sides, ourselves included, are why this is a big(ger than it should be) news item.
What does it really mean though? What difference does it make what hobbies our president has? Or are you pissed about the obvious and derogatory pandering that insults our intelligence?
Fair enough. In the end, I was pretty unfair to the hunters themselves... in lumping them all together like that.
It was particularly unfair of me to hop on the moral high horse because I just took a bone-in ribeye out of the freezer to thaw for dinner tonight. ;-)
Anyway, my frustration here is not really with the hobbies people have, but that running around looking like Elmer Fudd can move my poll numbers more than having a cogent argument and plan for any sort of substantive government action...whether I be left or right leaning.
But I also know I'm talking to myself out here. This is not likely to change anytime soon.
Thanks for forcing me to clarify my thoughts.
Yes, and we completely agree on the fundamental issue of image over substance.
But I think it would be interesting to further explore why the image of a hunter (ie Fudd) compels people to identify with and vote for someone.
I really don't think its a badass image he is going for.
Merry Christmas Dan.
Post a Comment