I was working on my column with the TV on when I heard the reports about the bridge in Minneapolis collapsing. It sounded pretty bad, so I stopped what I was doing, started watching, and was quickly disgusted.

What I found bothersome, aside from the obnoxious media feeding frenzy, was something that was stated in the early hours of the reportage. What they kept saying–all the anchors on all the stations, incessantly, repeatedly, until they were absolutely certain that they had gotten the message across–was that terrorism was probably not the cause of the collapse.

(more…)

One week after Steve McWilliams delivered free doses of medical marijuana to the sick and sickly outside San Diego City Hall–his home was raided by the DEA.

Just so we’re clear, let’s remember what the word “raid” means. It means having some sanctimonious prick in a black suit fanning through your Juggs collection, trying to find which pages stick together and whether or not you circled any penis enlargement adds. It means wondering if your life will ever be the same again.

All this because Attorney General John Ashcroft says legalizing medical marijuana sends a bad message to The Kids. I wonder what sort of message he thinks we should be sending. I don’t know, hmm, here’s an idea–how about telling the truth? How about saying, “You know what kiddo–the world will not explode if a sick person gets stoned.”

So keep reading kids. For the first time in your life, an adult is going to give it to you straight about drugs. How do you know I’m telling the truth? Because, unlike your parents-who lie to keep your innocence intact-I don’t give a runny turkey turd about your innocence. So come children, follow the Pied Piper and the sweet, sweet sounds of his flute of truth… (more…)

I was 14-ish when I first touched myself in a sinful manner. I was home alone and bored to tears because the Atari unit was on the fritz. Naturally, I began snooping through my parents’ bedroom.

It was there, in the wardrobe closet, where I stumbled upon this mysterious and ancient tome called Playboy.

I was so intrigued by the magazine that I brought it to my room and immediately lost myself inside the holy digest, slowly flipping pages in wonder and amazement, devouring the women as though each one were a perfect bon in a box of perfect bonbons–until coming upon the sacred centerfold spread of “Miss March” and all her treasures.

The rest is fistory. (more…)

On Fox news this evening, I saw an interview with a sniper instructor for a SWAT unit. He was saying that he and his colleagues in the so called legitimate sniper community are offended that the media is referring to the serial killer in Washington DC as the Beltway Sniper.”

“A true sniper,” said the instructor, “is someone who saves lives.”

Budge Williams, an ex-Vietnam war veteran and columnist writes, “A sniper is a soldier who serves with honor. [The Beltway Sniper] is just a brutal assassin with a rifle.”

The web is teeming with sniper websites — like CyberSniper.com and SnipersParadise.com and Mel’s Sniper Page (I really don’t think that guys named Mel should operate sophisticated, long range rifles. Guys named Mel should work in diners). Of the websites I visited, all have issued statements complaining about the so-called misuse of the word “sniper.”

Whoda thunkit? Snipers have feelings too. Somewhere out there, balanced on a branch, is a sharpshooter who can’t aim at his mark because tears are fogging his eyes and dripping all over his cheek-piece.

Pull yourself together man! There is no crying in SWAT.

“Make no mistake,” says the introductory page of Sniper Country, “the Beltway Killer is a second rate murderer and coward in the truest sense of the word.”

Don’t you love it when people begin their sentences with phrases like, “Make no mistake,” or “the truth of the matter is,” as though making that statement give you some sort of insider’s edge on the facts? I especially enjoy it when they’ve got it all wrong.

Here is the real true fact of the matter – the beltway sniper is a sniper.

Let us consult the American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition: Sniper: “One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.”

Well that pretty much ends that discussion huh? Isn’t it just like a sniper to hijack the language.

Here is another real true definition from the dictionary of truth: Coward: “One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.”

I’d say the Beltway Sniper is pretty fearless. He has summoned the wrath of an entire city. Everyone is hunting for him. He may soon be dead or incarcerated. So then, why call him a coward? Is it because he takes shots at people from a safe distance?  Hmmm, well, that would make the legitimate sniper community cowardly as well wouldn’t it?

Budge Williams says that Lee Harvey Oswald is an assassin. A sniper is a soldier who serves with honor. So, to recap — Lee Harvey Oswald was a shooter for the enemy – so he is an “assassin.” But when our guys assassinate world leaders – well they are morally pure snipers of love who shoot people in the head for the causes of righteousness. Really Budge, you’re a writer – do I have to pull out the dictionary again??

Assassin: “One who carries out a surprise attack… especially a plot to kill a prominent person.”

If you hide and shoot, you are a sniper. If you surprise attack, you are an assassin. All snipers are assassins, not all assassins are snipers. There is no moral distinction. Jesus Christ himself could be obscured in the cloudbanks of heaven, taking pot shots at babyrapers – he would still be a sniper assassin.

So why does the legitimate sniper community focus on all this semantics crap? Because they must widen the moral gap between them and the Beltway killer; because the real true truth is, the moral gap between them is as thin as the crosshairs on their scopes; because all snipers are killers — and killing as a profession is a morally ambiguous activity they would rather not confront.

Same thing goes for the Iraq conflict. By muddling the argument against war with semantics — by labeling those who disagree with an attack on Iraq as being “unpatriotic” — they effectively stifle the dissenting voice. In this way, they never need confront the moral ambiguity of launching a pre-emptive strike on a foreign country. In this way Americans can still go to their beds, and their jobs, and their kid’s hockey games — morally removed from the real true ugliness that is world politics – grinning with the vacant, blissful, ignorance of a dog without balls. In this way Americans never need admit the true real truth of the fact of the real true matter — that it just might be America, and not Iraq, that is the most dangerous regime on the planet. And that, my friends, is exactly the kind of blind arrogance that makes people want to pick us off one by one.

Ed Decker
Circa Jan 2003

I’ve identified these columns as controversial because they generated the most angry letters when first published inSan Diego CityBeat. When possible, I posted those letters in the comments area.