That would be me, tonight at 6:00pm EST/3:00pm PST on KUHL AM1440 Santa Maria. You'll note in the top right corner of their page there is a provision for live streaming.
We're going to talk about "Ammunition Accountability."
Join us, won't you?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Good show!
Ok, just heard your segment. You done good of maybe even gooder.
However, I am going to pick a nit here. Both you and Andy Caldwell characterized the murder of four Oakland policemen as a "tragedy". It wasn't a tragedy. A tragedy is a hurricane, a tornado, a volcanic eruption, a train wreck, or anything of that nature which kills and maims.
What happened in Oakland is an atrocity. It may well have been an atrocity with tragic consequences, but it was an intentional act by a monster against humans, therefore it is an atrocity.
I told you it was a nit I was picking, but we must be very careful to use proper terminology, because the other side doesn't.
I do hope you are again invited back to that man's program. I can respect him. Moreso, because as he admitted, he doesn't own a gun, so obviously he doesn't carry one, but he does not denigrate the rights inherent in all of us to the tools of defense. Good for him.
As I have said before, I no longer carry. Of course, if I did, I couldn't admit it, for the simple reason that I will not ask permission. However, just like Andy Caldwell I respect the right of others to avail themselves of the proper tools. Hell! I revere that right. It seems he does too.
You done good!
I honestly don't remember using that terminology. In an improv conversation you just don't think in terms like that--it's very different from deliberate writing--perhaps with more practice it becomes instinctive--when you're only on every couple months or so, you don't develop "muscle memory."
Here's why I'm particularly happy with the results from my end--I had an audience that was basically business people, not gun owners. When we were talking permitted carry, which you know I have "principle freak" problems with, I managed to convey that permitees are exceptionally "law-abiding"--but then got two important points in that are "radical" to a general audience, but managed to present them in a non-radical way--the "judged by 12/carried by 6" meme, and the anecdote about the deputy telling me to carry in spite of the law.
That was conveyed in a matter of seconds, but did not sound radical at all--because again, I made a conscious attempt to begin our conversation in terms of business considerations, manufacturing technology, regulatory burdens...things the audience knows well and can identify with.
The other thing is, they had made several unsuccessful attempts to find others to talk the issue--people who no doubt would have approached things from an "enforce existing gun laws" perspective-- and they ended up with me--and he wants to talk again.
And finally, my contact who brought me into the conversation resulting in the appearance apprised him of the Bill Brown situation--I was hoping to find an opening to segue into that without going off topic, and he handed it to me--and Brown has been--and will no doubt again be--a guest.
I am not unhappy with the results.
I am not unhappy with the results, either. You did really well. I just found a nit I could pick and had nothing of any substance to pick on. Hopefully, next time you will be able to make the point that we recognize atrocity and don't approve, that was my intent in conveying to you the one very tiny thing I noticed.
You speak as well as you write. I know I would be fumbling all over the place if I had such an opportunity placed before me. I would have so much to say. You stayed focus and didn't wander.
Andy Caldwell does good work. He is the head of an organization over here called COLAB (the coalition of labor, agriculture, & business). He goes to all of the board of supervisors meetings and continually challenges the non-representing representatives that we have through print, radio, and the internet. His organization is somewhat like a blend of citizens against government waste, judicial watch, etc. He applies common sense to government and tries to look out for local business, agriculture, individual property rights, & taxpayers.
Post a Comment