You know folks, while I believe in a God, I don't believe that he's stupid. Some of his believers do. And to placate them, the Georgia State Superindendent of Schools Kathy Cox is suggesting that the word "evolution" not be used in schools. From CNN:

Superintendent Kathy Cox said the concept of evolution would still be taught under the proposal, but the word would not be used. The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it.

Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a "buzzword" Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching.

A "buzzword." Even an idiot can see evolution in how the "flu" virus mutates to remain viable. Just to use one simple example. But nevermind. Let me suggest some other changes to the curriculum:

• The solar system doesn't actually circle the Sun because the Earth is the center of the universe. There are REALLY BIG INTERMESHED GEARS controlling the movement of the heavens that just make it look as if the planets and stars are revolving around Sol.



• Praying to God will actually help you win the Lottery, because there are only eight billion other people doing the exact same thing. If you win, it was certainly God's Will.



• The Earth (and universe) is only about 4800 years old. All those silly laws of physics, plus the deceivingly placed dinosaur bones are just "mysteries" of God who put them there to test our faith.



• A lightning strike isn't just a phenomenon of nature but is actually God trying to strike down someone he's pissed-at.



• For Muslems (followers of "the religion of peace") murder and killing and suicide are the chosen methods by God to reach heaven and have lots of virgins to screw.



• The Earth is flat. Any observations to the contrary are just optical illusions.



• Pat Robertson actually chats with God all the time and really knows what's on God's mind. Gay people are certainly responsible for earthquakes and large rainfalls.



• Don't eat oysters during a month ending in "R."

What the hell is going on down there? I refuse to believe that the average Georgian is actually worried that the word "evolution" might be used in the context of discussing how animals and man actually got to where we are. If there are a few backward individuals who still think thunder is the gods walking on the roof, well and fine, we can certainly present their views too. But that doesn't mean we should all act as if the world of science and discovery don't exist. Political correctness cuts two ways. In this case, it cuts the artery of knowledge. It only hurts our kids and their future.

In England, it's against the law to defend yourself from attack. They've already disarmed their subjects but even that wasn't enough. The sick, leftist liberal culture there declared that you can't do anything to protect yourself from the mutant criminals who want to take from you and hurt you and... Well, you get the idea. And the sickly "EU" mentality over there is creeping over to our shores.

From the Somerville Journal:

Bob Adams says he was wearing a blue bathrobe and in fear of being attacked last week when he shot an intruder inside his Davis Square home.

The intruder, 37-year-old ex-con Stephen P. Callinan of 127 North St., has a history of arrests and convictions for construction scams and break-ins. He was formally arrested by Somerville Police on charges of breaking and entering and malicious destruction of property Sunday after being released from the hospital for his gunshot wound.

Well, so far, you might rightly say that this was simply a "justified shooting." I certainly do. And Mr. Adams had a properly licensed firearm and used it against a mutant. But the lawyer for that mutant disagrees:

Callinan's lawyer, Dale Marie Merrill, says Adams is the one who should be facing charges because she said Adams shot Callinan in the back and the bullet only missed his heart by an inch. Merrill said she thinks police should arrest Adams.

"I'm shocked and horrified that the Somerville Police have not done so," Merrill said. She said Adams' story doesn't "hold up."

Fortunately the Somerville Police are a bit smarter than Merrill. But is this the start of a trend? That in keeping with the leftist-liberal-coastal-elitist thinking, criminals are just poor innocent victims who are entitled to more rights than their victims? Well, we've already seen that THAT is the case but until now it hasn't been tested in the courts. I suspect that this will. The victim (Adams of course, in the real world) heard and saw Callinan break in via the back door of his house. The (expletive deleted) trial lawyer claims:

Merrill said Callinan is a contractor and had thought Adams' Winter Street home was a business because of a small sign on Adams' house that says www.Somerville.com. The Web site is for Adams' work as a real estate agent.

Callinan is a multiple-time "scam artist" and now he's claiming that he busted through locked doors because he thought Adams' home was a place of business and well, you know, if a store is closed and the doors locked, you should be able to just kick-in-a-door (that is, break and enter) in illegally and tromp around.

I'll try to follow this story because I suspect that the (in my 1st Amentment rights) lawyer is a sick anti-American who rejects our Bill of Rights and who wants to grant special rights to criminals. They (she) wants the US to become the sick culture of "blame the victim" that the European Union has embraced. God help us.

It won't help Hale DeMar, the Wilmette, IL homeowner who used a gun to defend himself, in violation of the town's ordinance banning the Second Amendment, but there might be help on the horizon for some in the future. An Illinois legislator (a Democrat!) has introduced a bill to repeal all local ordinances that go further than state law. Here's a quote:

Arguing that a Wilmette man had a right to shoot an intruder in his home -- regardless of a local ban on handguns -- a state representative is proposing legislation that would override such bans when the guns are used in self-defense.

"It's important to afford people of the state of Illinois to defend their person and their property, and this affirmative defense would allow them to do that,'' said Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, who filed the legislation this week.

Bradley said authorities are wrong in prosecuting Hale DeMar for violating Wilmette's handgun ban and for failing to renew an Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification card. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, he said.

This is similar to a bill passed in Colorado last year.

---

Greg makes a good point that although Bush might be on a spending spree, would any Democrat somehow do better? So we might as well stick with a big-spender who believes in defending our nation against terrorism.

---

Les Jones is starting a weekly feature of links and pictures of gun related items and posts. Sounds like "a keeper" to me...

Just because I'm not posting much doesn't mean others aren't.

John R. Lott, Jr. has a new article up titled Athletes And Guns. Being a large, in-shape guy doesn't really help you against the mutants out there so many pro-athletes still rely on concealed carry to protect themselves.

---

David Kaspar is reporting that in Germany, Islamists (you know, followers of the religion of peace) are attacking gays. And since it's "taboo" to ever say anything critical of Islam, the events go mostly unreported and discussed.

---

Well, we all have, or think we have problems but Lana puts it all in perpective. As she says, we need to count our blessings.

I've been rather "un-posty" this week. Sorry about that. The wounds are healing well but the antibiotic (Amoxicillin/K-Clav -- 2000mg a day) is (combined with still working my day job) knocking me for a loop. I get home, have a drink, make some lame thing like toast or something, and hit the sack. In the morning I have big trouble waking up and when I do, I watch the Today Show and then drag myself into the shower and just slink to the office...

I don't know if it's the antibiotic, the stress, or what, but my gout has been on "yellow alert" and that's been bothering me too. I'm getting old folks. I don't know how it happened. In '85 a guy stuck a knife in me several times and within two weeks I was working full time and didn't feel a thing. I was young and strong.

Now, things take a long time to heal. I ache and pain. I'll be fifty-years-old in 9 months. I like to think I still think young and truly much smarter than I did back then. But I actually caught myself groaning as I got out of my car the other day. Just my body telling me to slow down. Heck, how could I possibly slow down more than I have?

SOME folks handle aging well. One of the best is my good friend at Indigo Insights. As usual, this wonderful woman knows how to put it all into perspective with great humor. Everything she writes is gold but check this post and scroll (as you read) to "OUTSTANDING QUOTES ON AGING" because there is so much truth there.

Another blog you might want to read (well, almost everyone does, actually) is Acidman with all his brutal honesty about himself, done with a LOT of humor. Regulars may have noticed that I mention him a lot, usually tongue-in-cheek, because he's a truly good guy who has bared his soul on his blog. I reveal "glimpses" but I don't have the guts to speak out about the world or myself the way he does.

You know what's scary? The other day I realized that in a few years from now, young folks will want me to re-take my driver's test and prove I'm not a danger on the road. I've received a total of three tickets in my life. My last accident (a fender-bender) was like fifteen years ago and was only one of two in my life. And soon, I'll be a member of AARP. Five years I think.

I think the same as I always did. But my bones and stuff don't. Now, when I do stupid things like trying to bring a new cat inside, I pay a dear price physically, and worry about it. I never did that 20 years ago.

Folks, this is my blog -- I have put up my life for all to see on "the Web" and I have to be honest now: I have had a lot of chances to advance in this world but I've managed through my own stupidity to take every wrong fork-in-the-road, made every single BAD decision that I could, and squandered any money and opportunities that I've been presented with.

And I smoke and drink and eat bad food and I've taken in two-dozen stray cats in my life. And you already know what happened with the last one.

But I still maintain that I think like I did when I was much younger. I just don't have the moves or the "sex appeal" that I used to have. But now, I do see some light at the end of the tunnel. I realize that people my age (well, maybe a bit older) are starting to die. My lifestyle doesn't portent a whole lot longer life for me either.

Anyway, one of the things that keeps me going is that I feel a responsibility to any cat I decide to adopt. I feel I have to remain alive and well so I can take care of them for all of their "natural life." Sambo, my youngest (and I hope you all know these aren't the real names of my cats; I don't want some mutant showing up calling out "Sambo" to kidnap her...) is about five years old but my experience with large cats is that they only live to about 10 or 12-years old. I wanted a new young one. A nice, not-aggressive, lonely cat. Maybe he's two years old. They keep me young the way your dogs or children keep YOU young.

It gives me a reason to wake-up everyday. It gives me responsibilities. It makes me feel needed. That's all besides, but is just as important as my love for these cats.

Anyway, thanks for reading my stupid blather. I'll be back Friday Night (I'm off the weekend) and will also be done with my antibiotic and I hope to have all sorts of good stuff to write about.

Ballistic cats, bla bla bla. Primaries and SOTU speeches, bla bla bla... Here at Alphecca, we know what's really important: The breakup of Ben and J-Lo Guns! Time to turn our (okay, my) attention to the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page and see what's happening out there...

It's not good folks; we are losing badly in the "fairness of linkage" debate. Matt Drudge had linked to this Time Magazine story on cell phones that do much more than just touch someone. For this week's chart, here's my Nokia model 47:

I know what you're thinking: "Gosh, Jeff's Photoshop skills just keep getting better and better..." Yes, thank you, thank you all a lot... Enough ellipsis! Makes me look Dowdy. Let's get to it...

The New York Times had a pair of editorials praising the NRA and calling on all nations to relax their gun control laws. Oops! Sorry, I slipped into an alternate universe there for a second. Actually, they first had this editorial deeply intoning how the NRA has all of Congress in their back pocket. Here's a quote:

The capital's one-party rule since the last election has left the National Rifle Association riding high. Incumbents in both parties are increasingly afraid to stand up and be counted on this life-and-death issue. Gun control advocates face slippage on all sides, and an ominous deadline this September: that is when the 10-year-old ban on military-style assault weapons is due to expire, and G.O.P. leaders have given no sign that it will be renewed. The ban, a landmark law, is criticized as less than perfect. But it has saved lives, even as manufacturers have worked to circumvent it with cosmetically altered "sportsmen" versions of battlefield weapons.

How many gratuitous remarks can possibly be slipped into just one paragraph? After decrying "one-party rule" (wrong party) and the fear of incumbents to vote their constituents wishes, they then warn of the impending "life-and-death" doom, "ominous deadline" etc. But the last sentence really shows what a farce the "assault weapons" ban is. The claim that gun makers have simply changed the look of these firearms to continue selling them IS PROOF that the whole law was based almost entirely on cosmetics! It should be scrapped.

Look, all of the guns on the "banned list" operate exactly the same as semi-automatics that aren't on the list. The only offending differences are that they "look bad." Should we ban cars that "look bad?" So a rifle has a pistol-like grip. Is that a valid reason to prohibit it's sale? I don't think so and I'll tell you this: This (New York Times) so-called "landmark law" has had a negligible effect on crime. As John Lott showed in chapter eight of his book The Bias Against Guns, in states (such as California):

As mentioned earlier, California provides a relatively unique example in that it both enacted an assault weapons ban in January 1990 and then had the law declared unconstitutional in early 1998. [The charts in the book] indicate that there is little impact on the state's violent crime rates from the law. For murder, robbery, and aggravated assaults, those crime rates were rising before the law and continued rising after it. Similarly, when the law was declared unconstitutional, those same crime rates continued their trend, as they were falling prior to the court decision and continued falling in 1998 and 1999. With respect to rape, while there was a tiny upward spike in 1990, rape rates were largely falling uninterruptedly since 1980.

I would, by the way, suggest this fine book to anyone needing to arm themselves with the data needed to counter media claims that gun control reduces crime.

The other op-ed from the Times details how Brazil would like to ban all handgun ownership. Apparently the disasterous examples of similar schemes in England and Australia have gone unnoticed by Brazil and the Times:

Since just before Christmas, no one in this nation of 175 million except police officers, soldiers and prison and security guards has been authorized to carry a pistol.

The sale and trade of weapons has been similarly limited: the illegal purchase, possession or furnishing of arms has become a criminal offense with no bail and long prison sentences. Gun owners are being told that most of them will have to hand over their weapons within six months.

And what will happen? The law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns and the criminals WON'T. And a country with a huge murder rate will find that rate rising even more.

By the way, for legal gun ownership (I presume long guns) the owner has to show cause and pay an annual $350.00 (US) fee. That's approximately the average annual salery of the working poor in Brazil, putting the right to hunt and defend out of the reach of all but the wealthy and privileged. Sound familiar?

Much of the reason for the anti-gun tilt in the charts for the past couple of weeks has been all the stories about the decision by idiot judge Reginald Walton in Federal District Court to deny law abiding residents of Washington DC the right to defend themselves from criminals. In one of the few bright spots that Yahoo linked to, Gene Healy writes in the American Spectator:

Many District residents, like the plaintiffs in Seegars, would like to have other options to protect themselves. Standing in their way is a gun control scheme of almost comic rigidity. You can't own a handgun without a registration certificate and you can't get a registration certificate, because the District stopped issuing them to ordinary citizens in 1976. If you do happen to own a pre-1976 handgun that you registered back when disco was king, you cannot lawfully carry it from room to room in your own house without a license. And you can't get a license.

You can register certain rifles and shotguns. You just can't legally use them when your life is threatened. District law requires all guns to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a triggerlock" at all times -- and it makes no exception for lawful self defense. If a burglar confronts you in your home, and you load your shotgun to defend yourself, you've just committed a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to a year in jail.

One might suppose that such a regulatory scheme constitutes an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, if anything does. But Judge Walton disagrees, declaring in the Seegars opinion that "the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms" but rather grants some vague, unenforceable collective right.

As the author of this intelligent piece indicates, even "liberal" scholars have come to recognize that the Second Amendment, like the others, confers an individual right.

You know, if you're reading this today (Monday, Jan. 26th) just head over to Keep And Bear Arms and read the succession of crime stories from Illinois, a state (and especially the city of Chicago) that doesn't allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Here are some other items:

In New York City, another "gun free zone" if you obey the laws, which criminals don't, comes this New York Times story:

A convicted rapist went on a violent 13-hour crime spree across three boroughs, killing a young man in front of a 4-year-old girl in Queens, sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl in Manhattan and shooting at people in the Bronx before he was arrested by a team of police detectives late Wednesday night, law enforcement officials said yesterday.

Officers and detectives from 10 squads worked against time, piecing together tips and bits of surveillance camera footage as the man they sought crisscrossed the city, growing more violent as the day wore on.

The man who was arrested, Andre Shobey, 45, had a knife and a loaded .32-caliber revolver when the police caught him. He has spent most of his adult life in maximum security prisons for accosting people in elevators, and for raping, robbing, beating and humiliating his victims in one-day crime sprees more than 20 years ago, records show.

He was charged yesterday with murder and criminal possession of a weapon. Other charges were pending, as the authorities continue looking into his activities since he was released from prison in August. The authorities would not suggest a motive beyond noting that Mr. Shobey told his interrogators that he had been drinking.

Why he was even out of jail is a subject for another day. But it should be noted that in the Bloomberg/Esposito city, not one of the victims or their families are allowed to own a firearm for self-defense. Privileges such as that are reserved for ex-doper rock stars and liberal movie stars who offer free tickets to concerts and filmings. In my opinion, Mayor Bloomberg, Police Chief Esposito, and the liberal members of the NYC Council are all guilty of these crimes because they do not relax the draconian anti-gun laws of NYC and allow the law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Speaking of politicians who infringe on gun ownership, blogger Jason Hinds has comments on this Chicago Tribune story about how... Well, read this:

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley on Wednesday called on Congress to reject legislation that would ban local governments from suing the gun industry over the sale of firearms that land in the hands of criminals.

Daley, together with Mayor Scott King of Gary, Ind., lashed out at a House-approved measure that is before the Senate, arguing it would effectively dismiss lawsuits the cities have filed against some gun manufacturers in state courts.

Also from the same Tribune story:

Daley and King, speaking at news conference during a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting here, said their lawsuits were far from frivolous and relied on evidence gathered by local police.

"We should be able to sue to get some accountability," Daley said. "We're not looking for a lot of money. What we're asking them is to clean up their own industry. This will prevent a lot of lawsuits in the future."

How exactly will this stem the tide of murder in Chicago and Gary? As Jason rightly points out:

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the people who are using the guns improperly be the ones getting sued by mayors?

Of course not! Actually hold criminals liable for their crimes? But it's the gun makers who have money, so that's who the trial lawyers go after.

Speaking of England, which I was a while back, how's their gun ban going? You remember, they confiscated everyones' guns? From The (UK) Sun:

The number of violent crimes soared last year, shock Government figures revealed yesterday.

Police recorded a 14 per cent rise in offences involving violence.

From July to September there were 289,500 violent crimes in England and Wales -- compared with only 253,000 in the same period in 2002.

This included an 18 per cent increase in homicide and serious wounding, from 10,000 to 11,800.

Sexual offences also rose eight per cent from 12,900 to 14,000, according to Home Office figures.

Minor woundings, harassment and common assault rocketed from 203,800 offences to 238,000.

Hmmm... Not so good. When will England, and Australia, and Brazil, and Chicago, Washington DC, New York City, et al realize that preventing honest citizens from owning and carrying firearms is nothing but a free pass for mutant thugs to attack them?

Here's how it works, from the same article:

Britain dominates the top five in the crime league of Western countries, with only Sweden above them.

England and Wales have 10,608 crimes for every 100,000 citizens, followed by Scotland and Northern Ireland with 8,315.

Germany has 7,734, France 6,880 and America -- known for violent crime -- just 4,157.

And here in America, it's -- guess who? -- Chicago and Washington DC that lead the nation in homicide. And in states that DO permit gun ownership, the crime rates are much less. Is there a theme here that all these newspapers are missing? Or just failing to report because it doesn't fit in with their agenda? As the late author Robert A. Heinlein once said, "An armed society is a polite society."

---

Here's what just some of the pro-2A bloggers are up to:

Swen Swenson is discussing Triple-Shock X-bullets. The Fuz is also talking ammo.

Xriq is all over the Hale DeMar story. You know, another Illinois resident who used a firearm to defend himself... Which is against the law there... Oops, I'm getting "Dowdy" again...

Glenn Reynolds has more on how the BBC is part of the problem regarding the steep crime rise in England for discounting the will of the people who want to be able to defend themselves.

Say Uncle reports on some positive gun stuff that Yahoo seems to have ignored.

Publicola is celebrating his one-year blogoversary. Congratulations man!

Eric Scheie is writing about the bashing of "homocons" such as Andrew Sullivan and myself and the issue of gays with guns comes up... By the way, I defended Sullivan in one of my very first posts. A lot of good that did me... I'm "Dowding" again...

And remember that Bitter Bitch has her continuing series on what all the state constitutions say about gun ownership. Just scroll (well, read everything of course) for the "Guns Are Sexy" posts.

There's so much more and I'll try to mention all during the course of the week. Anyway, that wraps up this edition of the Weekly Report. Thanks for stopping by!

---

Update 1/28 Comment received:

(from the Times article:)

The ban, a landmark law, is criticized as less than perfect. But it has saved lives, even as manufacturers have worked to circumvent it with cosmetically altered "sportsmen" versions of battlefield weapons.

(my comment:)

But the last sentence really shows what a farce the "assault weapons" ban is. The claim that gun makers have simply changed the look of these firearms to continue selling them IS PROOF that the whole law was based almost entirely on cosmetics!

(reader's comment:)

The NY Times has just said the same self-contradictory thing that most gun control supporters say. They are all half right: There really are now-legal versions of most "assault weapons," and they are as readily available as they have ever been. Never explained is just how the "assault weapons" ban can have "saved lives" if "assault weapons" indeed are as readily available as they have ever been.

Also ignored is how during the debate over the "assault weapons" ban, the NRA said, as you say, that "the whole law was based almost entirely on cosmetics," and gun control supporters charged that the NRA was lying. So who was really lying?

The Times also makes the oft-seen gratuitous charge that "manufacturers have worked to circumvent" the "assault weapons" ban. "Banned" features indluded bayonet lugs and flash hiders. Manufacturers removed these features from their firearms to bring them into compliance with the law, and are charged with working to "circumvent" the law.

Gun control supporters say that they now want an even more Draconian gun ban, such as they passed in California. Yet some manufacturers eliminated still more "banned" features from their firearms in order to bring them into compliance with the new California law. Are California gun control supporters pleased that some manufacturers have brought their firearms into compliance with the new law? Of course not!

--Jay Fishman