...I've given you a taste of why you should stop by at least every so often. See! My dreams do mean something... (And maybe why tossing a few coins my way are worthwhile.) Anyway, as almost always, I take Saturday off to prepare for the coming week and "recharge." So I'll see you all back here Sunday Night, same Bat Channel. Thanks for stopping by.

...Democratic presidential hopefulls who were able to read the rather clear writing-on-the-wall presented by Colin Powell. Here's Stephen Dinan from today's Washington Times:

...That stands in contrast to the four Capitol Hill Democrats actively seeking the presidential nomination: Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri.

All four said Mr. Powell's speech made the case that the United Nations must act or that the United States should act alone.

I'm surprised to see Gephardt in this group but good for him. (I still wouldn't vote for him for president even if his only opponent was a Shetland pony...)

And I still think that when we go into Iraq, the battle will be swift and decisive. And just as we saw in Afghanistan, the liberated Iraqi people will be dancing in the streets and thanking us.

As the article points out though, some Democrats (probably most, actually,) have reservations about the way we are handling the situation in North Korea. So do I. Here's another brief quote from the story:

Democrats also began a new round of criticism for the way the administration has responded to the situation in North Korea, which just announced it will resume operations at a nuclear reactor that could produce material for building atomic weapons.

In a floor speech yesterday, Mr. Daschle called that an "even more ominous development regarding weapons of mass destruction," and Mr. Lieberman called the Bush administration's current efforts in regard to North Korea a "failed policy." Mr. Kerry called the administration's policy "fuzzy."

I agree. And I said this TWO MONTHS ago. If you don't want to click back to what I said at the beginning of December, let me quote myself here:

I don't want you to think I'm getting all "mystical" on you but after a restless night of sleep I've come to a half-formed conclusion. A good part of my days news readings were mulled over by my subconscious mind and the conclusion is that North Korea is currently the greatest threat overall to world peace.

Oh sure, Al Queda is a loosely organized band of terrorists threatening the U.S. and Israel and they are seemingly able to enter our country through "the back door" and inflict great harm on us. But they can only hurt us a little bit at a time. And it doesn't seem likely they could start something that would wind-up a world war.

The same with Iraq; a piss-in-pot country run by a nut-case. If and when the U.S. goes in there, the battle won't last very long. The worst about the Iraqs and Syrias and Saudi Arabias is their support and funding of groups such as Al Queda.

North Korea scares me because not only is it now clear that they do have some sort of nuclear weapons program, but also (probably) are on their way to having inter-continental ballistic missiles. Further, by being an arms merchant to other "loose-cannon" states, they are an enabler for others to create mayhem all over the world.

North Korea is a country that should be feared greatly. And watched closely. I am more worried about them then Iraq when it comes to enabling or starting an incident that could quickly escalate to a very large conflict involving far greater losses then anything a mid-Eastern country could inflict. Yes, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons but they always seem to stop short of actually launching them, perhaps realizing they will both simply annihilate themselves.

Radical Islamics want to annililate Israel and the U.S. They don't have the capability yet. North Korea could give them that capability.

And here's what I said a MONTH ago:

They are doing to us what we are doing to Iraq. Call it sabre-rattling, call it intimidation, call it what you will. They've already thrown out all the U.N. inspectors and shuttered the monitor cameras. They are trying to destroy our already rocky relationship with South Korea. They are a big-time threat and we had better pay much closer attention to them and start building up our forces in that area. Even Japan, for fifty years without a military, is nervous enough to start thinking about developing defenses against North Korea.

Is it possible that North Korea just wants concessions? I suppose. Since when does the U.S. give in to black-mail? Once you start making payments, the demands simply increase. Any detective from a dime-store novel was telling you that a hundred years ago.

We are in a tough chess match with several countries right now. I really hope Bush and his team is taking this more seriously then they seem to be letting on. The stakes are way too high with North Korea. We'd better be awfully sure of our hand and not fold.

North Korea is challenging us and many are correct to question the rather limp-wristed reply America seems to have offered so far. Perhaps there is more going on behind-the-scenes; well and good. Certainly our response to a country with a million soldiers and true weapons of mass destruction including "nukes" requires a deft hand. Again, I just hope Bush and his team are up to it.

BISMARCK, ND The stage was set for another international showdown Monday, when chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix confirmed that the remote, isolationist state of North Dakota is in possession of a large stockpile of nuclear missiles.

"Satellite photos confirm that the North Dakotans have been quietly harboring an extensive nuclear-weapons program," said Blix, presenting his findings in a speech to the U.N. Security Council. "Alarmingly, this barely developed hinterland possesses the world's most technologically advanced weapons of mass destruction, capable of reaching targets all over the world."

From The Onion of course.

Kathy Kinsley at On The Third Hand believes Bush's statement that the "game is over." Well, actually, she believes there are just two more hands to play and as soon as the annual Muslim Mecca pilgrimage is over -- so is Saddam. Here's a quote:

The game isn't quite over yet. Next Friday, Blix makes his next report. A few days later, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca will be over. The last card will be turned over shortly thereafter.

After that, it won't be a game anymore.

Check out her whole post on this.

---

And Baby Bitch at the Bitch Girls lets loose with a full-scale rant directed at all the peace-niks caterwauling against war with Iraq. I'd quote but I blush easily... But you probably don't so check that out too.

I'll just mention this in passing because it would be much better handled by Glenn Reynolds or Eugene Volokh. Michael C. Dorf, writing in FindLaw's Writ says that the Supreme Court ruling in Eldred vs Ashcroft, where the court ruled that it was permissible for congress to further extend the term of copyrights, has implications for the Second Amendment. Here's a quote:

In Eldred, the plaintiffs placed heavy reliance on the prefatory clause declaring the purpose of the copyright grant: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful arts." They argued that extending existing copyrights did not serve this purpose. Extending future copyrights might "promote ... progress" by giving authors financial incentives to create more, and better, works. But for works that have already been created, no further incentives are needed.

A 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, rejected this argument. It pointed out that prior statutory extensions of copyrights--in 1831, 1909, and 1976--had applied to existing, as well as future, works. And it found that Congress could have rationally believed that it was only fair to give the same protection to holders of existing and future copyrights.

The author's argument is that original clauses in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have constantly been augmented by the court through the years and that it would be easy to limit the meaning of the 2nd Amendment by the same means:

The Second Amendment, like the Copyright & Patent Clause, contains prefatory language that declares its purpose, and can be read to limit its scope. Strikingly, it is the only other constitutional provision that does so. (Of course, the Preamble that precedes the entire Constitution could be argued to have a similar function, but if so it applies to every constitutional provision, not to any particular clause.)

Specifically, the Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What is the significance of the prefatory language "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"? Does it simply declare the Amendment's purpose, but lack any independent force of law? Or does it serve to limit the Amendment's scope?

Put another way, does the right declared by the Amendment belong only to the "militia" (or the People as a whole), as the prefatory language suggests? Or does it belong to individuals, as the rest of the Amendment, standing alone, could be read to imply?

I think this is what is meant by judicial activism and once again it confirms to me why it was so important that Bush won in 2000 and that Republicans regained total (if slim) control of congress in 2002. We desperately need to fill at least two seats on the Supreme Court during the next two years with judges who will not "interpret" the Constitution but will apply it as it was written and by considering what the original intentions of the authors were. And anyone who reads the writing of our founding fathers knows perfectly well they believed the Second Amendment was a right conferred to "the people," just the same as all the other amendments do. That is, these rights were intended to be and to protect individuals.

Anyway, I'm out of my depth here so Eugene? Glenn? Take it away...

From Ananova:

Nasa says a small meteor or piece of man-made space junk may have struck the Columbia shuttle causing it to crash.

Even a tiny scrap of debris grazing the shuttle could have damaged thermal tiles just enough to start a chain reaction.

And:

Nasa takes great care during missions to avoid the man-made objects, from ejected payload shrouds to tools left behind by astronauts after spacewalks, that are in constant orbit.

William Ailor, president of Aerospace Corporation, said Nasa has had to adjust the flight path of shuttles at least eight times to avoid large pieces of debris.

A speck of paint once chipped the windshield of the Challenger during a mission completed before it exploded in 1986.

I obviously have no way of knowing if the Columbia was hit by debris or whether this is just a way for NASA to deflect criticism from their judgement that the falling insulation during takeoff caused enough damage to cause the shuttle to fail during landing.

I do know, however, that perhaps we ought not be cluttering up space with so much "junk" and abandoned tools. Do we really need to create a "floating" landfill in space that causes us -- eight times -- to adjust the flight paths of our spaceships?

It reminds me -- the title of which escapes me -- of a sci-fi story from the fifties by Arthur C. Clark about how when the Russians and Americans first set up colonies on the Moon, they had a gun battle. All the bullets that "missed" went into orbit around the moon and had to be tracked by radar. Look, I'm not a total nut on environmental issues but can't we at least have our craft bring their garbage back with them and not crap-up space? You've heard of GreenPeace; if this theory from NASA holds true, look for BlackPeace soon...

Another good friend to Alphecca just made a kind donation to the cause, and to helping me out. There are some terrific folks out there. Thanks very much!

Just a quick note to thank another generous soul who made a kind donation to me today. Aside from giving me a sense of self-worth, it really is needed. So thank you! (I, of course always thank everyone personally by email but I like to give public thanks as well.) All though I'm nearly fifty, my dream is still -- one day -- to own my own home, with cats and dogs abounding and a makeshift rifle-range in the backyard. Every bit helps! If you would like to also, just scroll on down to the "starving kitties" on the left side-bar. And thanks! See you all tomorrow night.

Dear Mr. Soyer,

I just don't understand it! Twice in the past four weeks I've sent you lovely publicity photos of me and somehow they've been tampered with before reaching you. There must be some really evil people working for our Postal Service. And since we're now good friends, I certainly want you to have a photo of me that shows what a serious, deep-thinking individual I am. So here's another picture of me as I contemplate the snows melting off Kilimanjaro.

Sincerely, Barbra

Thanks BooBoo ...er Babs.

Boy, the week just flew by. The news -- of course and rightly so -- was dominated by the tragic demise of the space shuttle Columbia. But there were some new postings of stories and editorials to the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page. Each week I read (or re-read) every editorial and news article posted on the front page of this Yahoo category. Sometimes on re-reading, I'll change my mind on which column to place a piece under. Anyway, here's the table with some modifications to shorten it:

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
02/5/03	11	2	7	Ashcroft/ATF prosecutions
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
Dec. Avg.	14	4	3	Canadian Registry fiasco & NJ "smart-gun" law
Nov. Avg.	17	3	2	D.C. snipers

I've consolidated and averaged November and December totals to keep the table from consuming the entire page. I think this might be a good method to continue with but I'm open to suggestions since this is the most visited posting on Alphecca every week.

I've already dealt with the incredibly stupid editorial in the Modesto Bee. This was a gushing-with-love editorial for Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine. Did I mention that it was stupid?

On our side, I also discussed an article from the Washington Times about how gun-law violators are being prosecuted in ever higher numbers under John Ashcroft. That should certainly put to rest any suggestion that simply because he supports the Second Amendment, he will go "soft" on criminals. Note, however, that there were a couple of other news stories slanted to where Ashcroft's increased prosecution of these criminals was somehow causing him to neglect prosecution of other crimes such as enviromental crimes. Frankly, I'd rather he go after a mutant with a gun then a mutant with sludge... There are only so many dollars in the Justice Department's budget.

There was an editorial from the Washington Post lambasting an attempt to repeal a law preventing CCL licensees from carrying guns into Virginia bars. Here's a quote:

IT'S FRIGHTENING enough that Virginia law allows customers to pack heat in public places where alcohol is served if their holstered weapons are in full view. But every year some lawmaker with a posse of National Rifle Association lobbyists presses hard for the repeal of a ban on bringing hidden weapons to such establishments. For the third year in a row it's Del. R. Lee Ware Jr. of Powhatan at the ready, stressing his belief in the importance to public safety of the armed citizen.

I suppose an argument could be made that guns and alcohol don't mix, though that hasn't been a problem in bars -- at all -- here in Vermont (or N.H. or Maine for that matter.) On the contrary, I would refer to this story from WAPO back in 2000 about the mutant, Ronald Gay, who walked into a Roanoke, Virginia gay bar and opened fire on the patrons. Perhaps if one of those customers had been armed, the incident would have ended much more quickly and with fewer injuries, including the death of one of those patrons. Here's a quote from that:

A man who opened fire in a Roanoke gay bar last fall, killing one man and wounding six people, pleaded guilty to murder yesterday, ending a case that spurred a national outcry against prejudice.

Ronald Edward Gay, 55, a former Marine who told police his violent outburst came after years of being ridiculed over his surname, also admitted to six counts of malicious wounding. He faces a maximum sentence of more than four life terms in prison.

Authorities said Gay walked into the Backstreet Cafe on Sept. 22, pulled a pistol from his trench coat and sprayed bullets into a crowd of about 50 people who were drinking and dancing. As Gay calmly walked out of the bar, telephone operator Danny Lee Overstreet, 43, lay dying on the floor and six other patrons were wounded.

Again, it's not the gun, it's the mutant mis-use of the gun. Same as a knife or car or ordinary fertilizer. By the way, it took me almost an hour to dig back and locate that story. I hope you all appreciate the work I put into... But enough about me. Oh wait, this is a blog, okay, more about me...

From the New York Times yesterday came this story about a gun industry "insider" -- who, by the way, was fired by the industry years ago -- for claiming that the gun companies know that some of the gun dealers they sell to are corrupt and don't follow the rules. Here's a quote:

A former senior firearms industry executive said in an affidavit filed in court in San Diego yesterday that gun manufacturers had long known that some of their dealers corruptly sold guns to criminals but pressured one another into remaining silent for fear of legal liability. It is the first time a senior official in the gun industry has broken ranks to challenge practices in the business.

The affidavit, by Robert A. Ricker, a former chief lobbyist and executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council, then the main gun industry trade organization, was filed in California Superior Court in support of claims by 12 California cities and counties suing the gun makers and their wholesalers and retail dealers.

Remember, he was fired, actually his organization was disbanded for lack of support from the gun makers after he sided with President Clinton on gun control. I wonder if and how much he is being paid to testify on behalf of the cities of San Diego and Los Angeles. Where's the proof?

But that still doesn't implicate the firearms industry. Look, if you make a legal product, and you sell it to a current FFL holder, that's really all you can do. To try and keep track of the thousands and thousands of FFL gun dealers in this country is an impossible task for your average gun maker. Remember, we're not talking about billion dollar companies here with unlimited resources. It's up to the ATF to police these matters just as a few weeks ago I pointed out it was up to state liquor authorities to police bars that serve the underage patron.

Lastly, another "story" from Reuters about a study showing that most parents don't think their children would pick-up or play with a found gun. Here's a quote:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The vast majority of parents think their child would not pick up a gun if they found one, even though many parents have not specifically told their child what to do if they find a gun, according to a study released Monday.

Such unrealistic expectations "may effectively relieve adults of responsibility and place the burden on children to protect themselves," report Dr. Susan M. Connor and Kathryn L. Wesolowski in the February issue of the journal Pediatrics.

Now please understand, I am not suggesting that anyone leave loaded guns lying around unattended in homes where there are children present. But this survey, taken in Northern Ohio, included (by almost half) respondents living in rural areas. Unlike urban areas, children in rural areas are raised with guns and know guns and have been taught to respect firearms. So the obtained results shouldn't surprise anyone. But I'm sure the pediatricians (who almost by definition would have a liberal slant) wanted to make a point that more laws are needed to enforce common sense in home-ownership of firearms.

Alas, you can't legislate common sense. And prosecuting a parent after a child hurts themselves with a gun is almost inhuman. They already know what they should have done, and they've learned their lesson the hard way. Heaping on further punishment accomplishes nothing and only hurts the rest of the family more.

Again, unattended firearms should never be left where un-supervised children might find them. Pretty simple advice for anyone.

So that wraps up the past seven days. Thanks for stopping by and I hope you'll visit often.

...on TV just now. I thought it was a nice service although NASA chief Sean O'keefe's remarks seemed a little self-serving. President Bush gave a brief, moving eulogy.

I really am glad that we have an adult for our president these days. I know he is a religious man and I am glad for that. It says to me that he is guided by some moral principles and after all the noise and lack of ethics in the previous administration I find Bush refreshing and I trust his judgement.

---

I'm enjoying a day off catching up on quite a bit of reading. Tonight I'll start preparing Wednesday's gun debate bias check so look for that tomorrow morning.

...which I wasn't, my ISP has been down since about five this morning. No internet, no email, no posting... Well actually I was able to post my early stuff this morning by using my lap-top from work, hook into my company's network, run Fetch (my FTP program) off a CD, and get the stuff onto my webhost. That's how I'm going to put this notice up as well.

What an absolute drag... I'm off from work and can't use the huge Alphecca IT systems to cruise around. This is the longest "outage" I can remember. All my ISP's phone numbers return double-busy signals. I hope all of you are feeling my pain. And of course it's a beautiful day outside, sunny and almost 40 degrees. So what does any respectable blogger who's also a computer geek want to do on his day off? Of course! Stay inside and glue himself to the computer and surf the net. And I can't. Ghod I need a life! (And "Ghod" is an expression that only old-time sci-fi fans might recognize. But now you know it too! Ahh, these superstitions we carry through life...)

So I guess I'll tryout Riven (the sequel to Myst) which has been sitting around un-opened for almost a year... Pray for me and hopefully I'll be back "on-line" soon. And here's a question for you to answer: is it "on line," or "online" or "on-line?" And is it "email," or "e-mail?" Ghod! I feel so alone...

I discussed his case in last week's Gun Debate bias check. Anyway, my secret girl-friend Rachel Lucas has a follow-up. It's not encouraging and just goes to show how pig-headed NY prosecutors can be. *Sigh*

Well, for me it is. I'm way at the bottom of the income scale. Andrew Sullivan couldn't possibly live on what I earn (*hint* *hint* See the starving kitties down below...) No significant savings and a gross income of about 25K means I can now do my Tele-File thing with the IRS. I get my refund in a matter of days.

But for those of you who do actually make some money, it's not too early to start thinking about tax-filing software and today, Laurent Belsie at the Christian Science Monitor reviews the latest online packages:

If you're sharpening your No. 2 pencil and looking with dread at a pile of paper tax forms, this is the year to see if your computer can simplify matters.

Online tax programs have become so refined and easy to use that paper-laden filers owe it to themselves to try them out risk-free. You usually don't pay a dime until you print out your return or file it electronically. And thanks to a new initiative by the Internal Revenue Service, many lower-income taxpayers won't even have to cough up the dime.

It's actually an in-depth article worth a read.

The reason I bring this up is because I was thinking about our woefully underfunded space program. It is true that President Bush has just announced he will increase NASA's funding by $500 million -- what a shame it took a horrible tragedy to do this.

Now let's be honest; no one likes paying taxes and I'm all for a minimalist government. But taxes are a fact of life and I got to thinking that just as there are a couple "donation" check-off boxes on current IRS tax forms, why not expand the list to include voluntary donations to people's favorite programs?

For those like myself who think our exploration of space is important, we could indicate we want to contribute an extra ten dollars (or any amount) to NASA. For those who believe education is important, an appropriate box for them to check. If you think our National Parks Service needs more money, a box for you. It's true that anyone can write a check to any of these agencies --and believe it or not, many do-- but this would make it so much easier.

Certainly these are much more worthwhile causes then the current options of contributing to political matching-funds. Or maybe I'm just hopelessly naive. Any thoughts out there about this?

Reader Chris Brown writes in:

The latest space disaster brought to mind this poem by an RAF pilot. He was a fighter pilot who was killed in the Battle of Britain, but these thoughts occurred to me as I heard the news.

HIGH FLIGHT
John Magee

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
and danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds and done a hundred things
you have not dreamed of........
Wheeled and soared and swung
high in the sunlit silence.
Hovering there, I've chased the shouting winds along,
flung my eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delerious blue
I've topped the wind-swept hights with easy grace
where never lark not even eagle flew.
And with the silent lifting mind
the high untrespassed sanctity of space I've trod
put out my hand and touched the face of God.

Quite moving. This was, of course, the poem recited by President Reagan at the momorial service for the crew of the Challenger. And as so many of the spouses and relatives of the Columbia have said about this tragedy, these brave men and women died doing what they loved best.

May our brave explorers rest in peace.

May they know how much they have inspired us;

That they represented the very best of humanity,

And the indomitable spirit of adventure and challenge,

That has propelled all humans to search the unknown.

From the first people who boldly expanded their territories,

To the sea-faring crews who wanted to know,

What lay on the other side of the water.

So too, Rick Husband, Michael Anderson, David Brown,

Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, William McCool and Ilan Ramon,

Continued the brave journeys of our early astronauts,

So that -- with all of us vicariously tagging along --

We reached for the stars.