I should start a "new week" index page but I don't feel like it right now; I'll do it tomorrow and start it off with my "Weekly Report." Anyway, I was "Googling myself" (oh, the shame...) and found a few new links to me.

One is a blog called Green Baron's Opinion House which has apparently linked to me for awhile but I didn't realize it. Anyway, it's fun and nice so go visit. Into my blogroll she goes...

Then there's Penn Smart.com which has me listed under their "blogs" category. Thanks!

Then there's this strange site that has me listed as a "home brassiere" business. Beats me...

By the way, last Summer I had a Monday Mentions feature where I randomly featured "new to me" or obscure blogs. I've started up a less ambitious version with my "I've Got My Eye On..." blogroll somewhere on the left side. These are not folks who email me, just blogs I've stumbled across that interest me and could use some notice. Hopefully you'll find them interesting and also hopefully, I'll be able to soon add them to my "reciprocal" Good Friends blogroll.
I've already mentioned one of them but let me point out a few others:

Daddy, Papa, & Me is an "Emma has two daddys" blog. Good for them and God bless Emma Marie, their adoptive child, for finding a good home. Folks, it's not the sex of the parents, it's the love of the parents and there's obviously plenty to go around in this warm and cozy home. They've even found a church that accepts them. I think this is a perfect example (see my post below about gay marriage) of why a union, marriage if you will, is about much more than procreating. I wish these nice folks well. I'm not sure how they'll feel about being linked to by a "gay gun-nut" but I hope they understand that these good wishes come from my heart. God bless them. Actually, reading their blog, I think He has.

Now, can I just say one little thing here? Folks, I currently use Netscape and Safari for my browsers. But I make sure that Alphecca displays properly in all browsers including IE. Would you all please make an effort to do the same? There is a lot of HTML code that is interpreted weirdly by some of them so don't use it. Stick with time-tested code and everyone will be happy and will be able to read your blog and life will be wonderful all the time... I've just visited three websites that were "fucked" in Netscape (which also means they were fucked in Mozilla and Safari.) Come on now...

Just One Girl is a liberal blog. I'm linking to her because I find her interesting. She doesn't post a whole lot but what the hell. She's talking about folks eaing cow brains. The supermarkets up here DO feature cow brains in the meat isles. Yipes! Anyway, I like to provide links to folks who might not agree with me just so I provide some balance. I don't pretend that my opinion is the only one around...

You know, anyone who's kind enough to put me on their blogroll goes on mine and some of these folks don't even like me very much. Heck, GraphicTruth has me listed under people he loves to hate! I think though, that if they actually took some time to read me, they would find themselves agreeing with half of what I write about.

About six months ago I mentioned Bill and Kent during one of my Monday Mentions and while they might think I've forgotten them, I haven't. The gay couple living in rural CT continues to put up some interesting posts. So I'll mention them again. Nice, ain't I?

That's it for this week. Each week I'll give a few rarely viewed bloggers a mention on that list. I can't and won't promise that I'll mention them in a post like this week.

And leading into my next mention, my good friend James Rummel is up at this ungodly hour too. He's just put up a post about goals in space. I'd like to humbly add another reason for the U.S. going there -- anywhere -- in space...

All of us live our lives wrapped-up in our own problems and concerns. Space exploration is firstly, of course, about pure science but I also think it's about keeping us humans alive and dreaming and pushing our boundaries forward. No, we don't have any pressing issue about planet investigation that needs to be done at the moment. But the same spirit of "what lies ahead" that Christopher Columbus had and used to "find" america should also keep all of us looking for frontiers to explore that simply push us to our limits and expand our knowledge and most importantly, keep us NEW and FRESH and allow our dreams of a better future to be realized. Space exploration isn't about spending a lot of money to show we can do something; it's about pushing our horizons to the edge of our vision.

There are a lot of folks who think our efforts in space are a waste of money, stupid, worthless. I don't. What we (Americans) spend on space exploration doesn't equal one-tenth of what we spend each year on grants to colleges to "study" the sex habits of snails (for example.)

If mankind abandons the urges that drove early people to explore their world, to sail the oceans to find out what was "on the other side" or that sent Lewis and Clark on a dangerous trek to the Western part of our great country, well, than we've lost the spirit, the reason-to-be that seperates us from lower animals that only care about eating and sleeping and making babies. Surely we're about more than that. Certainly we have a need to feed our quest for knowledge and the unknown. The drive unique to humans to explore their (our) world and what lies beyond is special to us: Newts and dogs and giraffes could care less. We do and should. I think our miserly expenditures in space travel are money well spent.

And lastly, I'll say again that Mars SHOULD BE our target. It's reachable and sustainable. Please, if you have a few bucks, buy Robert Zubrin's The Case For Mars about how we really can visit and live there. Glenn Reynolds knows and worked with him and will (I hope) testify to the feasability of such a project.

---

Hey, some good news for NASA, the Spirit, a Mars lander, has touched down safely! This ends several years of a "jinx" against Mars probes (including the Beagle 2 from just a few days ago) that disappeared from our control and contact. We must have caught the evil aliens napping. Pictures are already coming back from The Spirit. NASA had a tough year in 2003 and they deserve this accomplishment. Now "get a life!" Well, find it anyway so we can shake up a lot of folks' Earth-centric view of the universe! Too cool! Of course, Europe suffers from this as David Kaspar points out. He says Michael Moore must be spinning in his lies...

Anyway, see you all tomorrow about Noon with my world famous Check on the Bias...

I guess this wraps up another week here at Alphecca. I'll be back, of course, on Monday with my "Weekly Check on the Bias" and I hope all of you have a great weekend. Thanks for stopping by.

I rarely blog on weekends but then I rarely have the weekend off... Anyway, here's some more cool stuff others are chatting about:

My good friend Jay Solo is still out West on his... er... honeymoon... I've stapled my big fat mouth shut...

---

My blogbuddy Publicola reports on the travails of this family simply trying to maintain a road in a National forest to their property. Publicola is all over it and remember, this is the same administration that wants taxpayers to fund logging roads in these same forests. *Yugh* I'm not sure "yugh" is a word or expression but I'm using it here.

---

My pal Mike at Raising Sand thinks he's being antisocial but frankly, I agree with his postulates. Each of them expanded would make a great post. Mike?

---

My blogson Eric is in sugar shock. I think it's because he's one of the sweetest guys around. I'm thankful for his friendship.

---

Shell -- whom I love -- thinks that it's hilarious. and so do I.

---

Most of my readers rightly believe that the U.N. is the biggest farce, biggest sham ever foisted on this world. Roger Simon is demanding some accountability from them. And read through the comments. Interesting stuff.

---

My friend Ted at Rocket Jones has a list up of the "top space stories of 2003." My mind has been on the loss of Beagle 2 and tonight's landing of the Spirit.

What is going on "up there" on Mars?

William Murchison has a stupid op-ed in the Washington Times which basically says that the only purpose of marriage is procreating. Here's a quote:

No heterosexual relationship, no procreation. No procreation, no human future. That is where the state's interest in this thing comes in. It comes in also in consideration of the massive evidence supporting the heterosexual family as the most successful setting for training up the products of conception, namely, children. Yes, we know all about the child-beating morons who disgrace marriage. They aren't even a patch on the loving and hard-working parents who far outnumber them. I can't imagine anyone who grew up with such parents favoring the undermining of traditional marriage.

You can say, of course, so what? Marriage for the non-procreative, ah. Why should that be skin off the nose of the procreative? Because to contradict the underlying reason for marriage is to ask who needs this thing anyway. Its purpose becomes no purpose: Just a thing you might do if you felt like it and not do if you didn't. Procreation becomes in that event, oh, just a sideline.

So if procreating is the only reason for marraige, then why bother with marriage at all? Obviously being in love with one another isn't a factor. Caring for and pooling resources isn't a concern. Taking care of each other when sick doesn't produce a baby so why do or encourage it? Wouldn't it be better if women just lay on gurneys in a government facility somewhere with their legs up and men could just stop by and do their thing? Then the women would just pop-out the children and there'd be plenty of procreating for all.

If Murchison really believes that marriage is just about having children then I feel very sorry for his wife. What a hell she must have to endure saddled with a boor like him.

Fortunately, most men (these days) think of their wives as much more than just a recepticle for their sperm. Most men (these days) truly love their spouses and want to hold them and love them and care for them and spend the rest of their lives with them. It's not just about, or even mostly about procreating.

And maybe that's the problem with the Bible. In the days when it was written, the authors (all men) did consider women little more than incubators. Men in times of old had many wives. Alas, time has passed Murchison and his bovine types by. Steers just screw to make little steers and I suppose that's what Murchison would like the world to return to. There are a lot of things in the Bible that were written in ignorance or simply from the viewpoint of a much different time in history and societal developement.

Mercifully, most humans are slowly evolving in thought and social structure and now consider marriage a joyous union of affection and committment and sharing of life's experiences. None of this, of course, need matter or even be under the supervision of government but there's also no Earthly reason why government should want to or prohibit it when it involves two people who aren't of the opposite sex.

For those who believe the state should have no part in sanctioning gay marriages, then logically they shouldn't be involved in or license any marriage. Let it simply be a "church thing." And if some churches want to endorse gay marriages then there will be gay marriages.

Personally though, I think the state should encourage marriage and between both heterosexuals and homosexuals since people involved in a loving, stable union are much more likely to be good and productive citizens who also care about their fellow humans and society as a whole. It's also economically desirable for society because two people in such a union -- marriage -- provide the first line of defense against poverty, caring during an illness, maintenance of a home, and generally provide a better model of citizenship and participation for the town or village they live in. Otherwise, the state would have to provide for this at great burden to the taxpayer.

I'll provide just one example so this screed doesn't become too long. Mary and Beth are married. They love each other. Mary becomes ill. If Beth wasn't there, Mary would need caring for by the state. So their union is financially beneficial to the state. So government does have an interest in supporting such an arrangement. That is where I disagree with many of my libertarian friends.

As for the claim by Murchison (and others) that gay marriage somehow "undermines" traditional marriage, that is nonsense. How can encouraging more people to marry hurt the foundation of current marriages? Logically, that makes absolutely no sense. I've heard some commentaters claim that such things (as gay marriage) even "make a mockery" of marriage. Friends, the only one who can make a mockery of your marriage is YOU. If YOU cheat on your spouse, if YOU denigrate or abuse your spouse, if YOU divorce your spouse... Nothing I do (including creating a loving union with another man) can or will effect YOU and YOUR marriage. YOU are the one responsible for making a "mockery" of your marriage. And boy-oh-boy but a lot of you are. So let's cut that bullshit right now.

Now, for those conservatives who's whole objection to gay marriage is based soley on biblical teachings, who consider the Bible the infallible word of God, nothing I or anyone else can say will change their mind. They believe that masturbation is a sin. They believe that epileptics are possessed by demons. They don't eat shellfish. Divorce is always wrong. Slavery is just fine. Public prayer (such as on TV or at a football game or commencement speech or school) is frowned upon by God (Matthew 6:5-6*)...

Oh wait! Now they're the ones who want to pick and choose! They're the ones with the selective "chinese-menu" of a bible.

In the meantime, the rest of us are slowly growing up about sex and love and marriage. The right-wing may win a few skirmishes and delay gay marriage, but it's coming anyway and eventually -- years from now -- I think everyone will shrug and wonder what the fuss was about. And for that, I thank God.

---

*
Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

I love that passage. While I'm not opposed to public prayer starting functions, those who do make a huge deal in favor of it would do well to remember that admonishment.

You know, I've said before (right in my bio in fact) that I'm indifferent to gay marriage and that's not really true. I am for it, just that I think it's out of order in the progression of obtaining rights for gays and lesbians in general. I go into it much more in an interview I did with Dean Esmay that should be appearing soon. But I have to tell you, the more the ultra-right whines and gripes and declares the end of the world if two women or two men were granted the same marriage rights as straights, the more I'm getting into it and supporting it. Just... Just because of their baseless arguments and hysteria. I won't elaborate here because I consider my answers to Dean "his exclusive..." Not that my "words of wisdom" are special, just that I want that interview, when it's complete, to be fresh and interesting reading so that even regulars here find out new things about me.

---

Update 1/4/04 Thanks to Glenn for the Instalanche. Here are some comments received:

Ke aloha no from Maui!

Actually, city boy, steers don't screw. They've been fixed. You're thinking of bulls.

Otherwise, right on.

--Harry E.

Heh. I learn something new everyday!

Agree with everything on your post. I wonder if those that are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage will feel it critical to address Ms. Spears' recent out-of-a-bar-gag-vegas-marriage? Well, at least she can have kids out of that lark.

--BB

And from my friend Steven Malcolm Anderson:

You said it all. Thank you.

"Love has nothing to do with marriage." - Senator Rick ("man on dog") Santorum

"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." -Paul, Ephesians 5:28

(...He that loveth his husband... ...She that loveth her wife....)

Thanks everyone.

---

Update 1/5/04 More comments received:

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

No, but it's not like they have nothing to do with one another either.

While sex, hetero or homo, is great fun the only *necessity* for it arises from a need for procreation and heteros have a lock on that one. Dismissing the idea that procreation has an impact on how we define marriage simply doesn't square with a tradition that originated with those procreators. As a heterosexual I guess I just mean something different than a homosexual when I speak of marriage. Now if we could just think of some way to put that difference in writing maybe I could quit taking offence at having the term hijacked.

You said:

"the more the ultra-right whines and gripes and declares the end of the world if two women or two men were granted the same marriage rights as straights, the more I'm getting into it and supporting it."

CBS News Poll

"Some 61 percent of respondents in a CBS News/New York Times poll said they were against gay marriage, up from 55 percent in July, and only 34 percent said they favor gay marriage, down from 40 percent five months ago."

So are we to conclude that 61% of the public is "ultra-right"? The ultra right is hardly the only group with concerns about gay marriage. Like it or not the vast majority of the public opposes gay marriage and according to this poll that majority is growing. Pretending only right wing nuts oppose it won't make that 61% go away.

--Darryl B., New Mexico

And:

I've never written before, but this is a subject close to my heart. I will take the affirmative side in the debate.

Historically the tribe sanctioned marriage. Later on the church got involved. I speculate that the separation of church and state brought the government into it. Perhaps the system worked when tribal law governed marriage and property, but today there are problems with heterosexual marriage that you can not possibly imagine. The system is broken for reasons too numerous to list. Do a google search on "father's rights". Unless a father has extraordinary foresight or can afford serious legal guns his sole right is to be a cash cow.

Ideologically, marriage is a good idea for the reasons you cite; shared resources and mutual support. In practical terms the disadvantages far outweigh any advantage, and children may well be the only reason sufficient to suffer a marriage. How would you like for it to be economically disastrous for you to leave someone who purposefully displeased you? Do you want to contribute to the support of someone who talks about you behind your back, who doesn't help with household chores and lets the laundry stack up for weeks, whose only purpose in life is to have a housecat that craps in the corner, leaves hair everywhere and tears up the couch? Welcome to married life.

Children are the reason that I married. This has nothing to do with sperm receptacles; I got laid much more often before I was married. After 13 years children are the only reason that I stay married. When they go to college their mother and I will split permanently.

A friend once told me, "Marriage is a wonderful institution, if you like institutions".

--Charles

I'm sorry that your marriage is an unhappy one. I'm certain that if "gay marriages" comes to be, there will also be gay divorces. But if we only encourage things that have a 100% success rate, well, there's a lot people would never attempt.

Update 1/6/04 comment received:

Greetings,

I have some comments regarding your rather one-sided analysis of marriage.

One fundamental (i.e. not the only) reason for state support of marriage is that it is in the state's interest to support families in which the children's father and mother are husband and wife -- the most psychologically beneficial family arrangement.

As for the issue of "taking care of each other" and "pooling resources", this obviously is a beneficial behavior, but not limited to marriage. For instance, two (or twelve) individuals who are close friends could engage in such behaviors as well -- there is no requirement of sexual intercourse/activity.

I would be happy to discuss this issue further if my argument is not clear.

--Sincerely, --Roger T.

Thanks for your comments.
Your first argument is still relying on the premise that marriage is only about having and raising children. Your second ignores my main point, that marriage is about committed love. The financial benefits to the state are just a perk. Further, MY argument on that point is simply that IF the state is involved in regulating marriage then there's no valid reason why they shouldn't recognize gay ones.

Update 1/6 PM Roger responds:

No, as I said, it is only one aspect, not the only aspect. Think of this in terms of Wittegensteinian "family resemblances", or fuzzy sets theory. This has always been a component of marriage across cultures for thousands of years. You are attempting to radically change the definition of marriage to make this component "optional".

It's fine to make such a claim, but you need to present an extremely persuasive argument to justify radically breaking with the past and going against democratic opinion. I have yet to see anything remotely close to such an argument here or anywhere.

Your second ignores my main point, that marriage is about committed love.

That is just your opinion. Although I would say "committed love" is a major plus, it is not essential to marriage.

Several individuals could be "really good friends" and by your weaker definition of marriage all be considered "married". You need to come up with a definition of marriage that excludes this possibility, otherwise you are simply watering down the definition of marriage so that it becomes pretty meaningless (i.e. like grade inflation -- getting an "A" loses it's meaning if everyone gets one).

"The financial benefits to the state are just a perk. Further, MY argument on that point is simply that IF the state is involved in regulating marriage then there's no valid reason why they shouldn't recognize gay ones."

Because homosexual unions are outside the definition of marriage. It is that same as the case in which you have a harem of 37 women -- it is also ridiculous to describe this as a "marriage".

I'm quite happy to let homosexuals and polygamists (and others) create their own institutions similar to marriage, but I'm not willing to simply let the institution of marriage to be watered down and made virtually meaningless just to advance the political agendas of small groups with alternative sex lifestyles/behaviors.

I hope that clarifies my argument.

-Roger T.

Arguing about gay rights is a lot like arguing about abortion rights and religion and "is rap actually music?" and much more. I suspect (given the amount of emotive debate over this in the past twenty years in all sorts of public forums) that we will never reach agreement. But I appreciate the time you've taken to comment.

By the way, there are several countries that do allow a man to marry a lot of women (harem.) I'm not for that unless women in those societies would be granted the reverse right. Just because the "current" definition of marriage doesn't include gays doesn't mean it shouldn't, nor should government -- if it is going to regulate marriage -- only have one clause for such; that the union will produce a baby.

Further, it is not sufficient to say that gays should simply "create their own institutions similar to marriage" because in truth it is the state sanctioned "marriage" itself that confers the financial benefits (tax-wise, inheritance-wise, etc.) that a private agreement would not provide. Also, there are many legal ramifications that come with a state sanctioned certificate such as buying a home, wills, medical decisions, etc., that wouldn't exist under a simple, artificial, private arrangement.

Lastly, while churches and governments might give their spiritual and legal blessings to marriage, it is really the two people themselves that make that union real and viable and legitimate. Nothing that someone else does or defines should have any effect on "watering down" the bond those two people feel for or about each other and their relationship.

Oh well. I'll repeat myself: A generation or two from now everyone will shrug over such stuff and wonder what the fuss was all about...

Speaking of loonies, which I wasn't, Pat Robertson is predicting a blowout in favor of President Bush in the November elections. Here's a quote:

Pat Robertson said Friday that God told him President Bush will be re-elected in a landslide.

"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," the religious broadcaster said on his "700 Club" program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded.

"I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way," Robertson said.

Now granted, a prediction like this is about as safe as saying he believes the Sun will rise tomorrow. After all, the current crop of Dems have yet to present any rational reason why anyone (other than America-hating leftists) should vote for them. They have no real plans or ideas so they beat their chests and excoriate Bush instead.

Most of them voted for taking action in Iraq but now they're all against it. Most of them have wanted to improve Medicare and provide a perscription plan for it but now that Bush and the Republicans have done it, they're against it. Most of them (unfairly) blamed Bush for the economic downturn but now that the economy is rapidly improving they refuse to give him credit for it. Most of them would repeal the tax cuts (which in essence means raising taxes) and I can tell you that I'd rather hold onto that $600 dollars for myself.

Speaking of messages, the "haughty, French looking Democratic candidate -- who served in Viet Nam by the way --" (thanks James) John Kerry is running a series of commercials in New Hampshire right now that state that "we must do more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil" and ends the spot with, "because no child should have to go to war for oil." Is the implication that Iraq and Afghanistan were simply wars of convenience to secure more oil for the U.S.? Because it sure sounds that way to me.

I freely admit that my support for the war in Iraq was tepid at best, but for much different reasons. For Kerry to imply that President Bush sent us over there simply to satisfy Haliburton is obscene.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting to see who the space aliens endorse in the Weekly World News. Then I'll make up my mind.

I've prattled about this before. Some liberals think that only the police should own firearms. Which would wind-up -- as England, Australia, Washington DC, and Chicago have found out -- meaning that only the police and criminals would own guns. These liberals believe that the police will protect us. Folks, the police don't protect -- they mop-up after the fact.

Some mutant criminal breaks into your home: Even if you actually had the time to dial 911, it could be 10-20 minutes before the cops showed up. (In Vermont, the average response time is 22 minutes.) Do these people think the thug is just going to leave you or your loved ones alone and hang-out, maybe watch a little TV? Play cards with you? Wile away the time until help finally shows up?

Here's an example:

Dorman Everett Shaw called police at 9:38 p.m. to report that someone was in his home at 2304 56th St. When police arrived, they found that he had been shot several times, according to police reports.

Officers later saw a man running westbound at Avenue W and 55th Street. When confronted, the man displayed a weapon, and an officer fired, injuring the man.

Dorman Shaw might not realize it but he's actually lucky the mutant only had a .25 caliber gun because that's probably the only reason he's still alive today. Certainly it isn't because the cops were able to "protect" him.

The police can't be everywhere and frankly, we shouldn't want them everywhere. Their job is to clean up the mess and summon the coroner after the fact. Even in Merry Old England, where police have installed over 2000 cameras on light poles to monitor the public streets, crime has climbed to the highest rates in their history.

No. Protection -- self-defense -- is a personal right and obligation for any free-thinking man and woman. Indeed, it's programmed into almost all living creatures on this planet. It is ingrained as firmly as the need to eat and procreate. When government tries to thwart that primal urge, you get results like the story above.

Shaw had time to call the cops. That means that he would have had time to grab a firearm to protect or defend himself. But apparently he didn't own one. Living in Texas, he could have. I'd say he's learned a terrible lesson. It's the same lesson being taught to Chicago and DC and N.Y.C. *Sigh*

It's no secret that I read a lot and this past week (with time off for the holidays) I've polished off a few books.

The best of the bunch was Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Excellent, fast paced suspense with a realistic background founded in fact. I read it in one late-night sitting because I couldn't put it down. It reminds me very much of the superb (and non-fiction) A Gathering of Saints by Robert Lindsey.

Michael Crichton's Prey was so-so. His plots are getting a bit sillier and this sci-fi story about nano-technology run wild wound up reading like a remake of "Who Goes There" by John Campbell (made into movies as "The Thing.") But at this point, like Stephen King, Crichton could re-write the dictionary and it would be a best seller and be made into a movie.

And finally, since most of my readers are of a libertarian bent -- I finally got around to reading Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's not bad for an almost 40-year-old SF novel.

By the way, for you Heinlein enthusiasts, don't forget that you can get up to date on all the latest at Bill Dennis' Heinlein Blog. (He's also the proprietor of the very good Peoria Pundit.) Bill has a review of the just posthumously published For Us the Living. Incidentally, he could use some help right now so hit his Tip-Jar.

Update 1/4/04 Comment received:

"The best of the bunch was Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Excellent, fast paced suspense with a realistic background founded in fact."

Actually, it's not especially factual. See for example this:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm
[live link to above--js]

Brown puts on a good show but hasn't done his homework.

Best,
--Bernhardt

Thanks Bernhardt. I read the review by Sandra Miesel linked to above. She doesn't like the book and points out much poor or wrong research. Plus the anti-Christianity message implied in the book.

I guess the thing for me in a fiction book is whether the author makes me believe that he knows what he's talking about... But then I fall for almost anything.

I don't do it much but I'm off for three days so who knows... Anyway, there's plenty of good stuff out there by others:

Nicki has a new post up over at Armed Females of America about how America is slinking towards socialism and complete loss of rights. And how the Supreme Court isn't helping the situation any.

---

Rich at Shots Across the Bow is buying his first gun. I go along with most of the comments that a .22 bolt action (such as my Marlin 25N) is a great first gun. It's fun, safe, ammo is cheap, no recoil and almost no sound, fun, great for plinking and building confidence, and... oh yeah, fun. (Thanks to Say Uncle for the link.) Les Jones has more.

---

Bitter Bitch has started a new feature where she'll post about a specific state's gun rights every few days and she'll include local state organizations to help you get started with gun ownership. Her first entries for "Guns are Sexy!" are here and here. Maybe enthusiasts in those states can add in her comments sections just what hoops folks need to jump through to exercise their rights to gun ownership.

---

Pervasive Light reports that some politicians in England think the right of a someone to defend themself is a terrible idea even if that's what the people (or is that "subjects") want to do. Meanwhile, having confiscated everyone's guns, England continues to watch their armed violence rate skyrocket.

May you all have a happy, healthy, wonderful year ahead.

Here's some great news: David at Sketches of Strain is back to blogging. I missed him and his commentary like this. Now someone buy him those boots!

---

And I should mention that another David, of Six Foot Pole, has been blogging on a steady basis these days. That's a good thing too. And I agree with #8 on this list. (I guess you'll just have to go see...)

---

New Years is, of course, the season for making (and breaking) resolutions. Recently, my buddy Dean Esmay quit smoking. I admire that. I've been smoking for 32 years. I quit for about 4 months after I was stabbed in the chest (among other places) in '85. But I had to go back to it. The addiction was way to strong for me. I gather everyone has a different threshold for addictions. Some have the type of brains that can shrug them off. Others, like me, have them so firmly imprinted in our being (whatever part of the brain that is) that we suffer mightily.

Anyway, enough about me... Oh wait! This is a blog -- okay, more about me... (Just kidding.)

One of my secret girlfriends, Kelley at Suburban Blight is planning to quit smoking. (She has a couple of other resolutions too and one (giving up the blog) would upset me very much. I hope she goes with plan B instead. Or just stays the same -- I like her that way.) Back to the issue at hand: I really will pray that she is able to give up cigarettes. It is a brutal habit in cost of money and health. But it's also a bitch of a habit. I can't do it; quit smoking. I hope she can although I would never think less of anyone who can't. Good luck, Kelley!

---

And since I can't go more than about four paragraphs without mentioning something about guns... My comrad in firearms, Say Uncle reports on his experiences with the ClipDraw and Saf-T-Blok. He's using them with his Glock 30.

I have a Glock 22 (.40) and I don't trust myself or the trigger-safety and on the rare occasions when I carry it, I carry it unchambered. Just the way I am. In reality of course, I carry my S&W .38 Airweight quite a bit and it is chambered and has no safety at all. Yet it's a harder "pull" and I feel better about it. Weird what our preconceptions about safety are in regards things like guns, lawn-mowers, food, and everything else in life. Have I mentioned that I wash my hands about 20 times a day? Germs, you know...

A few weeks ago when I listed the various candidates' positions on gun-control, I mentioned that Clark had not yet revealed his other than to say that he "hunted as a boy." His official website now makes his position perfectly clear. And notice that -- as I wrote in October -- his campaign is taking it's cue from the DLC and calling it "gun safety."

He starts off by stating that he is a gun owner and a hunter and so on and then elaborates on all the gun control steps he would take as president including:

"Do a better job of enforcing existing gun laws."

Yes, that's nice. We all believe in that. Of course he takes the position that John Ashcroft is somehow undermining all this.

"Ask Congress to send me a bill that closes the gun show loophole."

He brings up that canard which I guess has become the standard line for Democrats.

"Renew the assault weapons ban."

So far he's in lockstep with party-line. Needless to say, that ought to be "assault weapons" in quotes since the whole issue revolves around mostly cosmetics. Any gun, or knife, or baseball bat is an "assault weapon" when mis-used by a criminal. And trust me folks, as the Democrats discover that banning these weapons has no perceivable result on crime, they'll keep expanding the list as California and New Jersey have done.

"Make sure that guns are designed with safety as a priority."

So now he's going even farther than Howard Dean in his quest for gun control by taking a page from several "Ralph Naderish" states and demanding that guns contain enough safety-features as to render them useless in an emergency.

"Retain the records of gun purchase background checks as a tool for investigating crime."

Here we go! The first step in compiling a master list that could be used for complete gun confiscation a la England, Canada, and Australia. First is the list, then registration, then confiscation. This is how it's done.

The last of his plans is the clincher and so I quote at length:

Help law enforcement use existing technology to fight crime. Ballistic fingerprinting is already helping the FBI and local law enforcement agencies identify guns that are used in crimes. We should require such fingerprinting of guns before they are sold, and create a national database of such information. If we are serious about preventing gun violence and terrorism, we need to embrace technology that will help prevent criminals from remaining anonymous.

...Just in case the master list of purchase records doesn't fly. The costly, cumbersome, and nearly useless idea of ballistic fingerprinting would be a "national" priority of his. And then, just to prove he's an extremist on the side of gun-control, Gen. Wesley Clark adds this:

The gun industry should not be given special protections from civil liability when injury or death results from its failure to use reasonable care in the design, distribution, security, or sale of guns. That's why I will oppose any legislative effort to protect gun manufacturers and sellers from the standards that apply to every other corporation that sells products.

Which boils down to the fact that he thinks gun makers and distributors should be at the receiving end of every frivolous lawsuit trial lawyers can dream up.

Folks, Wesley Clark would be a nightmare as president for those of us who still respect the Bill of Rights and support the original intention of the Second Amendment. He's off my list of possible candidates for consideration. Granted, he was never very high on it to begin with because of his complete flip-flop of support for President Bush and the fight against terrorism against the United States.

The Democrats can call it "gun safety" all they want, it's still gun control and it will still lose them elections including, quite possibly, the 2004 presidential race.

---

Update 1/1 comment:

Good blog!

You wrote:

"And trust me folks, as the Democrats discover that banning these weapons has no perceivable result on crime, they'll keep expanding the list as California and New Jersey have done."

Actually, what Democrats and gun control advocates have been calling "renewal" really is already an expansion of the 1994 ban.

I have noted that in most discussion of the debate over the reauthorization of the Assault Weapon Ban, this aspect of the "renewal" has (IMHO) not received sufficient attention. If you agree and think that your readership may benefit, you may use any portion of what follows without attribution (and I know that the phrasing could stand improvement). It has not yet appeared anywhere else (at least from me.)

During the original debate over the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, gun control advocates gave much emphasis to their claim that assault weapon legislation would not ban hunting rifles commonly used by sportsmen in the US. With great fanfare, they included in the bill a list of 650 "HUNTING AND SPORTING FIREARMS" that would be exempted from the ban:

SEC. 04. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN HUNTING AND SPORTING FIREARMS.

Section 922 of title 18, as amended by section----03, is amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

(B) any firearm that--

(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

(ii) is an `unserviceable firearm'; or

(iii) is an antique firearm;

(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.'.

Keep and Bear Arms source

The 650 "Hunting and Sporting Firearms" were listed by name in Appendix A. Among them was :

CENTERFIRE RIFLES-AUTOLOADERS

Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifle (w/o folding stock).

Keep and Bear Arms source

The Ruger Mini-14 is a popular and widely-owned semiauto small game hunting rifle in the US.

However:

The "reauthorization" bill, H.R. 2038 revokes the "protection" given to all the semiauto centerfire and rimfire "Hunting and Sporting Firearms" in the original 1994 Assault Weapons Ban:

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

(C) is an antique firearm.

Source

It also specifically bans by name the Ruger Mini-14:

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

(30) The term 'semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

Source

The three categories of "protected" firearms eliminated by these changes were: "Semiautomatic Centerfire Rifles," "Semiautomatic Rimfire Rifles," and "Semiautomatic Shotguns," almost 100 of the firearms listed in Appendix A.

Here is what gun control advocates have said about the listed firearms, which would be greatly reduced by H.R.2038:

1) Then-President Clinton said in "An Open Letter to Hunters and Sportsmen" on April 29, 1994:

"High-paid lobbyists argue that the assault weapons ban will infringe on our right, as hunters and sportsmen, to own guns. But what they don't tell you is that the proposal I support specifically safeguards hunter's rights. It explicitly protects more than 650 hunting and recreational rifles from the ban."

Source

2) Senator Feinstein, the author of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, says on her web site:

Hunting Guns and Other Recreational Weapons Exempted in the Legislation

Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifle (w/o folding stock)

Source

3) The Brady Campaign says on their web site:

The amendment specifically lists 650 sporting rifles that would not be affected by the ban.

Source

The Washington Post reported:

Also specifically exempted would be about 650 rifles commonly used for hunting or target shooting.

Source

Although the sponsors of H.R. 2038 and editorials and news reports have repeatedly stated that the new legislation would close "loopholes" that allowed "copycat" assault weapons, the Ruger Mini-14 has not changed since 1994, when it was specifically exempted by name. As we have seen above, the Ruger Mini-14 (which would be specifically banned) and the other semiauto centerfire and rimfire rifles and semiauto shotguns (which would no longer be exempted and may be banned) have already been acknowledged by gun control advocates as "hunting and recreational rifles", "sporting rifles", and "commonly used for hunting or target shooting". This is a striking development. Until now, most gun control advocates have given great emphasis to their claim that assault weapon legislation would not ban hunting rifles commonly used by sportsmen in the US, but H.R. 2038 changes that, banning acknowledged hunting rifles and making all other semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns subject to banning as gun control advocates see fit.

This is major news - why has there been no announcement or news reports of this policy change? (Okay, a rhetorical question)

There has been a recent development. The Washington Post, in a 10/4 editorial, wrote (probably in ignorance of the provisions of H.R 2038):

It isn't as if sportsmen would be denied their firearms. The federal law provides specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns currently being manufactured. Isn't that ample?

To my knowledge, no one has yet pointed out that the "reauthorization" legislation that the Post favors revokes the "specific protection" of almost 100 of those guns and actually bans guns that were named for that "specific protection."

--Jay Fishman

Thanks Jay.

Apparently everyone working on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page is laid up with, oh, I don't know, Mad Cow Disease or something because there hasn't been a single new entry there in over a week. (Now watch, as soon as I post this, twelve new stories will appear.) So I'm sort of at a loss for anything to report and needless to say, the chart stays the same as last week.

In addition, my friend Nicki (the news administrator) at Keep and Bear Arms has been taking a long overdue break from the daily grind. I understand Angel will be filling in and there are news posts up today.

So... I started the "Weekly Check on the Bias" in October of 2002. The first post was rather modest to say the least:

---

10/31/02 12:00 AM by Jeff

A new weekly feature!

Yahoo is wonderful for collecting news stories under many different headings. Just go to their US Full News and you'll find every topic under the sun. Most of them are quite topical and one of them, Gun Control Debate, promises (as a "debate" would imply) an open discussion on gun control. But YOUR INTREPID REPORTER (ghod... I'm starting to sound like Rush) has noticed that if this is a debate, then the left-coast elites at Yahoo have forgotten to invite our side much of the time.

Now in all fairness, they do link to some articles from The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc. But these voices in the wilderness are far out-weighed by the leftist prattle of The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, etc. (and yes, it's late and I don't feel like inserting links to every single thing tonight.)

Anyway, I've decided to keep a running weekly total of pro-vs-con links on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page and every week will provide a running total for your pleasure. I'll only count articles that are shown, not archived. Articles will be counted from the following catagories listed: News stories, Opinions & Editorials, Feature Articles, and Audio files. Here is the current tally:

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Articles
Pro More Gun Control Or Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment
21	4

Check here every Wednesday or so for the new table. I'm sure there's no bias in how Yahoo selects their stories. Check back here each week, and by the way, I do appreciate your visit. Please come back!

---

Believe it or not, that was the entire post. As the weeks went by I expanded the chart a bit and expanded my commentary a lot. For instance, here's the start of the January 29th edition of this past year:

---

01/29/03 12:29 AM by Jeff Soyer

Weekly Wednesday table

Oh sure, all the other blogs will be yakking it up about the President's State of the Union speech. But not us! Here at Alphecca we're focused like a laser beam on Barbra Steisand gun owner rights and the 2nd Amendment. So for new visitors, each week we check out the articles listed on the front page of the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page. We rate them (oh okay, I rate them) on the bias of each story. Incidentally, I realize the chart is becoming rather large and starting next week I'll cut it down to only reflect the last few weeks. (I might list the whole chart on the gun stuff page...) So here's the chart:

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page Articles
Sample Date	For More Gun Control Or Is Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment	Neutral Articles	Concurrent Events Notes
01/29/03	10	6	4
01/22/03	18	1	1	Sniper victim lawsuits against gunshop & Bushmaster and AZ arms cache
01/14/03	14	1	4
01/08/03	16	3	2	England gang murders & ban on air/replica guns
01/01/03	15	4	1
12/25/02	15	4	1	NJ "smart gun" law
12/18/02	13	4	3
12/11/02	13	6	4	Canadian registry fiasco
12/04/02	15	2	3
11/26/02	17	2	1
11/20/02	18	2	2
11/13/02	14	2	3
11/07/02	17	4	-	Sniper caught
10/26/02	21	4	-	DC Sniper

Wow huh? I know, you're shocked, shocked you say. I can't really explain it either since there was no dominating issue or subject matter of the articles that would force the chart to reflect the more balanced view that it has this week. Naturally my hyper-inflated ego would like to believe that Yahoo realized that Alphecca was keeping tabs on the page and they thought they should mend their liberal-bias ways. Frankly, I don't think my sling-shot is big enough to cause a goliath like them to change -- but who knows...

---

Yes, my humor and ego expanded during those days too.

Eventually I abandoned the table/chart format and went with a more eye-catching format of gun graphics and then finally photos with a topical interest in the week's stories.

Along the way this weekly feature managed (despite my poor writing skills) to pick up a following and for that I thank all of you very much.

It's obvious that Yahoo will never really be balanced (although they approached it by accident this past late Summer) because -- I believe -- they don't want to present firearms in a good light. They're all geeky Californians who live with and want lots of gun control.

Most of their story and editorial links come from the Washington Post, L.A. Times, SF Gate, New York Times, and so forth. All of these newspapers are virulently anti-gun. Once in a while they throw us a bone with something from NRO or the Wall Street Journal.

None the less, those of us on the pro-gun, not more gun-control side remain relatively strong and as Democrats have discovered, the gun-control issue in national politics is a losing issue. Al Gore found that out quite clearly and you can see how many of the candidates (Howard Dean and John Kerry come to mind) are tripping over themselves trying to prove they're really for hunters. Of course they never come out and also say they believe in the right to carry for personal protection.

Might I suggest that you all help keep our side strong with some donations to the NRA and Keep and Bear Arms and GOA and anyone else you think is helping our cause. You'll find all the links you need on my blogrolls.

So think of this as a brief reflection back and I'll see you all next week with the first Weekly Report for 2004. Have a Happy New Years -- I wish health and happiness for all of you and remember: No fucking compromise, no fucking retreat. The Bill of Rights -- and especially the Second Amendment -- is the reason our great country still exists. Thanks for stopping by!

A couple of weeks ago I reported on how Democratic candidate John Edwards was blaming Bush for the "flu crisis" which was then all the rage in the media. Funny how that's quieted down now that the flu season has already peaked in many areas.

Then Glenn Reynolds mentioned that the left was blaming President Bush for the earthquake in Iran.

Folks, it just gets better and better. Now Howard Dean is blaming Bush for the Mad Cow disease scare. Here's a quote:

The former governor, whose state has a large dairy cow population, said the Bush administration failed to aggressively set up a tracking system that would allow the government to quickly track the origins of the sick cow, quarantine other animals it came in contact with and assure the marketplace the rest of the meat supply is safe.

"What we need in this country is instant traceability," he said.

Dean said such a system should have been set up quickly after the mad cow scare that devastated the British beef industry in the mid- to late-1990s. The Bush administration was still devising its plan when the sick cow was slaughtered Dec. 9, and on Friday the government still hadn't determine the infected animal's origins.

"This just shows the complete lack of foresight by the Bush administration once again," Dean said. "This is something that easily could be predicted and was predicted."

I couldn't make this up. But I might point out to Dean that during the mid - to late - 1990's the president of the United States was... uh... Clinton, I think. Of course, he had his mind on another heifer during his tenure in the Oval Office.

As for a tracking system, the sick cow was discovered a week ago. Two herds have already been quarantined, and despite Canadian protestations, we now know the complete history of the cow. If it could be done faster, I don't know how and with virtually millions of cattle in this country, I'd say the USDA has done pretty damn good.

I suppose some blame could possibly -- possibly -- be placed on congress for not passing a bill prohibiting the slaughter of "downed" cows but then there's this:

But opponents of the legislation said USDA inspectors might never have discovered the apparent presence of the disease, formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, had Ackerman's legislation been in place.

Banning the sale of downed animals would prevent USDA inspectors from detecting possible cases because the animals would never reach the slaughterhouse for inspection, they said.

"The fact that it was caught is the significant thing for the consumer," said Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee. Stenholm has argued that federal inspectors are in the best position to keep sick animals, as opposed to those that can't walk but are otherwise healthy, out of the food chain.

But you know the left -- they're bereft of any ideas so "let's just blame everything on Bush."

Well, I'm a helpful kinda' guy so here are some other things the Democratic presidential candidates and other leftists can blame on President Bush:

• The loss of the Beagle 2. Obviously Bush hasn't done enough to make soft-landings on Mars possible. Two American craft have already been lost there and now Great Britain has lost contact with theirs. Why hasn't Bush pushed for a better system to track decending space probes? Guilty I say!



• Those giant solar flares from the Sun last month? Bush should have known about them and gotten legislation passed to shroud the entire Earth from possibly harmful x-ray exposure. Tans be damned, why isn't he doing something about this?



• That two-year-old who ran into a park railing! Why didn't Bush know that would happen and force all parks to have railings made of day-glo orange rubber? Shouldn't he have known that unsupervised children might bash their heads into it? So what if the day-glo orange spoils the look of the park, this is an issue of safety! And now look, this brat's whole career is ruined, ruined I tell you, because he got a bump! My Ghod, allowing young kids to get bumps and bruises in a park! Better yet, why hasn't Bush outlawed all playgrounds in the U.S.? Liberals, take note!



• Melvin Spitwad of Gorgon, Tennessee lost control of his Chevy Blazer and drove into a tree! How could Bush NOT have seen this coming? Why aren't all trees banned and cut-down anywhere within a mile of any road?



• And might I point out that the president is no doubt guilty of failing to keep large rainfalls away from California thereby encouraging mudslides. Oh the humanity, the humanity. Why hasn't G.W. instituted a better system for tracking dirt? My blood just boils!



• Last night, somewhere in the Florida Everglades, an alligator ate a cute little newt. Doesn't Bush realize that if this keeps up, salimanders could wind up on the nearly, almost possibly somewhat endangered list? Why hasn't he worked to prevent this? Oh, I know why all right, his brother is Governor down there...

So there's some good ideas for the left to mull over as they sharpen their attacks on President Bush. Glad I could help out.

For those who don't want Christmas to end just yet, The Weekend Pundit has posted an absolutely gorgeous picture of Christmas in New Hampshire. I just grabbed the larger version he's offering and made it my desktop photo. And it reminds me of why you can all keep your Hawaii and California Coast and so on. I'll take the four seasons here in Northern New England. I've told my family and friends before -- I'll never move from this area again.

Adam Groves has a thoughtful analysis of the Bush Doctrin on foreign policy and how it will unite both the Christian Right and moderate libertarians. Interesting.

---

Armavirumque is saying that the anti-bush, anti-democracy left -- particularly in the press -- is a threat to freedom forming in the Middle East. I believe the left actually hates freedom. They want to control everyones' lives a la Singapore. Except when it's something they want to do. Then government is hopelessly oppressive.

---

Michael at Discount Blogger goes after the socialist left because they want the government to coddle us from birth to grave. Great post.

---

Getting back to foreign policy, Robert Prather warns against rushing to turn over sovereignty of Iraq to it's own barely functioning government. I agree and would add that we certainly shouldn't turn it over to an international consortium of leftists such as France, Germany, et al. I hope this administration won't "rush" the transfer of power for political purposes but Robert is warning that it might.

---

Craig Henry at Lead and Gold rightfully disputes the Guardian for suggesting that Saddam Hussein was "fooled" by his scientists into thinking he still had weapons of mass destruction. Craig points out that all Saddam would have had to do was to "ask for a demonstration" and the heads would have rolled. Let me just say that I don't think anyone sneazed in Iraq without Hussein knowing about it.