...I was going to rant about the new show on NBC (the Nothing But Crap network,) Mr. Sterling. You know, that new show about the "independent" senator who speaks for the real people -- as long as they happen to share the same ideology as the liberal writers and producers and (chief jerk at NBC) Jeffrey Zucker. And OH! What a surprise! Sterling just happens to mouth all the lip-service words that any left-wing Democrat about as independent as Vermont's Jim Jeffords might utter... Of course he's against a missile defense program and of course he's for labor and of course he's bla-bla-bla-bla-bla.

So here we have another ultra-left biased program -- like The West Wing -- that purports to portray a moderate, middle-of-the-road guy who supposedly doesn't represent any specific side of congress. What a total lie. But what can you expect from NBC, the garbage-can network that thinks the average American wants to watch people eating horse rectums and thinks people want to see other "Fear-Factor" folks vomiting on TV? This is how low that piece of crap Zucker has dragged NBC.

But I'm mellow tonight and so I'll save this rant for another time. I'll just say that Mr. Sterling is absolute liberal garbage just like everything else on NBC. And all their ratings, their viewers, come from the East and West coast left-wing crap that is ruining this great country of ours. But let me calm down... Serenity now...

---

Anyway, I guess this wraps up another week here at Alphecca. Plenty of commentary about guns and gun rights and the people who would steal our 2nd Amendment rights away from us, as always. Anyway, as regulars know, I usually take weekends off to recharge my batteries so I'll see you all here Sunday night. Thanks for stopping by...

...Jerry Seper's reporting in the Washington Times about Attorney General John Ashcroft's vigorous prosecution of gun-violation crimes. Here's a quote:

ÝÝSpeaking to a conference of federal, state and local law enforcement officials in Philadelphia, Mr. Ashcroft said 10,600 suspected offenders were charged with federal gun violations in 2002, compared to 8,054 who faced federal gun charges in 2000, the year before the program (Project Safe Neighborhoods) started.

The program, which diverts cases from state court to federal court where penalties are stiffer, accounted for 7,747 gun-violation convictions, which Mr. Ashcroft called the largest ever for a single year.

Of those charged, 93 percent were sentenced to prison, 71 percent of whom received terms of three years or more.

Proving once again that we don't need more gun laws. All we need to do is enforce some of the 20,000 gun laws we already have on the books. That and making sure those who break those laws do time in prison. Ashcroft is doing that and getting results. All without harassing law-abiding gun owners by trying to enact more registration or licensing plans. Or expensive and dubious plans such as ballistic-fingerprinting.

Now if we could just apply the same enthusiasm to locking up all the other thugs ruining our lives. Let's start with drug-dealers, sex-offenders, and muggers. Just watch the crime rates fall if these mutants actually did hard-time.

Just incase you forgot what a clueless fool sounds like, check out Don Shaw's editorial in the Modesto Bee. Here's (hold your nose) a quote:

The documentary film "Bowling for Columbine" arrived in town at an opportune time since the whole gun control issue seems to be heating up again, making The Bee's Opinion pages once more a battleground of angry accusations and clamorous misconceptions.

How nice it would be, I thought as I sat through Michael Moore's brilliant film (thanks to the State Theatre for making that possible), if a little common sense could be applied to the controversy. We've all heard enough worn-out political rhetoric and trite slogans, and maybe it's time to do some actual thinking.

"Brilliant?" An alleged documentary filled with false claims, staged scenes and clever editing to reflect his bias? Here's more:

Moore, as it turns out, is just the person to make such an appeal. No gun-hating zealot of the sort often set up as a straw man and handy target for the enemies of gun control, he is very much the voice of reason. He informs us that he is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association and takes pride in an award he won for marksmanship as a teen-ager.

Uh huh. No doubt that explains his treatment of Charlton Heston, or of dragging child victims to K-Mart headquarters, or of out-and-out lying about being able to walk out of a bank with a gun, or perhaps it's distorting the ease of buying ammo in Canada. Yes, it's clear from the movie that he is the "voice of reason."

But wait, there's more:

One example of such distortion is seen in a recent letter to The Bee asserting that "it is no secret that the extreme left wants only total gun confiscation" ("Ease up on gun control," Jan. 9), a totally false statement. I have become well-acquainted with recent writings by a number of social critics generally thought of as "left wing," and I have found none who advocate anything like a sweeping confiscation of legally owned weapons.

Of course, his definition of left-wing social critics is probably different then mine, or most of my readers. And we only have to look to England and Australia to see what "the left" really wants: They do want to eliminate citizen's rights to own firearms. And both of those countries (not to mention Germany during Hitler's rise to power) started with gun registration schemes.

Here's one more quote:

A reasonable liberal vision, like Michael Moore's, involves not confiscation but sensible controls and restrictions, together with an understanding -- brought out so effectively in the film...

I'm sorry, I hope I haven't caused anyone to lose their breakfast...

Leigh Hanlon at HanlonVision is spending his time watching old cartoons. Any of you remember Private Snafu? An interesting collection of professionals worked together to put those out during WW2. Interesting story so check it out.

...Say hello to Chris at Queen City. He doesn't know it but we have something in common: He's a city planner and I used to be on the Planning Commission of my town. Anyway, good story of his about bias in newspaper reporting on Ohio's hopefully soon to be concealed carry law.

---

Well, I gotta run -- off to work. See you all tonight.

To another friend of Alphecca, Chicago Boyz. They are kind enough to blogroll me. And I was born in Chicago a long time ago... Anyway, stop by and visit them... All sorts of good (and unlike Alphecca) well thought-out comments.

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...

As I said, the newly listed articles and editorials had no common theme. There was only one story (AP) about the Florida judge tossing out the verdict against Valor:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A judge on Monday tossed out the $1.2 million verdict against the company that distributed the handgun 13-year-old Nathaniel Brazill used to kill his teacher two years ago.

Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga ruled the Nov. 14 award for the teacher's widow was inconsistent because the jury also determined the gun used to kill Lake Worth Middle School teacher Barry Grunow was not defective.

Pam Grunow had sued gun distributor Valor Corp. after her husband was gunned down in a school hallway in May 2000. She claimed Valor could have made the gun safer by installing a lock or other device.

Valor attorney John Renzulli said the ruling shows the gun industry can't be held liable in such cases. He blamed Brazill and Elmore McCray, who owned the .25-caliber Raven handgun and kept it in a drawer, unlocked and loaded, where Brazill found it.

"We know what happened here, a criminal got in touch with a gun and shot somebody in cold blood," Renzulli said. "That's certainly not Valor's fault."

So that's a good thing. And another blow to all the trial-lawyers and the Brady Bunch who would like to do to gun makers what was done to tobacco companies. And trust me, sights are already being set on the alcoholic beverage companies...

In an unsigned editorial in the Washington Times, the story of how two businessmen were acquitted of murder when they shot an armed (with a hammer) mutant who broke into their business and threatened them. Here's a quote:

"This case was an injustice that challenged the foundation of the right to defend yourself," Mr. Kifer told the Baltimore Sun following the verdict. "I am hoping that people will now be able to defend themselves and not be prosecuted."

Which brings up the following question: In a city like Baltimore, where hundreds of homicides occur each year, (many of which go unsolved) why is Mrs. Jessamy ((the prosecutor)) squandering taxpayer dollars by persecuting small-business owners like Messrs. Kifer and Der, who were merely defending their lives and their property?

Yeah, this ain't England you know. Or New York City... Thank God the judges in these two stories showed some common sense. And not to belabor the point but this is why it's so important that President Bush will now stand a chance of getting some of his judicial nominees appointed. And hopefully will get to fill a couple soon-to-be-open positions on the Supreme Court as well.

And why, you might well ask (oh, go ahead) did I mention NYC in the same breath with England? Because of this New American editorial... (Hey, Segway, it's more then just a stupid way to get around!) Canarsie resident Ronald Dixon defended himself and his family by shooting an intruder. Needless to say, Dixon was charged:

The would-be thief attempted to flee before collapsing outside the house. He was rushed to a local medical center in critical but stable condition, and was arrested on a burglary charge. Police later identified him as Ivan Thompson, 40, and revealed that he had been arrested on 19 previous occasions, mostly for burglaries, and was on parole for a burglary conviction.

The Dixons were not injured. Mr. Dixon clearly merited the applause of a grateful community for defending himself and his family while helping to apprehend an apparent career criminal. Instead, he was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon after it was learned that his gun, which he had legally purchased in Florida, was not registered in New York.

Which brings to mind something I ranted about a while back but am too lazy to look up and link to: Why was this thug on the street at all? He'd already been arrested 19 times. In my court he would be doing life and after-life in prison. If NY judges refuse to properly punish criminals, the least they can do is allow citizens to protect and defend themselves. The cops or prosecutors should patted Dixon on the back and said, "good job." But in a state that elects Clinton and Schumer as well as phony Republicans like Pataki and Bloomberg, well, what can you expect.

I mentioned the gun dealers swindle story the other day (you'll see it as you scroll down to read all my bon-mots of wisdom) had nothing to do with gun control and so I put it into the neutral column. Another story -- from Radio Netherlands -- that I placed in the neutral column dealt with the proposal for gun control in Switzerland. Again, why this should appear on a page dedicated to "debate" about US gun control is beyond me but here it is:

The Swiss army is a national militia, with an army rifle in the home of every able-bodied citizen. So far, no problem. Swiss criminals may settle their scores with knives or clubs, but usually leave the official shooting-iron alone.

But even in this placid Alpine country times are changing. In 2001 a deranged burgher used his army weapon to decimate the cantonal parliament of Zug. Last year guns blazed in more than a dozen bloody family feuds.

To curb the mayhem and counter Switzerland's reputation as the 'arms supermarket of Europe', the federal government wants to enact stringent arms control laws. In the future, gun aficionados or collectors will need official permits to buy or exchange their hardware and police can search homes without warning for 'particularly dangerous weapons,' such as the lethal 50 BMG, a favourite toy of one shooting club in the Bernese Oberland. This long-range sniper's rifle with laser-scope can knock out an armoured personnel carrier from a distance of one kilometre.

But the Swiss arms lobby is no less militant than its American brothers-in-arms of the National Rifle Association. The 'Pro-Tell' lobby, grouping hundreds of thousands weekend-shooters, is lambasting the government project as "a sinister attempt to disarm the people.'' The new rules, Pro-Tell darkly warns, herald "a slide toward dictatorship."

Eventually the issue will be decided by national referendum. I feel for my Swiss friends and we should give them all the support we can to see that they don't lose their right to protect themselves. Any suggestions?

But I've saved the best for last! A pro-gun article in the L.A. Times about the Second Amendment Sisters chapter at Mt. Holyoke College. Here's a quote:

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- Flush with anticipation, four students from the nation's oldest women's college peered into the display case last week at Smith & Wesson's Sports Shooting Center and considered which handgun each would select for target practice. The .22, said Christie Caywood, because it fits so nicely in her hand. April Sparks swiftly chose the .357 over the .38, then opted for the .22. Student government president Erica Stock suggested they could all try different caliber weapons -- and then switch off. But Sabrina Clark was not sure she wanted to part with the .357. "I just love that gun," Clark said.

The 21-year-old senior at nearby Mount Holyoke College was quick to sign up when Caywood organized the first collegiate branch of Second Amendment Sisters, a national organization that promotes firearm ownership for women. One year later, the chapter at Mount Holyoke, a campus of just 2,000, claims up to 75 members.

Focused on political advocacy and gun-use education, Second Amendment Sisters contrasts with traditional hunting and shooting clubs that have attracted men and women at schools such as Harvard for more than 100 years. The group's emergence at a venerable women's college in a state with some of the nation's strictest gun laws has troubled some alumnae. Most of the Mount Holyoke community, said spokesman Kevin McCaffrey, "is on the opposite side of this issue."

But members of the group's Mount Holyoke chapter see themselves as the vanguard of a movement they hope will soon encompass girls in high school -- and even younger. They view firearms as tools toward empowerment and self-defense.

And:

Stock, the student government president, said that discovering the joy of target-shooting was one of the benefits of her membership in Second Amendment Sisters. "I was afraid of firearms for a very long time because I didn't know how to use them. I identified with the antigun stance," she said, adding that now she not only plans to own a gun, but, "I want to educate my children about this someday, too."

Stock said Second Amendment Sisters' enthusiasm for its subject sometimes continues into hearty dormitory debates, or impassioned conversation at M & C: the school's long-held tradition of serving milk and cookies at 9:30 every school night. She has worked out a standard response to students who challenge her views about gun ownership for women.

"If you don't want one," she recited, "don't buy one."

Clark, who is majoring in the ethics of foreign policy, said she recently dumped a boyfriend who told her he would never permit handguns in their home.

"I thought about it for maybe 30 seconds, and then said, 'No, never mind, you can go away now,' " she said. What galled her, Clark said, was the dismissal of something she considers an integral part of her life. "You don't even have to love me and my guns," she said. "Just respect them."

Well, on that cool note, that's a wrap. See you all here soon and thanks for stopping by.

Okay, I'm stuck at home because my car wouldn't start. Here's the really short mini-rant because this isn't the point of this post... Twenty below, battery lame, car doesn't start. Call Mazda "Roadside" and still waiting for help. Now... On to important stuff... Remember Ballistic Fingerprinting??? Oh, as I said months ago (and I'm too lazy to go back and find my link. Anyway, I know you all stop by here every couple days and know of it already... yeah, right...) Anyway, here's the latest story from Don Thompson of the AP:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Two related California studies to be released this week conclude it is currently impractical to catalog the ballistic "fingerprints" of every firearm in the state.

Recording every firearm made and sold in the nation's most populous state could be overwhelming, according to an internal California Department of Justice report obtained last fall by The Associated Press. Supporters of a proposed nationwide database fear the report, combined with an independent review of it, will further undermine congressional support for a national firearms database inspired by last fall's Washington area sniper attacks. The reports, along with a federal rebuttal, are to be submitted to state lawmakers.

Oh, sorry liberals, but I guess I was right back in November (OK, so I found my quote) when I said ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work. Oh, wait, here's another quote:

California's initial study found the number of potential computer matches in the state "will be so large as to be impractical," that "a large proportion" of weapons couldn't be recorded, and that each gun's markings change with routine use and can be easily altered.

And never mind that the millions and millions of guns already out there in the hands of (mostly law-abiding) citizens like me will never be "finger-printed." Once again, just to drive the point into the ground even further: Folks, criminals will never present their guns for --will not allow their guns to be-- "finger-printed. It ain't gonna happen. Instead of worrying so much about the "how they did it," why don't you all try to worry about "why they did it?" I'm sorry, that almost makes sense and the liberal left won't stand for that...

...minus 20 degrees outside. I don't even want to think about what will happen if I try to start the Alphecca limo. Hopefully this is the last real cold blast for a while. But it's only January...

Several comments have come in on some of the things I've posted and I've added them to the bottom of each posting. I guess the virus affected quite a few servers because I received several emails this morning that had been sent on Saturday. Weird. Fortunately, the huge I.T. systems employed by Alphecca were un-affected. (I use Hosting Matters, the same web-host used by many of the finest blogs...)

Anyway, my brain is frozen and I have to get to work shortly so... Tonight I'll put together this week's tally from Yahoo so look for that tomorrow morning. Again, thanks for stopping by.

You remember that I talked about rats a couple weeks ago? Microsoft is working with the major record labels to foil attempts to copy CDs. From Yahoo, here's the story. Here's a quote:

Microsoft has released a new digital rights software package intended to stop unauthorized duplication of copyrighted CDs and DVDs. Called the Windows Media Data Session Toolkit, the software is geared toward the needs of large record labels, which claim illicit copying has become a serious threat to the music industry.

"This is exactly what the music companies have been looking for," Forrester analyst Josh Bernoff told NewsFactor. He noted that the new software appears to strike a compromise between CDs that are copy-protected and those that are easily playable on all devices.

I won't go into a big rant right now about how if I buy a CD then I want to do whatever I want with it. I'll just say I'm glad I use a Mac (since Apple hasn't yet caved in completely to the RIAA) and I use Eudora for email and now I will stop using Internet Explorer and switch to Netscape. Incidentally, Mac users will appreciate the new version of Netscape which surpresses pop-up ads. For my tongue-in-cheek review of this feature, see this post from December.

Anyway, I am now totally Microsoft free. And one nice side-affect is almost total immunity from computer viruses. "Free at last, free at last, thank God I am free at last..."

---

Comments:

I agree with your post. I've written about this whole thing a few times. I think the recording labels are fighting a battle they will never win. They may go kicking and screaming into the future but they will go there in some form or another. It's amazing how many artists are standing shoulder to shoulder with them and how the RIAA has acted like the freakin' Gestapo. I can't believe Microsoft caved on this. It will be a waste of time and money that the shareholders will never get a return on.

--Allen Prather

---

Let me give you some background based on my personal experience. I sell stuff --now and then-- on eBay. All of us, buyers and sellers, are kept in line by a feedback system where we post our experiences with each other. This system is brilliant and is the sole reason eBay (yes, that is the correct spelling) works as well as it has. Every buyer and seller involved in a transaction has the opportunity to post their thoughts and opinions (in 80 characters or less) about that buyer-seller in the feedback section.

After a transaction is completed, you have the chance to express your thought about your trading partner. You can post positive, neutral, or negative feedback. And when you go to post that feedback, eBay shows you a stern warning telling you to --in so many words-- consider what you are about to say because eBay does not regulate or control your words and they will not erase them just because you or your trading partner don't like them. So consider what you are about to say...

So here in the nation of babies, that would be the U.S., where nobody wants to accept responsiblility for anything that they do, where teams of greedy, un-ethical trial lawyers are waiting to help them win the lottery of litigation, we now have a pathetic jerk who knew the rules going into eBay but recieved negative feedback and wants to sue eBay for over 2.5 million dollars. From Yahoo, here's the story:

Analysts say the case, sparked by an online sale of vintage Hollywood magazines, cuts to the heart of what makes eBay work: the power of buyers and sellers to keep an eye on each other.

Robert Grace, publisher of a Los Angeles legal newspaper, sued eBay and Hollywood memorabilia dealer Tim Neeley this week in a California Superior Court after the Web site refused to remove negative comments Neeley made after selling Grace six vintage entertainment magazines.

According to the lawsuit, Neeley said Grace "should be banned from eBay," and was "dishonest all the way" for alleging in the online forum that the magazines he bought had arrived late and in a worse condition than advertised.

In his lawsuit, Grace demands $2.5 million in punitive damages from eBay and $100,000 from Neeley.

I am exercising my 1st Amendment rights and expressing my personal opinion that I think Grace is a total jerk. He knew how the system worked going into eBay. Here's the disclaimer eBay shows you when you are about to post feedback:

"You are responsible for your own words," a warning on the site states, in part. "You should be careful about making comments that could be libelous or slanderous. You will not be able to retract or edit feedback you left."

Now if he wants to sue the person he traded with, that's none of my business. But in my opinion he is including eBay just because his trial lawyer wants to make a lot of money when eBay has not done anything wrong. They have clearly stated they won't "edit" feedback. Folks, this is what makes eBay work and it is what keeps most of us honest.

I know it for a fact; I've sold many things on eBay. I have a positive feedback rating of 118. No neutrals and no negatives. It is the threat that someone might post a negative feedback about me that keeps me working so hard to be honest and conscientious about my dealings with people. Okay, that and also that I tend to try to be a decent person anyway. But the simple fact is that no matter how well I perform, one day I will probably receive a negative comment. Anyway, this is no different then lawsuits against, let's say, a gun company. The criminal has no money so let's include the maker of the gun in the suit so we can win a bunch of dough in this lottery-lawsuit.

Look, I do draw a distinction between lawyers, and "trial-lawyers." The lawyers searching the bottoms of garbage cans in search of big bucks are destroying and bankrupting this country. We need legislation that will:

1) Cap all "punitive awards" right away.

2) Make the loser (that is the filer of the lawsuit) pay the defendant's costs if they (the plaintiff) lose the suit.

3) Raise the threshold on what is "actionable."

4) Create professional jury panels, full time, paid, that will hear these cases. Stop allowing lawyers to pick and choose idiots to sit on civil cases.

5) Eliminate, that is prohibit radio and TV ads by lawyers. This is how it used to be and we didn't have all these frivolous lawsuits back then.

6) Somehow, cause the American people to finally grow-up. Teach them how real men and women lived and behaved and shouldered responsibilty during the early part of this country's history. For God's sake, make them start accepting responsibility for their actions and not try to blame everyone else.

Well, that's my dream of the perfect world but I know it will never come about. Just remember this, folks, everything you purchase, every single item you buy in a store, every car, article of clothing, power-tool, home, food, every visit to a doctor, all the medication you buy -- well, it all costs you probably 20% more then it should have, because of liability insurance.

---

Comments:

I appreciated your comments on the eBay lawsuit, except that you stumbled a bit right out of the gate with your recommendations:

1) Cap all "punitive awards" right away.

Not good enough. Punitive damages need to be completely done away with. The idea of punishment should be conspicuously absent from the civil tort system; if someone wants to go beyond being made whole, including reasonable amounts for pain, suffering and other intangibles, they should have to convince a prosecutor or grand jury that a _crime_ was likely committed. That's why such crimes as conspiracy and reckless endangerment exist, is it not?

Note, too, that not all states permit punitive damages.

-- Kirk P.

---

I enjoyed your eBay post and agree with the body of it.

I would like to comment on your solutions however. These are related to civil actions only as I am sure yours were.

1) Cap all "punitive awards" right away.

Basically wrong. Cap if you will but the problem with punitiveÝdamages is in the distribution. In effect the jury is fining them for public misconduct.ÝThat should go in the public coffersÝnot to the plaintiff.

2) Make the loser (that is the filer of the lawsuit) pay the defendant's costs if they (the plaintiff) lose the suit.

Absolutely. Civil law has become a game where the lawyers never really lose and a game where the main players can't lose. In sports I think they call that fixed.

3) Raise the threshold on what is "actionable."

Absolutely. It would stop a lot of this "deep pocket" silliness.

4) Create professional jury panels, full time, paid, that will hear these cases. Stop allowing lawyers to pick and choose idiots to sit on civil cases.

Very Wrong. I can't think of a worse solution. Do you think the lawyers wouldn't know them inside and out? Instead have a second judge handle the jury selection. He can weed out the biased/incompetent and then passÝthem to the trial judge. Now the two sides are faced with a jury that they know nothing about. Seems to me that a fair judgment is more possible.

5) Eliminate, that is prohibit radio and TV ads by lawyers. This is how it used to be and we didn't have all these frivolous lawsuits back then.

Wrong. Sorry, while I understand your thoughts the 1st amendment is as important as the 2nd :)

6) Somehow, cause the American people to finally grow-up. Teach them how real men and women lived and behaved and shouldered responsibility during the early part of this country's history. For God's sake, make them start accepting responsibility for their actions and not try to blame everyone else.

Sigh, that is an on going struggle.

-- Samantha

---

Humorist Dave Barry has his own blog and of course it's wickedly funny. I discovered this link via the great Tim Blair and apparently (also great) Ken Layne had a major hand in engineering all of it. Go read Ken's comments because they are very funny. Anyway, here are the links.

Dave Barry's new blog: DaveBarry.blogspot.com

And his (only a couple days) old blog: Dave Barry's first few days

Life is good!

Well there's a news-flash! From Theodore Dalrymple (I've quoted him before) in the National Post (UK,) here's a long quote from the story:

Well, the evidence concerning gun control is unequivocal and conclusive: It hasn't worked, just as its critics always said it wouldn't. The reason for this is obvious: law-abiding people don't use guns to commit crimes, while criminals are not likely to take any notice of licensing restrictions and regulations.

Crimes involving the use of firearms rose in Britain last year alone by 35%. In the year 2002, 9,974 crimes were committed with the use of a gun; the year before, there were 7,362 such crimes. In 1954, by contrast, a princely total of four crimes were committed with the use of a gun. Something has changed, to put it mildly.

Britain has been horrified by the gunning down of two young girls recently in the crossfire between two rival gangs, the Johnson Crew and the Burger Bar Boys, at a New Year's party in a hairdressing salon. Although there were large numbers of witnesses, the police have had difficulty in finding people to come forward, for gun law now rules in inner-city Britain and criminals believe in the death penalty. It is applied for such heinous crimes as giving statements to the police.

The law has done nothing to curb the surge in gun crime. A few years ago the surgeons in the hospital in which I work had virtually no experience of gunshot wounds: now they are quite adept at their medical management. Indeed, training courses are now available for surgeons in Britain on how to treat gunshot wounds, for the treatment of such wounds is clearly a growth area in British surgery. In our hospital, the policemen routinely wear bullet-proof jackets, a police guard round a shot patient becoming a not uncommon sight.

My young patients from the slums know where and how to get a gun, and they know the current prices too (not high). It is merely a matter of going down to such-and-such a pub and asking such-and-such a person. You can afford a gun even on social security.

Folks, I have blathered about this so many times now that you probably want to strangle me for repeating myself. But please don't. The simple fact of the matter about enacting draconian gun-control is that criminals don't obey laws. If you pass a law that required everyone who owns a gun to register it, I've got some news for you; the law-abiding citizens (or more accurately "subjects") will begrudgingly do it. Personally, I don't think they should. I think they should wrap their guns in weather-proof material, stick it in a weather-proof box, and bury it in a forest somewhere for later retrieval. That's what I would --will-- do. But most folks will do it; register their guns.

Now, this might come as a shock to liberals: Criminals won't. I know, I know, how astonishing is that? Criminals, thugs, mutants, they don't obey gun-control laws. I can almost guarantee that the Bloods and the Crips, and the robbers and rapists and sick aryan-nationalists won't pile into a bus and head on down to the local police station to register their guns. Folks, this dog don't hunt.

There are all sorts of "solutions" to crime. Many of them are liberal or socialist. I should be honest and state right here that I don't disagree with all of them. But I won't go into it now because that's another huge post for another day.

What I will suggest, my solution, is that you make absolutely sure that anyone convicted of a serious gun-related crime pay dearly. By that, I mean that you stop making excuses for their aberrant behavior by locking their butts up in jail and leaving them there --without parole-- for a very, very long time. And make jail absolute hell! No TV, no exercise, no weight-room, no mixing with other prisoners. Make jail a hell, a solitary, lonely, a cold, horrible place where no one wants to ever wind up. Let them feel so alone and isolated from other humans that when they finally finish their long sentence, they come out embracing other humans as if they had just been born. And maybe then, they really will be born again. (No, don't read any religious thing into that please.) Just that prison should be awful, something to be feared and avoided at any cost. It should never be thought of as, "no big deal." It should be considered by all as the most horrible deal, the worst deal you can be dealt. The losing hand. (OK, all English teachers tell me how stupid my metaphore was...)

So what's the answer to crime? I'm not smart enough to offer an easy answer. I can only tell you that punishing the honest, law-abiding folks isn't the answer. I think the solution is making jail, prison terms, absolute hell as it was a long time ago. Oh wait! All the liberals whine that that is cruel. Well yah! So is crime. So is assaulting your fellow American. Once you commit a crime against another human and you are convicted of it, I think you lose all rights to civil treatment. You should suffer as you made others suffer. You should experience hell. What's that? You don't want that? Then don't commit a violent crime. Don't harrass or threaten or intimidate or rob or rape or assault or kill another human. Got it? Because if you do --in my world-- you will suffer terribly. You will be granted no mercy. You will rue the day you became a mutant and attacked an innocent person.

A new entry on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page has nothing to do with the debate. But anyway... here's a story from the AP about gun sellers swindling a "collectables" gun buyer:

PHILADELPHIA - Two firearms experts were indicted on charges of swindling a gun collector in a deal involving antique pistols, including guns owned by legendary Texas Ranger Samuel H. Walker.

Federal prosecutors accuse Richard Ellis of LaClaire, Iowa, and Michael Zomber of Franklin, Tenn., of conspiring to trick the unidentified Bucks County collector into paying $3.2 million for the mid-19th century revolvers.

Zomber and Ellis had purchased the guns for about $1.6 million, prosecutors said.

The buyer, identified in Thursday's indictment as J.M., paid Ellis to represent him as a consultant in the deal. Prosecutors said Zomber and Ellis fabricated correspondence to trick the collector into thinking he was in a bidding war with other buyers.

I don't really have any comment on this, I just thought it was interesting. Most gun dealers, sellers, and buyers are honest because we all feel as if we are some beleaguered group and if we can't trust each other, who can we trust? But it just goes to show there are crumb-bums in any group.

Since I took one yesterday I'll keep this short; let me just point out a few more interesting things for you to check out:

First of all, let me thank Rachel Lucas for her wonderfully kind comments about me and Alphecca. And welcome to all of you visitors who stopped by in response. I know I'm weird, but please come by now and then and visit.

---

Bitter Bitch has a post at the Bitch Girls about a controversy I missed:

Wearing flip-flops to work at Larimer County's food stamp office is prohibited. Bringing a gun to work is allowed. Commissioners in this northern Colorado county are working to clarify their stance on guns in the workplace with a written policy after two employees were spotted with handguns...

Interesting story that has been brewing for some time. Bitter has her usual pithy comments on it all. She does a good job "fisking" the whole story. Boy am I glad she's on my side...

---

My friend Arthur Silber has a plethora of new posts up at Light Of Reason. And yes, I've been waiting for just the opportunity like this to sneak in the word "plethora." Anyway, Arthur has been busy on his blog. As one of my idols -- Martha Stewart -- would say, "this is a good thing." Alas, soon her show might be coming from a jail cell where she'll be teaching us how to make bail... So stop by Arthur's and say hello.

---

I've discovered another nice blogger, Susskins Central Dispatch, who has me on their blogroll. I read through all of their archives and I gather this is a nice couple who relate what's happening in their lives. Now, I don't know this for a fact, and I can only draw a conclusion based on what I've read, but I think this might be a really nice couple of gay-guys. If I'm wrong, I will immediately apologize and retract that. But anyway, anyone with enough sense to reject boring turkey in favor of (yes!) spaghetti and meatballs for Thanksgiving is all right in my book. The Alphecca dietary research team has determined that, by weight, the ratio of meatballs to spaghetti should be 10:1. This is just how a good life should be. So pay them a visit as well.

---

Lastly, here in the Upper CT. River Valley of Vermont, the outside temperature has actually hit 31 degrees. Not that you should care but this is the first time the thermometer has risen over 24 degrees since Christmas. Folks, we're talking "heat wave" here. Unfortunately, it won't last. Tonight, yet another cold-front is supposed to sweep through and tomorrow's high is supposed to be six degrees...