Here we find David’s lament over the death of Saul and Jonathan. He has already torn his clothes, mourned, wept and fasted (and killed the person who falsely confessed to killing Saul).

v. 17-18. Remember that David was a musician — he played the harp well, and he wrote about half of the Psalms. Here he composes a requiem, a dirge for Saul and Jonathan, and he instructs his men to teach it to the sons of Judah. Observe the grace here: David is of the tribe of Judah, Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin. Saul, of course, hounded David for years trying to kill him, and made his life very, very difficult. But David nevertheless insists that his house, his tribe mourn for Saul and Jonathan.

David calls this the “song of the bow,” and causes it to be written in the “book of Jashar.” The book of Jashar was a book containing a history of Israel’s wars, in which important events and the heroes of Israel are praised in song and verse — sort of an Odyssey or Iliad of Israel, except that it was historically accurate. It is also referenced in Joshua 10:13. There are no extant copies known to us — the earliest “Book of Jashar” we have was written well after biblical times.

v. 19. “How the mighty have fallen!” Truly, Saul’s fall began years before his death. But he was, indeed, mighty — a mighty warrior all of his days. It is interesting that David refers to Saul’s death on the “high places,” traditionally a place of worship where sacrifices were made. The Lord’s anointed (Saul) was slain upon a high place, a place of worship and sacrifice. Jesus, too, the Lord’s Anointed, was slain upon a high place (Golgotha), which was not a place of worship, but was in fact a place of the greatest sacrifice.

v. 20. David does not want the death of Saul published in the cities of Philistia (Gath and Ashkelon being the two largest), because he did not want it to be a cause of rejoicing among the enemies of God and Israel.

v. 21. David calls for a curse on Mount Gilboa, where Saul was killed (no dew or rain, no yield of produce). Saul’s shield was defiled, by being cast aside, and not anointed with oil, which would have been customary maintenance (cleaning and polishing) of a shield after returning from battle. Note, however, that the Lord is Israel’s shield; He was “defiled” by the slaughter of His anointed king by enemies of His people, rather than being “anointed with oil” in worship and praise.

v. 22. Jonathan and Saul are both praised for their valor and success in battle.

v. 23. Again, Jonathan and Saul are praised for their physical attributes: swiftness and strength. Throughout I Samuel, despite all of Saul’s faults and shortcomings, there is never any indication that he was anything but a magnificent warrior. Notice that David calls both Jonathan and Saul “beloved and pleasant in their life.” It is hard to believe, from David’s lament, that this is a man who spent years hunting David down, trying to kill him, without cause or justification. Such is David’s grace and love for his king, and for the Lord who made him king.

v. 24. David exhorts the women of Israel to lament the death of Saul. Compare this with verse 20, where he feats the rejoicing of the women (daughters) of Philistia.

v. 25. Again, the reference to the high places — this time, though, grieving for Jonathan, his friend. Again: how the mighty have fallen!

v. 26. Here David laments the loss of his friend, Jonathan. His love for Jonathan, and Jonathan’s love for him (phileo — brotherly love) was better to him than any womanly love (eros — romantic love).

v. 27. Again, for the third time, David ends with “how the mighty have fallen!” The “weapons of war” are figuratively Saul and Jonathan.

What a beautiful tribute to Jonathan and Saul, made all the more beautiful when considered in the context of the continual conflict between David and Saul throughout the last half of I Samuel. David’s grace shines through, as well as his love for the Lord, and for Saul as the Lord’s anointed (for the Lord’s sake, and for Jonathan’s sake).

As I have stated repeatedly, I am not at this point endorsing any Alabama gubernatorial candidate. However, it is becoming increasingly clear which candidate I am opposing: Bill Johnson.

I’m not crazy about Johnson for a number of reasons, one of which is the way he is running his campaign as a husband-wife team. It’s almost like we’re supposed to be getting a two-fer. The problem is, I don’t like either one’s ideas.

Here’s the latest from the Mrs. Gubernatorial Candidate (in relevant part):

GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE’S WIFE SPEAKS OUT ON GAMING

Montgomery, AL, Feb 4, 2010 - Kathy Johnson, former director of Governor Riley’s statewide Alabama Broadband Initiative and the wife of GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Johnson, released the following comments related to the latest breaking news on gaming in Alabama.

[snip]

“Our cable provider’s digital recorder just paused and saved a press conference on electronic bingo in Alabama. As controversial as it is, technology has even changed the way people play games. The same technology that has advanced the way we teach our children through fancy web-based bells and whistles has changed dominoes, solitaire and bingo. Only those in counties being left technologically and economically behind are still daubing B-12 on paper cards.

“Bill and I don’t gamble, but I’m thankful that we live in a country in which our freedoms are second to none. One of those most priceless freedoms, freedoms that came at the expensive price of precious blood shed by our troops, is the right for our voices to be heard through a simple process called voting. There was a time, not all that long ago, that my voice was silenced simply because it was in God’s divine design for me to be born a woman. Thank God for America and the right for each of us, no matter our race, gender or socio-economic status to be able to walk into a voting precinct and check a box on a ballot.

“I urge all interested parties to come together with one voice and allow the Alabama Legislature to consider a bill that will allow your voice and mine to be heard. Yes, technology has changed, and thankfully so. In addition to watching the recorded press conference, I watched the recorded news and saw the concerned individuals who may be losing their jobs. I’m thankful that the thousands of people who had their livelihood put on hold today can rapidly apply for unemployment benefits–all over the Internet–all through the use of advanced technology with bells and whistles.

“While technology has changed, democracy has not. Let the People Vote.”

What don’t I like? Let me count the ways:

1. In the first paragraph, she implies that keeping video bingo illegal will leave counties technologically and economically behind. In other words, you’ll be out of touch and out of money.

2. In the second paragraph (4 sentences) she invokes God, women’s suffrage, freedom, and our troops. As you should know by now, I can’t stand emotional campaigning. It does not address the issues, it simply appeals to concepts that we all agree on — though we don’t all agree on how to apply those concepts to, say, voting.

3. In the third paragraph, she again appeals to emotion, citing all those individuals who may be losing their jobs. Well hell, let’s stop enforcing the laws against drug dealing and prostitution, as I know a lot of people who make their living doing one or the other or both. And they are, as they say, “victimless crimes.”

Those people who are breaking the law by running illegal gambling establishments can, indeed, stand in line in the unemployment office, right behind the drug dealers and whores. They prey upon the public in a similar fashion.

Here’s the deal: Communities make laws to regulate the moral, social and economic welfare of the entire community. We can and do vote on those laws. In the case of gambling, Alabama has made that determination, and Alabama citizens need to follow the law, even it if means they can’t work at a gambling casino.

Fact: the democratically elected Alabama legislature enacted laws that forbid gambling.
Fact: the democratically elected governor of Alabama is enforcing those laws.
Fact: the democratically elected (not appointed) justices of the Alabama Supreme Court have ruled upon those statutes, and have further judged that gambling, particularly electronic bingo in the form it is currently played in places like VictoryLand, is illegal.
Fact: in 1999 the people of Alabama voted on a state lottery, which was in actual fact a referendum on all types of gambling in Alabama. They shot it down by a margin of 2-1.

The Alabama counties that currently have gambling establishments (i.e. Lowndes County, Macon County, Tallapoosa County, and Walker County) are some of the poorest counties in the state. These are counties that have had various types of gambling for years, and it has not only brought them no prosperity, it has resulted in socio-economic disaster for these areas.

I’d be very, very interested to know how much of Johnson’s campaign is being underwritten by the gambling interests. It may be hard to discover, because the Alabama legislature still has not enacted legislation banning PAC-to-PAC transfers, but I still wish somebody would do the research.

Just when you thought it was safe: it’s Samuel: The Sequel!

Well, not really a sequel, exactly. First and 2nd Samuel used to be one book, until the ancients, for whatever reason, chose to split it. In any case, as you will see, it picks up the narrative pretty much exactly where we left off, the aftermath of the death of Saul and Jonathan.

By the way, we’ll never see Samuel again. I know, I know, we’ve seen this before, like a bad horror movie: when you think the guy’s dead, he shows up again. And sure enough, that has happened once already with Samuel. But take my word for it: he’s gone now. And he will be missed.

You may remember that I started the I Samuel study because I wanted to take a good, hard look at David, a “man after God’s own heart.” Well, we didn’t even meet David until halfway through the book, and it was several chapters after that until we really started to watch him in action, learn how he thought, and why he did the things he did. Here in 2nd Samuel, we’ll get to see him take up the kingship of Israel, and we’ll see a lot more of his faith — and flaws.

v. 1-2. Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. You will remember (I hope) that the last time we saw David, he had just finished kicking some Amalekite butt, and splitting the spoil with his men. He returned to Ziklag, the town which he had made home while in exile in Philistia (I Samuel 30:26). While David was chasing the Amalekites, the Philistines had attacked Judah and kicked some butt of their own, actually killing Saul and Saul’s sons. Of course, not being present, David has not yet heard the news.

Note that many eras in Israel’s history start with the death of a particular leader. Joshua 1:1 begins with the death of Moses, which ushers in Joshua’s leadership and the conquest of Canaan. Judges 1:1 begins with the death of Joshua, which ushers in the leadership of the judges. Here, verse 1 begins with the death of Saul, which will usher in the reign of David and the “golden age” of Israel. Looking ahead, Acts begins with the death (and resurrection, and ascension) of Christ, which ushered in the Kingdom of God, until he returns, and all things will be made new.

Back to our passage, on the third day back home, a man came into town, with his clothes torn and dust on his head. Note, as we have noted before, the reference to three days. I don’t know much about the numerology of the Bible, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that three days is significant to God. Jesus was in the tomb . . . three days.

This man was from Saul’s camp. The torn clothes and dust on his head are signs of mourning and grief, indicating that he was distressed at the Philistine victory over Israel, and the death of Saul. It is interesting that this man came to David’s town. Did he intend to find David? Or, did he wander by God’s providence into David’s hands? Either way, the Lord God was sending David a messenger to let David know that the throne was empty, ready and waiting for him to assume his duties. It is also interesting that this man, a servant of Saul, prostrated himself in front of David, a sign of submission, recognizing David’s authority over him. David — a shepherd and an outlaw in exile.

v. 3-5. The man tells David that he escaped from the camp of Israel, or more accurately from the hands of the Philistines who were plundering the cities and camps of the Israelites (I Samuel 31:7-9). He then reports to David that the people (Israelites) have fled — a full-fledged retreat, a rout. Lots of dead, including Saul and Jonathan. David, understandably, wants to know how this guy knows these things, particularly about Saul and Jonathan. It’s a question of credibility, reliability, concerning something as important as the death of the king of Israel, the Anointed of the Lord, and his son, the heir presumptive.

v. 6-10. The messenger tells David that he was there; he was a first-hand witness. He was on Mt. Gilboa when Saul was being chased down by the Philistines (I Samuel 31:1, 8). He “happened” to be there — right! He may have been there as part of Saul’s army, though Saul didn’t recognize him, and he’s not a Hebrew, so that’s unlikely. Or, he may have been there as a scavenger, trying to recover spoils from the battle. Whatever the reason he was there, he was appointed by God to witness and report the event. Turns out this guy is an Amalekite — one of the traditional enemies of God, of Israel, and of Saul in particular (I Samuel 15). More on this in a minute. According to the Amalekite, Saul asked him to kill him, because he was in great pain. Remember, too, that Israelites did not want to be caputured by the Philistines — it was not a pleasant prospect. So, the Amalekite reports that on Saul’s request, he killed him. Then he took Saul’s crown and bracelet — royal symbols — with the stated intention of bringing them to David.

The Amalekite’s story seems intended to be one of compassion. He reports that Saul was leaning on his spear, presumably sorely wounded, pursued by chariots and horsemen. He reports that Saul was in great agony, and that he knew that when Saul fell (from leaning on his spear), he would not live. He does not leave any doubt that Saul would fall. So, he reports, as an act of mercy, he killed Saul. Assisted suicide. Compassionate murder.

Of course, this story conflicts with the account in I Samuel 31, which states that Saul took his own life, for good reason. The Amalekite had to have a good story to explain how he had recovered the crown and bracelet. His assertion that he was bringing them to David was probably fabricated as a result of being caught with the royal accouterments. He was also likely trying to curry favor with David, assuming that David was the arch-enemy of Saul, and would be pleased with anybody who rid him of Saul’s persecution. Boy, was he wrong!

How ironic that it was an Amalekite that witnessed and reported Saul’s death. If you remember, it was Saul’s sin concerning his war on the Amalekites that plunged him into disobedience and rejection by the Lord. These people, in short, are a curse to the Israelites, and should have been wiped off the face of the map when they conquered Canaan, as the Lord instructed them. When you allow the curse to remain, it will come back to bite you. And yet, though enemies of God, He still uses them to accomplish His purposes.

v. 11-12. Upon hearing the Amalekite’s story, David and his men tore their clothes, and mourned and wept and fasted. They had lost their king, David had lost his best friend, they had lost their country and kinsmen. It was a black, black day.

v. 13-16. Here’s where the Amalekite learns of his mis-calculation. The man again reaffirms to David that he is an Amalekite. And then David confronts him with his sin: to stretch out his hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed. He orders one of his men to kill the messenger, and so the Amalekite dies for his “sin.” Note that the Amalekite did not actually do what he said he did: he did not actually kill Saul (Saul killed himself). But the Amalekite’s lies brought him death, by his own admission.

We have seen the reverence David gave to the Lord’s anointed, despite Saul’s abuse of that office. To anoint someone is to set them apart for service to the Lord, and as that person is the Lord’s only the Lord can dispose of the anointed one as He will, and it is not for us to despise the Lord’s choice. The penalty of such arrogance and despite is death. Christ, the Anointed, was likewise despised, and put to death by those who did not honor or revere God. But David did not fall into that trap. Even though he, too, had been anointed, he did not seek his own good, or follow his own wisdom, or the wisdom of those who loved and served him, but he followed God’s wisdom, and trusted in God’s providence to work and to fulfill all of His promises.

We here at Pros and Cons have had two significant posts regarding homosexuals in the military, the most recent being here. Because of the recent attention being given by the Obama Administration to repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, that post has been getting some attention and comments. I simply can’t pass up the opportunity to make some people really mad at me, so I thought I’d take a minute to address a couple of the issues brought up. I won’t, however, re-state to any great degree the arguments I’ve already made, because I’m assuming you’re capable of reading the original post for yourself. (Although some of the commenters obviously didn’t take the time to read the original post.)

First, let me point out that I am not in the military, and (much to my shame) never have been. My father was an Air Force pilot, however, and I was raised in the military culture. And, I am a tactical police officer (SWAT), so I know a little something about small-unit combat and effectiveness. And . . . I’m a human being with (I like to think) some amount of common sense. More on that in a minute.

Some have equated homosexuality with race, making the argument that sexual orientation doesn’t matter just as race doesn’t matter. However, they are very, very different. Race is a passive trait — it does not determine action, it is almost exclusively a visual observation (although there are a few medical issues that can be race-specific or race-dominant). However, homosexuality is an active trait: it is rooted in conduct. And conduct, the avoidance of conduct, and the fear of conduct is what is at issue here.

What strikes me most about the pro-homosexual advocates is the complete lack of common sense, what used to be called “prudence.” Their argument, to some degree correct as far as it goes, is that if a gay man can do the job, then let that man do the job. However, that ignores some realities that we are perfectly willing to recognize in other contexts. Jarrod, a commenter to the previous post, got hit this on the head.

Look: I’d love to be the “house mother” (house father?) in a college female dorm. And, let me tell you, I think I could do the job darn well. But it’s never going to happen, nor should it. “Why,” one might ask, “would you want such a job?” Well, maybe I had such a great time in girls dorms when I was in college that I want to work there (I didn’t, but let’s just say . . . ). Or maybe I have a real heart for the issues that college girls face. Or maybe I just need a job — any job. Or maybe, just maybe, I like college girls.

Truth is, that job is off limits, for completely prudential reasons. It has nothing to do with my ability to do the job; that doesn’t even factor into the equation. I’m out of the running before we ever get to that consideration. Why? Because it doesn’t look good, it creates too much opportunity for trouble, and (this may be most important) most of the girls in the dorm, hopefully, would never stand for it. And they’d be right. Truth is, contrary to Harry Burns’s assertion, I don’t find every young lady attractive, and certainly don’t want to hop into bed with every young woman I see. In fact, there are some women whom I would certainly not want to see naked, much less sleep with (I’m speaking in terms of the arguments I’m seeing, not in terms of my own morality). Can I see a naked female without getting sexually excited? Sure. Doctors do it all the time. Will knowing that make those young women living in the dorm more comfortable with me? Nope.

I, of course, am going to be fine in my new job. I will be happy, and will do my job well. But the young women in my charge, and even the other house mothers (if there are any) are going to be so uncomfortable with it that it will inevitably affect the smooth operation of that dorm. That’s reality.

Of course, the foregoing scenario is pretty ridiculous (though not as ridiculous, I fear, as it used to be and should be, and I won’t be surprised to find that there are, in fact, male “house mothers” of female dorms somewhere). The point is that simple wisdom, prudence, common sense tells us that I shouldn’t have that job. We don’t even really think through all the reasons why, because we don’t have to: it is fairly obvious on its face to most people. But common sense goes out the window for activists, for people who will advance their point of view and cause no matter the cost, reason and sense be damned.

The same common sense applies to the issue of homosexuals serving in the military. I am not arguing, and have never argued, that homosexuals cannot do the job, so people, please, quit making that argument. Some can, some can’t. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the presence of an openly homosexual soldier (sailor, airman, etc.) in a unit can and will undermine that unit’s cohesiveness, functionality, fighting effectiveness. I laid out that argument more fully in the previous post, but it seems that some people still don’t get it — or refuse to get it. MisterDisaronno, another commenter to the previous post, really laid this argument out well, including some issues that I hadn’t even thought of (i.e. attrition). What most of us would call common sense, activists call bigotry or homophobia. I do not think those words mean what they think they mean.

Common sense = good policy. Not bigotry or homophobia.

Here’s a fun little game of “what if” that I began playing the other day:

What if we actually captured Osama Bin Laden, alive and (relatively) well. What would this administration do with him?

Would they read him his Miranda rights, provide him a lawyer, and try him in a criminal court? One would think they would have to, given that they are doing exactly that with the underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He was interrogated for all of 15 minutes, read his Miranda rights, provided an attorney, and he then promptly shut his trap. He is being charged in a civilian criminal court.

Or, alternatively, would they hold him and interrogate him for useful intelligence? If so, how is that consistent with what they have done with UFA? Also, where would they hold him? Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo, though he has failed to do it for practical reasons.

In short, in this hypothetical scenario, it would be political suicide to read OBL his Miranda rights and not interrogate him with the harshest of methods. Were he to do that, even some of his own party would probably be calling for impeachment on the grounds of treason. However, it would be hard for the president to split those hairs that separate OBL from UFA, especially given the tack that Eric Holder and the Justice Department has taken with the War on Terror.

Housing OBL would be another political nightmare. Obama could not conceivably bring him into the United States proper. Not only would the peasants (that’s us) revolt against the maker of that decision (look at what’s happening with the decision to bring KSM to New York), there are some prison guards who might find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to shoot American citizens attempting to storm the prison and take justice into their own hands. But for Obama to send him to Gitmo would constitute a complete repudiation of everything he’s said about that facility, and his base would have his head for dinner.

If I were Obama, I’d be hoping that our intelligence agencies and military aren’t as competent as we’d like them to be.

Again, let me reiterate: I do not support any gubernatorial candidate — yet. And I am not a mouthpiece for any campaign. So, when I make the following comparison, do not interpret it as an endorsement (for whatever that would be worth!). It is simply an analysis of campaigns.

This afternoon I got an e-mail from the Kay Ivey campaign, which reads in relevant part as follows:

KAY IVEY UNVEILS “THE PEOPLE’S AUDIT”
“People fear an audit by the government; shouldn’t the government fear an audit by the people?”

(Montgomery, AL – February 1, 2010) State Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Kay Ivey stood outside the Alabama State House in Montgomery this morning and asked a blunt question: “People fear an audit by the government; shouldn’t the government fear an audit by the people?”

She answered that question by unveiling plans for “The People’s Audit.” It would be a thorough examination of every nook and cranny of state government, and could potentially save Alabama Taxpayers at least $150 million dollars and possibly even as much as half a billion dollars.

Ivey said the plan is simple. Upon taking office, she would demand that all members of her cabinet, along with department and agency heads, submit a thorough internal audit of all areas under their authority. Once it is assembled, teams of independent auditors will go over the information, looking for opportunities to save taxpayer dollars. They will look for outdated and duplicated services, opportunities for modernization and consolidation, among other things.

Ivey explained Alabama’s looming financial crisis makes it imperative that “The People’s Audit” uncover as many areas to save as many tax dollars as possible. “Top-to-Bottom, line by line, every single expenditure in the general fund will be examined with a fine-tooth comb. When the work of my administration and internal auditors is finished, taxpayers will know exactly how every last nickel of state government money is being spent.

“The effectiveness of the ‘The People’s Audit’ will not stop there. When completed, my administration will be able to identify costs and services that are duplicated across multiple departments, and others that should have been phased out with poodle skirts and the Edsel. Services needing modernization and consolidation will be brought up to the best business practices of the 21st century. The antiquated and wasteful will simply be done away with.”

Let’s leave the merits aside, for a minute. Ivey is clearly laying out an idea, a policy — that government should be accountable for the people’s money, to be efficient and effective in its spending. She is proposing an actual step towards achieving that policy: an audit. And she is showing how that step will help achieve that policy.

She is not rolling up her sleeves to go down and work with accountants to understand how they feel when they are doing audits. She is not spending the night with people who have been audited to understand the fear and uncertainty accompanying such a process. She’s not wearing a poodle skirt and driving an Edzel to make a point. There is no emotion involved here. There is only an idea, and proposed action on that idea. That is what we should look for in a candidate. Not feel good-ism.

Now, as to the merits of the idea itself, I think it’s excellent. The government should be audited regularly by the people, and the results published. Pursuant to that, government operations should be streamlined to make them more efficient and effective — and those steps should likewise be published, for the public to be able to observe their government at work on their behalf.

However, Ivey’s proposal is not enough. The contemplated audit only applies to the state’s general budget, and apparently exempts the state’s education budget — arguably the budget that needs the most reform and contains the most waste. So I’m calling on Ivey to pledge to perform the same type audit on the state’s education budget.

Now that would be a sight to see!

A friend of mine forwarded this NRA e-mail to me this morning:

Alabama State House Passes Legislation Repealing Ban on Short Barreled Rifles
Please Contact Your State Senator Today!

House Bill 2 passed the House on Thursday, January 28 by a 97-2 vote. It now moves to the Senate for consideration.

Sponsored by State Representative Jeremy Oden (R-11), HB2 would repeal the section of the Alabama statute that prohibits the possession, sale, receipt, or use of rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long. These rifles are already legal under federal law when properly registered.

Actually, the NRA e-mail has it wrong. The bill actually purports to repeal the entire statute, which deals with both rifles and shotguns, which have different barrel length requirements. You can read the entirety of the bill here. The statute in question is Alabama Code § 13A-11-63, which provides as follows:

Possession, sale, etc., of short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun; applicability of section.

(a) A person who possesses, obtains, receives, sells, or uses a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun is guilty of a Class C felony.

(b) This section does not apply to a peace officer who possesses, obtains, receives, sells, or uses a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun in the course of or in connection with his official duties.

This legislation is not merely a symbolic slap in the face to gun control; it has practical consequences. I have long believed and taught that a shotgun is the best weapon for home defense. The problem with using shotguns in that manner, however, is that Alabama law prohibits the possession of “short-barreled” shotguns, which is defined as any shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length. In most houses, and certainly most older houses and manufactured homes, an 18″ barrel is simply too long to maneuver effectively and safely, particularly in narrow hallways and small closets (again, characteristic of manufactured homes and older construction residences). Repeal of this statute would permit Alabama citizens to own a firearm that would be ideal for home defense — a short-barreled shotgun.

Regarding short-barreled rifles, that seems to be less of an issue. Whereas every good southerner will tell you that he (or she) would be perfectly willing to pull out a 30-06 to defend his home, fewer people rely on rifles for home defense, preferring handguns or shotguns for that duty. Rifles are kept mainly for hunting, for which a longer barrel generally makes for greater accuracy.

However, on a personal level, I’d like to see short-barrel rifles legal as well. I own a high quality (Rock River Arms) M4, which I use for tactical purposes with the police department I’m associated with. The department owns several M4s with short barrels which, while perfectly servicable, are of inferior quality, and not set up the way I like. Rather than draw one of those weapons from the armory, I chose to buy my own rifle, which I then set up the way I liked. However, I could only (legally) buy a 16″ barrel which, like the shotgun, makes it a little more difficult to employ in tight spaces, hallways, closets, etc. So, I’m left with the choice of using an inferior department weapon with the shorter barrel, not customized to my shooting preferences, or using my own superior, customized rifle with the longer barrel. Should this legislation pass, I can easily (and relatively cheaply) purchase a short replacement barrel for my M4 and have the best of all worlds.

Side note: the department M4s are also fully automatic, which is not the case with my personal rifle (that, too, is illegal). However, as I find little to no utility for fully automatic fire in law enforcement application (as opposed to military application, where it has very real utility), it’s a non-issue with me.

Let’s hope the Alabama legislature does the right thing and passes this bill.

Hey, I just pass them along as they come to me. . . .

This one arrived in my inbox this morning (around 7:06 a.m., to be exact):

JOHNSONS LOOKING FOR ALABAMA’S DIRTIEST JOBS

“We want to identify the dirtiest jobs in Alabama and work alongside some of our hardest working families.”

“Too many public servants have either forgotten what it’s like to work their fingers to the bone trying to make ends meet, or they never knew to begin with.”

Montgomery, AL, Feb 1, 2010 - GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Johnson and his wife are looking for jobs. Not just any jobs–they want to find Alabama’s dirtiest jobs.

[snip]

“Having spent a brief amount of time sleeping in homeless shelters and recovery centers, we now turn to address the enormous challenges our working families are facing. Today, we kick off our ‘Working with the People-Alabama’s Dirtiest Jobs Tour.’

“There are hard working people across Alabama that get up every day and make a contribution to their families, their communities and our State,” explains Johnson. “We want to identify the dirtiest jobs in Alabama and work alongside them; and, in honor of the contributions they’re making to their communities, we will also donate $250 to the selected families’ charity of their choice.

“Too many public servants have either forgotten what it’s like to work their fingers to the bone trying to make ends meet, or they never knew to begin with.

“Although Kathy and I have worked the past several years in management positions, we haven’t forgotten, nor do we ever want to forget, what true, hard, physical labor is-the kind of work in which our men and women leave work with dirt under their nails and aches in their muscles. That’s what tens of thousands of Alabamians do every day in order to support their families. We want to get out there with them and let them know we understand what they’re going through.”

“We truly believe that public officials have forgotten their role. It’s to connect with, listen to and serve the people, plain and simple. Kathy and I can relate to the hard-working families of this State, and we want them to know we understand their challenges. We intend to represent all the people of Alabama–not just the elite, and we commit to spending time with, listening to and connecting with people from all walks of life.

“One of the things that sets us apart from the other candidates is that we both came from large families where money was tight and pay checks were small. My dad was career military and had six children to feed. Kathy came from a family of five children with a disabled dad. Before either of us ever hit our teenage years, we had jobs, responsibilities and contributed financially to our families. Our hearts will always go out to people who are struggling to balance tight budgets, put food on the table and find a way to educate their children. That’s just who we are and what we stand for-hard work and contributing to family, community and country.”

Anyone who wants to recommend a ‘dirty job’ for the Johnsons’ “Working with the People-Alabama’s Dirtiest Jobs Tour” can do so by sending an e-mail with details to anthony@billjohnson.org or by calling the Johnson for Governor Campaign Headquarters at (334) 328-3823.

Again: please, please, please, somebody tell the Johnson campaign that nowhere is generally one word, not two! His editorial staff is no where!

That said, my next question is: Why? Why get out there and work with Alabamians at their jobs? And why their dirtiest jobs? Of course, we know why the dirtiest jobs: he’s trying to capitalize on the popularity of the Discovery Channel’s “Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe,” which truth to be told is a fantastic show. But it’s just that: a show, for entertainment. Would you want Mike Rowe running the state? Well . . .

Our governor does not have to know how to work at dirty jobs. He doesn’t even have to know how to work at manual labor. He doesn’t have to know how to fix a toilet — he has to know how a small plumbing business works, and how the Alabama government can best get out of the way to allow that plumbing business to succeed. It’s not just the ditch-diggers that are struggling to make ends meet; it’s their field managers, their secretaries, their office managers, and the owners of the business that are struggling as well. And to the extent the owners are successful, the employees, including the folks down in the ditch, will be successful too.

Again, this is liberal, emotional campaigning. “We just want them to know that we understand what they’re going through.” Fine. We’re struggling. You get it. Now get this: get out of the ditch, or toilet, or wherever you are getting dirty, and get down and dirty with solutions to the issues. You want to connect to us common people? Good. Talk to us on the campaign trail, and let us tell you about our challenges, disappointments, and hopes. Then, find some answers, and communicate those answers to us.

By the way, I’m having a hard time picturing Kathy Johnson in a sleeveless t-shirt, jeans and hard hat, dirt under her nails and all over her body, sweat pouring down her face, hoisting a shovel or a pickaxe. Not saying she couldn’t do it — just saying I can’t picture it.

Here’s my recommendation to the Johnsons for a dirty job: clean up our legislature.

You may remember that Bill Johnson is just one of a cornucopia of Alabama gubernatorial candidates vying for Republican votes this year. Let’s be clear, here: I’m not supporting or opposing any particular candidate yet. However, the following media advisory from Johnson’s campaign last Friday strikes me as quite ridiculous:

JOHNSONS GOING HOMELESS

“People are hurting, and we want to recognize and listen to those who don’t have regular income and a house to call their own.”

Montgomery, AL, Jan. 28, 2010 - GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Johnson and wife Kathy will spend the night in homeless shelters tomorrow to empathize with those who have no where to call home.

“With one in 10 Alabamians out of work, as many as 1 in 4 unemployed in some counties, homeless shelters are becoming the busiest facilities in the State,” Johnson explains. “Of the percentage still employed, their jobs aren’t guaranteed to be there next week. Even some who’ve given decades of service and worked their way to the tops of companies are being laid off.

“People are hurting, and we want to recognize and listen to the families who don’t have regular income and a house to call their own.

“Having worked for over two years on homeless issues as a Birmingham City Councilor, I understand the complex challenges of providing shelter and assistance for our homeless population. In a time when the entire economy is suffering, I imagine shelters are finder it even more difficult to provide critical services with smaller budgets and a growing number of clients.

“Kathy and I will stay in homeless facilities tomorrow night to spend time with those struggling with the loss of jobs, homes and families,” Johnson continues. “We won’t be arriving with suitcases in tow, but rather with a few toiletries in a Wal-mart bag-the only belongings many of our homeless have to their name. To ensure we are not displacing someone else needing a bed for the evening, we have donated cots to the shelters.

“One of the casualties of homelessness is that it usually requires families to separate. It’s difficult to find a shelter that accommodates men, women and children.”

Bill will be staying in The Old Fire House Shelter. Sponsored by The Cooperative Downtown Ministries, the facility offers the only homeless men’s emergency shelter in the community that does not have a specific time limit on the length of the stay. . . . Kathy will spend the night at The Lovelady Center, a transitional facility that offers aid to homeless women and their children and requires residents to participate in a two-phase program that offers practical living assistance, faith-based recovery programs and employment opportunities.

My thoughts on this:

First, how did this media advisory get through the proof-reading process (assuming there is one) without somebody catching that the words “no where” in the first paragraph should be “nowhere” (one word)? Nit-picky, I know, but it’s a gubernatorial campaign, for crying out loud. These things do matter.

Second, touting that your experience on the Birmingham City Council makes you qualified to be governor of the state is like saying your experience on the board of directors of Enron makes you qualified to run the Fed. Yes, it’s relevant experience (sort of), but look at the results. The Birmingham City Council and the Jefferson County Commission are the two most ineffective, ridiculous, absurd and laughingly embarrassing political bodies in this state. But, it explains where Johnson picked up his bent for theatrics, since those bodies are almost nothing but theatrics.

Finally, I don’t see how this stunt helps Johnson. Yes, we have an economic crisis, which has led to a job crisis. And I believe I’ve read something that indicated that homeless shelters are, in fact, doing a booming business. But the vast majority of those who have lost their jobs are not living in homeless shelters — they are living with family and friends. And very few of those who are in shelters are going to actually get out and vote — in fact, you have to have a residential address in order to register to vote!

This campaign is cheap, meaningless theatrics, designed to capitalize on emotion, to portray Johnson as a man with compassion, with empathy, who will feel your pain . . . or at least the pain of the homeless. Hey, I’m glad the man has a heart. But that’s liberal politics: all emotion, no ideas. What I want to know is not whether Johnson can make it a night or two in a homeless facility (without his wife, no less!), but how he’s going to get employment back up in Alabama, and what he’s going to do to strengthen our economy. I want ideas, policies, solutions. Not theatrics.

I posted about Trifecta recently here. Look, I don’t shill for other people, I don’t get kickbacks, and I don’t even know these guys personally (wish I did!). But, heck, I wake up every morning with the hope pounding in my breast that there is another installment to start my day. (Some days that’s all that gets me out of bed.) They are that good.

But, some are better than others, and their latest is one of the best yet. The Trifecta team disects — no, vivisects (their word, but apt) — Obama’s State of the Union address. I thought Bill Whittle’s head was going to explode. Hysterical, insightful, and, of course, spot on. This one’s a little longer than most — about 15 minutes — but worth every second. Go watch. Then, watch it again.