NRA means "No rentals available."

My sister is a proud Republican. She loves lower taxes, big business (She has told me "what's good for business is good for people." repeatedly) and an individual-rights approach to the Second Amendment. She's among the many that are thrilled by the Supreme Court's ruling to lift the handgun ban in the District of Columbia, especially since she 's living in DC for the summer. To celebrate she and a family friend went to the National Rifle Association's shooting range this past week.

They toured the museum and paid for the range. My sister had to fill out paperwork and get a 30-minute evaluation on using a hand gun. She's been shooting before and has had training. When she passed the written test they indicated a lane for shooting. She asked how much for gun rental. And that is when she got a shock.

There are no guns for rental at the National Rifle Association's shooting lanes.

Many shooting ranges provide rental for a variety of handguns for those who are recreational shooters but don't bring or own guns. The leading lobby for gun-owner's rights takes their mission quite literally-- it is helpful to be an actual gun owner if you are interested in shooting there. Hearing this story from my sister was pretty amusing, especially since they had administrated the whole vetting process with her plainly standing there in a tank top and jeans. How many 20-year-old interns do YOU know with a conceal and carry permit? And in that clothing where on earth was she supposed to be packing heat?

Beyond defending the right to keep and bear arms, the NRA kindly suggests you bear them if you want to shoot on their range. Bring your own or go home.

TRNS from Around the World: Ottawa, ONTARIO

They partied all day and all night.

Although Canada never officially declared independence from Britain (the last vestiges of power were actually shed as recently as 1982!), July 1 is a holiday marking the joining of the British colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Province of Canada into a federation of four provinces (the Province of Canada being divided, in the process, into Ontario and Quebec) on July 1, 1867.

Canada Day in Ottawa, Ontario, was something to be admired.



Most noteworthy to me was the extent of celebrating. Parade watchers were wearing red, white, and usually a flag. I found that part to be the most interesting: you could buy a Canadian flag, one that you could, indeed, put on a flag pole- and wrap it around your shoulders, make it into a dress, or tie it in a turban around your head. In the United States, no one would ever do that do an actual flag, but here in Canada, if you weren’t decked out in some sort of flag, you were the one that stuck out.

I promptly put a Canadian sticker on my face. I think I'm allowed- my father is from British Columbia.



There were street performers, musical performances, and at one point cannons being blasted off in celebration of Canada Day. Late into the night, people were dancing in the street, screaming “Happy Canada Day!” and watching fireworks.



That, ladies and gentlemen, is a Happy Canada Day!

Emotional Upheaval: Making the Sudan video

I developed great sadness while making the video about the Christian Solidarity International/Talkers Magazine Trip to Southern Sudan video, and have written an extended post about it on my personal website.

Click here to visit my personal website and read my thoughts on this video.

Hell, Are We Not Talk Radio? -- A Talkers Magazine Editorial

By Michael Harrison,
Are we not talk radio?

The legally reckless FCC crackdown on broadcast indecency poses a deadly threat to the well-being of talk radio as well as the entire radio broadcasting industry. Worse, it is an affront to the American people that unabashedly infringes on First Amendment rights.


There is no clear line that stands between artistic speech and political speech. They are related and connected manifestations of the same fundamental concepts – the expression of ideas, the presentation of information, and the sharing of vision.

Any host who accepts what is happening with the justification "I don't do the type of show that Howard Stern does" is either a coward, self-delusional, or simply hasn't given enough thought to this subject.

Any observer who accepts the nebulous justification for subjective government thought control that these are the "public airwaves" and the people must be protected isn't living in the 21st century.

Terrestrial radio does not exist in a vacuum. It is connected to and a reflection of the culture in which it is embedded. To disconnect it from that culture will be to speed up its irrelevance and death. The "public airwaves" should reflect the language, ideas, culture and diversity of the public, not the political restrictions of the government.

The decision of the American public to generate a sexually-charged culture of coarseness and indignity might be regrettable, but it is the people's right to make that choice, and not the government's right to abridge it. Let indecency be challenged by parents, churches, private organizations and a reinstatement of the lost concept of shame as a guiding force within our society – not by government.

A subjective and draconian approach by government bureaucrats and politicians to the regulation of indecency can apply to anything from clinical discussions of biology to satirical exposes of hypocrisy to political dissent against the tyranny of a misinformed majority. It can easily be used as a weapon of political retaliation.

Howard Stern – the poster boy for the FCC's invasion – is a great American artist with an enormous following of mainstream American citizens. His resistance to the FCC's politically motivated aggression against his program will be looked back upon as one of talk radio's most heroic stands. If our society allows the government to shut him down for the subjective content of his art, future generations will judge our compliance as a shameful episode of ignorance and cowardice.

Artistic speech and political speech are the same thing, period. When one is attacked, the other is in peril. Sound the alarm – our most precious freedom is under assault! The American media must not sleepwalk through this dark encroachment. What is happening is appalling. In order to deal with this aggression, we must strive to approach it with clarity of thought and separate the facts from biases born of competition, emotion, and ignorance.

The federal government has radio station licensees over a barrel. This embarrassing vulnerability stems from consolidation and its stimulation of tremendously high radio station license values – values subject to the whims and subjective repression of the FCC. All across the country, radio licensees are urgently holding meetings with lawyers and talent issuing zero tolerance policies. Talent is being coerced into signing agreements allowing management to punish them and/or terminate them at will for saying anything on air that might theoretically lead to FCC indecency fines or license revocation. As we all know, great shows are being cancelled. Popular hosts are being fired. The executions have already begun.

Some are faulting large radio station ownership companies for their compliance with this pressure. The executives running these giant publicly traded entities face the uncomfortable choice between protecting their businesses and the interests of their stockholders in the face of the bone crunching power wielded over them by the politically aroused Federal Communications Commission or fighting back in the courts, a strategy wrought with danger. These are the bitter fruits of having made a deal with the devil. The government is holding a gun to their heads.

Do the talents and their middle management superiors deserve criticism for complying? Yes, but only on a philosophical level. Pragmatically, they cannot be blamed for trying to protect their livelihoods and careers. The heart and soul of the industry are – perhaps momentarily – paralyzed with fear and denial.

The English language is organic and evolving. Words have a variety of meanings to people of different generations, ethnicities and social categories. Words and the ideas they reflect are the tools and building blocks of our most basic freedom. We must not allow them to be chipped away under threat of government force.

The FCC should protect licensees from illegal transgressions against their technologies and signals. It should also protect the public from activities on the air that can prove dangerous to life and limb. Its rules and regulations should be tangible and clearly defined. It should not be in the business of protecting the minds of the American people.

Comply if you must, but be prepared to eventually do battle even if it is simply in the form of speaking out. Hell, are we not talk radio? If talk radio cannot stand up to the FCC taking away its fundamental right, it won't be long before it has lost the credibility that provides the foundation upon which its modern movement has been built. At least use the freedom of political speech to let the public know and understand what is happening – while we still have that right. Anyone who can't do that is already a casualty in a war that could easily be lost.