I finally took some time last week-end to read Richard Feldman's "Ricochet".
I bought the book on a whim when I saw it on a Sale rack. I paid $3.99 -- at the time a bit less than a gallon of gasoline. I probably should have put it in the tank, and gone to the library for the book -- I'd have had miles left over for free.
Someone mentioned getting past the self-aggrandizement. I really couldn't. I can't think of ever reading a book that managed to tout the author so much. To hear Richard Feldmen tell it, he knew every correct strategy, tactic, and job placement ever asked of himself. Wow. It's amazing that he is not running some Presidential campaign. He could guarantee a winner every time.
Beyond that, I found his scene-setting heavy handed and annoying. I understand writers doing it, but when it is so blatant that I see it, it is being inartfully done. He tells us what music was playing, and the name of the taxi company from over 20 years ago for instance. I just don't believe it and am reminded that his analysis of events back then are probably just as fabricated.
There is a certain schizophrenia throughout the book regarding the Second Amendment generally and the NRA particularly. Yes I believe that he supports the 2nd, but he seems way too willing to compromise and complains about the NRA hard-line. That will sell to anti-gunners (e.g. just read an Obama quote saying that the NRA opposes _every_ gun law) but to anyone who pays attention (and he should be) knows it is untrue. And he seems oblivious to any slippery slope or the anti-gun salami-slice technique.
This schizophrenia is most visible at the end of chapter sub-sections. I lost count of the number of parenthetical paragraphs -- a seldom seen construct anywhere. They seemed to be thrown into the narrative after some book editor read the original and said you have to make more negative NRA comments, or the book won't sell, as they were always after a section that might have been construed as positively reflecting on the organization, and they were invariably negative.
The negative comments weren't always so obvious. In many cases they were more smoothly woven in, but once becoming attuned to the parenthetical paragraphs, you notice two-sided views within thoughts all over.
You can't imagine how tiresome it is to read over and over that Wayne LaPierre gets paid too much. Perhaps he does (though the book provides no hard proof - just unnamed sources). Get over it Richie (as he refers to himself). Everybody knows people who shouldn't be paid so much, and most think that they should themselves be paid more.
It was some interesting to learn of some of the back room dealings that were going on, and to refresh my memory of those events, but you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt. He has no credibility. He couldn't be more bitter about getting pushed out of the NRA, nor of the maneuvering of the NRA that undercut his ASSC.
The primary premise that the media picked up on is Feldman's view that the NRA under its current administration doesn't really care about the Second Amendment -- that it is just a fund raising scam. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the NRA. It is impossible for anyone to agree with their tactics all the time. I don't see them intentional positioning themselves for fund raising first, and everything else secondarily.
Lastly, for an insider look at the politics of gun law, it was glaring to not mention Sen. Bob Dole's part in slipping the machine-gun ban into the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. If you hadn't known of it, you wouldn't have noticed something was left out. I suspect it was because it couldn't be explained without pointing out that Feldman himself had something to do with it, and that the FOPA did hurt manufacturers (his constituency) in this regard. I just guessing. How could Dole not be mentioned otherwise?
I bought the book on a whim when I saw it on a Sale rack. I paid $3.99 -- at the time a bit less than a gallon of gasoline. I probably should have put it in the tank, and gone to the library for the book -- I'd have had miles left over for free.
Someone mentioned getting past the self-aggrandizement. I really couldn't. I can't think of ever reading a book that managed to tout the author so much. To hear Richard Feldmen tell it, he knew every correct strategy, tactic, and job placement ever asked of himself. Wow. It's amazing that he is not running some Presidential campaign. He could guarantee a winner every time.
Beyond that, I found his scene-setting heavy handed and annoying. I understand writers doing it, but when it is so blatant that I see it, it is being inartfully done. He tells us what music was playing, and the name of the taxi company from over 20 years ago for instance. I just don't believe it and am reminded that his analysis of events back then are probably just as fabricated.
There is a certain schizophrenia throughout the book regarding the Second Amendment generally and the NRA particularly. Yes I believe that he supports the 2nd, but he seems way too willing to compromise and complains about the NRA hard-line. That will sell to anti-gunners (e.g. just read an Obama quote saying that the NRA opposes _every_ gun law) but to anyone who pays attention (and he should be) knows it is untrue. And he seems oblivious to any slippery slope or the anti-gun salami-slice technique.
This schizophrenia is most visible at the end of chapter sub-sections. I lost count of the number of parenthetical paragraphs -- a seldom seen construct anywhere. They seemed to be thrown into the narrative after some book editor read the original and said you have to make more negative NRA comments, or the book won't sell, as they were always after a section that might have been construed as positively reflecting on the organization, and they were invariably negative.
The negative comments weren't always so obvious. In many cases they were more smoothly woven in, but once becoming attuned to the parenthetical paragraphs, you notice two-sided views within thoughts all over.
You can't imagine how tiresome it is to read over and over that Wayne LaPierre gets paid too much. Perhaps he does (though the book provides no hard proof - just unnamed sources). Get over it Richie (as he refers to himself). Everybody knows people who shouldn't be paid so much, and most think that they should themselves be paid more.
It was some interesting to learn of some of the back room dealings that were going on, and to refresh my memory of those events, but you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt. He has no credibility. He couldn't be more bitter about getting pushed out of the NRA, nor of the maneuvering of the NRA that undercut his ASSC.
The primary premise that the media picked up on is Feldman's view that the NRA under its current administration doesn't really care about the Second Amendment -- that it is just a fund raising scam. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the NRA. It is impossible for anyone to agree with their tactics all the time. I don't see them intentional positioning themselves for fund raising first, and everything else secondarily.
Lastly, for an insider look at the politics of gun law, it was glaring to not mention Sen. Bob Dole's part in slipping the machine-gun ban into the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. If you hadn't known of it, you wouldn't have noticed something was left out. I suspect it was because it couldn't be explained without pointing out that Feldman himself had something to do with it, and that the FOPA did hurt manufacturers (his constituency) in this regard. I just guessing. How could Dole not be mentioned otherwise?
