Hmmm... I kinda like that... "Jeff lives out on the limb." Anyway, I'm in a sci-fi kind of mood so here are some futuristic predictions:

Early stuff: I think we will shortly go into Iraq and kick their butts.

Boy, that was a tough one. Now for more distant ideas...

By 2008 we will have landed ourselves on Mars for a brief exploration.

Mankind will soon want to head back into space. I think that by 2020 we (humans) will have an operational Moon Base filled with scientists and researchers and workers exploring space, science, low-gravity manufacturing, and other cool stuff like that.

Also, by 2020, we will have built the "ultimate" deep space telescope, comprised of a huge mirror focusing on the most incrediblely sensitive micro-chip imagers and will see the very edges of the universe. Some think we are doing that NOW but wait till you see what we come up with shortly.

By 2030, the average life-expectancy for humans in developed countries will be over 120 years. Unfortunately, in un-developed nations, it will be less then half that. Most diseases such as AIDS and most Cancers and simple Heart Disease will be but memories. But poverty will continue to contribute to the short life-span of way too many.

Another near-one: By 2007, computer chips -- that is the brains of them -- will be designed and BUILT at the SUB-atomic level.

By 2015, we will recognize that some humans have well developed extra-sensory perceptions. It will be accepted fact. And valued and well paid-for.

By 2040, I will have finally mastered HTML, mySQL, and PHP. And I'll have a commenting feature for each post on Alphecca... Okay -- that last one is a stretch...

---

Anyway, I guess this wraps up another week here at Alphecca. As always, I appreciate your visits and comments and links. And also, as always, I take Saturdays off to recharge my batteries. See you all here on Sunday. Thanks very much for stopping by!

Just taking a cruise around... Sort of like my usual Sunday Drive but this is Friday night...

First of all, Arthur Silber at Light of Reason has a pile of new posts and they're all good. He's a buddy of mine and he's one of the clearer thinkers around. So please go visit him. And by the way, he is having a very tough time of it right now so if you can help him out -- please do. Give up one six-pack and help him stay in his current home. Come on folks, I live on the edge too so I know where he's at. You know you like reading his thoughful prose; give him a helping hand.

---

Oh look! A ton of cool postings at The Bitch Girls. And we're all waiting on Bitter for the results of the "Boob contest." Oh, okay, so I'm not waiting as much as some but still... We both started our blogs about the same time and linked to each other early in our "careers." They are my dear friends and you should be visiting these cool chicks ((Jeff ducks a flying brick)) every day.

---

Leigh Hanlon (HanlonVision) has a bunch of new and interesting posts up including a brief report from a blogger-bash and a report on "risque" cartoons from Walt Disney. He's also one of my good buddies and I hope you will visit his interesting (and clean-cut, non-political) blog. And lot's of pictures! I like that in a blog.

---

Still cruising around here... And of course I always stop by (and I presume and hope all of you do too) On The Third Hand by good friends of mine: Momma Bear and Kathy K. They seem able to do cruises like this all day and night. They've been very good to me. I appreciate them and hope you include them in your daily visits.

---

By the way... By the way he (I) shouted: While some have griped about my new homepage picture, my friend Mike Silverman has just emailed me to say he likes it. Thereby demonstrating that the impeccable taste he shows on his blog extends to his opinions about web page designs.

---

Also, by the way, my blog father Glenn Reynolds has been providing live reports from... well, somewhere...:

I'M BLOGGING from the Marbury v. Madison symposium here at the University of Tennessee law school.

I'm relatively sure that the few folks who visit me ALWAYS visit the Professor so I don't link to him that often but for those who stumble in here from "away," Glenn Reynolds is as cool as they come and you should almost, actually, make him your homepage.

---

So that's my Friday Drive. I admire all these folks and hope you add all of them to your "favorites/bookmarks" for daily reading.

...has a typically great post on this "ducking and covering," and "duct-tape and plastic sheets" thing. Obviously, if a nuclear weapon went off near you, you're toast. And the sheets would do nothing against radiation, fire-storms, et cetera. Maybe, just maybe, if you are on the outskirts of a biological or chemical attack it would help. Here's a quote:

Naturally, ducking and covering wouldn't help you if a bomb exploded over your head, or even nearby. Nothing could help you then, other than (maybe) a very deep blast shelter. But there was a zone -- as I understand it, a pretty big one -- some miles away from detonation (the number of miles of course depended on the kilotonnage of the weapon, the height of detonation, and the type of the weapon) where ducking and covering would help.

People around here -- where I live -- aren't rushing out to buy anything because let's face it, terrorists would not find it very cost-effective to attack Vermont... Anyway, I find all of this interesting because last week I read (for the first time) Robert A. Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold which was (at least for the first two-thirds of the book) about a family's survival in a bomb-shelter and the clash of personalities and ideologies. The book was written during the height of the cold war in 1964. Heinlein was considered by many liberals to be a fascist but this book really puts the lie to that. I recommend this book to anyone.

I still remember my elementary school days when we had the black window shades and had "air-raid" drills where the sheets came down and we crawled under our desks or went into the halls. Those were scary times. So are these and I don't blame or make fun of anyone who takes precautions, even if they're futile.

Most, but not all, Democratic lawmakers in Colorado were shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Republican sponsored bill to make gun-laws in the state uniform has passed the Colorado Senate. What the bill says is that a city or town can't pass ordinances that would make outlaws out of folks who are law-abiding under state and federal rules. From Julia C. Martinez in the Denver Post:

Denver laws that ban the possession of concealed firearms would be thrown out under a sweeping gun measure given preliminary approval Wednesday by the state Senate.

All other local gun laws across Colorado that "prohibit the sale, purchase or possession of a firearm" when they are otherwise lawful under state and federal law also would be revoked by the bill.

Vail's law prohibiting assault weapons, Wheat Ridge's law against bringing a firearm to a city park, Sterling's law that bans shooting guns in cemeteries and Boulder's law against carrying guns to City Council meetings could be among the local ordinances swept away.

The city of Denver and anti-gun groups all have their buns in an uproar but this is a good law. It means that if you are legally carrying a concealed firearm and you happen to drive through Denver and get pulled over, you can't be busted for it because Denver doesn't permit concealed carry.

It has nothing to do with "home rule" as many of the critics claim, and everything to do with common sense. It would be as if one city in a state demanded that tail-lights on cars had to be blue in color.

Here in Vermont, about 8 or 9 years ago Montpelier tried the same thing, to prohibit concealed carry. The state supreme court threw the ordinance out on challenge.

Incidentally, this is a perfect example of the type of article found on Yahoo that I rate each Wednesday. You would think I would find it "pro-gun" but the reporter included so many quotes from outraged critics that all I can do is place it in the "neutral" column.

I make one teensy-tiny little change to the look of things around here and emails start pouring in saying, "it's too bright," "the colors clash," "there goes your branding..." Hey, I'll do the whining around here. Anyway, I'm not sure if I like it or not so I'll try it for a week and see. I've restored the original photo to the archive pages. I like both because they look like a pair of glowering eyes.

Having taught myself everything I know about HTML from a book, I'm going to take the next step of upgrading my home server to OS 10 (about time!) and installing mySQL. It comes with the server version of OS but I can't afford that. That's my next learning step, and then finally PHP. Then, finally, I might institute a regular comments function on Alphecca. Yes, I could simply use a pre-made code, or steal someone else's code but the purpose of Alphecca, aside from finally giving me a place to rant and rave, was to teach myself all this stuff in the hopes it leads to a better job making more money... That's why I'm still hand-coding everything. Learning by repetition.

Democratic Rep. Dick Gephart has also (finally, like this was a big surprise) thrown his shabby old hat into the ring. I won't make a big deal out of this because there are already so many Democrats vying for the nomination that I feel like I'm watching the running of the bulls. Except that in this case it's more like just some sheep wandering down a country lane. The one thing that caught my eye was... well, here's a quote from AP writer Ron Fournier's story today:

Entering a crowded Democratic field, the Missouri lawmaker promised to repeal Bush's tax cuts and use the savings to deliver health insurance to "everyone who works in America." He accused the president of pursuing "the economics of debt and regret."

OK, that's a rather brief quote but did you catch it? When he says he wants to "repeal Bush's tax cuts" what he is really saying is that he is going to raise taxes. Shades of Walter Mondale but does he really think this is what hard-scrabble working folks want to hear? I don't think so. And then, grasping Hillary Clinton's battle-scarred banner, he wants to pursue some sort of universal health-care plan.

This jerk is going to run on two decisively failed planks. And he already polls just behind Joseph Lieberman which just goes to show how completely out of touch most Democratic voters are. Folks, if this is the best the Democrats can come up with, it doesn't really matter what Bush does for the next two years. If Gephart thinks he can run on a platform of raising taxes and universal health-care he's gonna get stomped like a narc at a biker rally.

I think it's called the politics of self-destruction...

So just a few days after I praised Turkey (scroll down to Sunday's posts) they turn around and make me look like a fool. Hey! I don't need any help to look like a fool... Now they want to hold the U.S. over a barrel for more aid to allow us to stage from their country if we go to war with Iraq. From Reuters writer Adam Entous, here's the story:

Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered the blunt take-it-or-leave-it message directly to Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, telling him "that's all you're going to get," according to a U.S. official.

The United States has offered Turkey an economic aid package that includes $6 billion in grants as well as U.S. government backing for up to $20 billion in loans that Ankara could secure through private banks. One U.S. congressional aide described the figures under discussion as "mind-boggling."

But so far, Turkey has refused to accept what U.S. officials called their "best offer," demanding more than $30 billion in assistance weighted more heavily with grants.

Senior U.S. defense officials said Washington told Ankara it needs to know by the end of the week whether Turkey would accept the U.S. aid package and allow up to 40,000 U.S. troops into the country. Washington hoped to use Turkey as a springboard for a possible invasion of Iraq from the north.

But Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday that there were no plans for a parliamentary vote this week on allowing U.S. troops to use Turkish bases. "A date for the motion has not been set either for during the week or the weekend," Erdogan told NTV television.

My own feelings are that if there's a stagecoach heading your way carrying gold, you wait for it and feel grateful. You don't try to head it off at the pass and rob it for more...

Turkey is making a mistake in trying to hold us hostage for more money. We've already twisted arms to get NATO to defend them in case of an attack. Our servicemen and women will spend a lot more money in their country then any amount they might stand to lose from tourists. Hey Folks! Join and support the winning side. America's offer is already generous. Be thankful we will be there when the action starts.

Anyway, I think this is a stupid move on Turkey's part and they will regret it. There are plenty of other countries in the region offering us a point of launch. So I have to temper what I said a few days ago. Turkey is on perilous ground here and had better think twice before refusing us or blackmailing us. We live in fast and furious times. Either you are part of the solution or you are part of the problem. Decide quickly or live with the consequences.

Time for the weekly Alphecca check on the bias over at the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page. I rate the bias exhibited by Yahoo in their selection of which articles and editorials to link to on this 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
02/19/03	11	1	8	S&W .50 revolver
02/12/03	12	2	6
02/5/03	11	2	7	Ashcroft/ATF prosecutions
Jan. Avg.	15	2.5	3	Ashcroft, sniper victim lawsuits, England gang murders/ban on toy guns
Dec. Avg.	14	4	3	Canadian Registry fiasco & NJ "smart-gun" law
Nov. Avg.	17	3	2	D.C. snipers

And here's Dave Himrich's chart of the pro-gun stories. I've updated it (after quite a learning experience.) Just click the image to enlarge it and read Dave's comments on it.



Next week, a pie-chart!

Not much to talk about this week. There were several articles about the new Smith & Wessen .50 caliber revolver which you would think would be in the pro-gun column but the authors always insist on including comments from the Brady Bunch about how nobody needs this and how cops will be out-gunned on the street. AP writer Trudy Tynan provides an example:

"The primary market for it is hunting" big game, spokesman Ken Jorgensen said.

Steve Comus, publications director of the Safari Club International, said he expects Smith & Wesson to sell several thousand of the weapons to sportsmen interested in hunting with handguns.

Some questioned the wisdom of producing a more powerful handgun.

"It boggles the mind," said Tom Ortiz, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. He predicted the new Magnum would create "a new order of threat to law enforcement."

Oh please! Does Ortiz really think mutant criminal thugs are going to tote around a 4 1/2 pound revolver? Anyway, it almost seemed as if all the reporters felt compelled to get a comment from the "opposition." So those stories wound up in the Neutral Column on my table.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer ran a pair of guest editorials (one pro, the other con) concerning legislation up before the Washington State legislature to require homeowners to lock-up their guns and also to close the gun show "loophole."

Pushing for the new legislation was this editorial by Heidi Yewman of the Clark County chapter of the Million Mom March:

Last Friday Matthew Randall, 13, pleaded guilty in Clark County Juvenile Court to first-degree manslaughter for shooting his 10-year-old sister, Emilee. It is, as Vancouver Police Chief Brian Martinek said, a "tragedy beyond tragedies" that has forever changed many lives.

So who's next?

And:

As parents, we ask all kinds of questions about playmates and playdates. "What rating is the movie they'll be watching?" "Will they be wearing seat belts at all times in the car?" "What adults will be present?"

It's a sad sign of the times that those questions must also include, "Is there a gun in your home?" And if there is, "Is it locked and unloaded?"

Against the new laws was this editorial by Joe Waldron of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He points out that there are already laws covering negligence if a child is injured by an unsupervised firearm:

The child safety proposals, generically called Whitney Graves bills, have floated around the Legislature over the past few years. That the legislation never gained enough support to pass should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with this state's existing reckless endangerment law, RCW 9A.36.050. This statute holds responsible people who place others at risk, whether by leaving an unopened container of bleach where a child could conceivably take a drink or by negligently leaving a firearm where a child or other unauthorized person could access it with tragic results.

This law works. Recall the Bellevue couple that left their youngster unattended in a truck with a loaded revolver. The child got hold of the pistol and fired a shot through the roof of the vehicle. The father was subsequently convicted of reckless endangerment.

And:

The most recent case concerning this sort of neglect involves the children of a Clark County sheriff's sergeant. The officer's 13-year-old son has pleaded guilty in the shooting death of his 10-year-old sister, a tragedy in any circumstance, but in this particular case, an outrage because this is not the first time one of this particular sergeant's sons has been involved in a gun law violation. According to the Vancouver Columbian, this incident was the deputy's "fourth strike." On three previous occasions, this man's sons had taken one of dad's guns without permission and been caught. Why didn't the father act? Why didn't the Clark County sheriff act? Why didn't the Clark County prosecutor act a long time ago?

In any event, I think it is a very foolish parent who leaves a gun, loaded or unloaded, lying about where a child can come across it.

That's really about it for this week. I've discussed a few of the other stories during the regular course of this blog over the past seven days.

---

Incidentally, I might as well mention again that if you like what I do here at Alphecca, don't hesitate to pet and feed the starving kitties by scrolling down the left side-bar. And thanks! And if you're new to Alphecca, why not read through the archives to get the flavor of the place?

An email (see sidebar) says Republicans aren't adults and are stealing our rights and destroying the Constitution with the Homeland Security Act. I wrote about this back in November. But I have a lot of new visitors and (since I liked that post a lot) thought I would reprint it in full here:

---

11/17/02 6:20 PM by Jeff

They've won...

---

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
--Benjamin Franklin

---

This might not be the most coherent of my postings but, "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Let me start in a round-about way with a couple of hypotheticals:

Cars are dangerous. We've regulated them, licensed the drivers, enacted all sorts of laws to control how they should be operated and driven, and yet 45,000 people die in auto accidents every year. The freedom of people to be mobile, to live in one place and to shop or work in another simply doesn't work. If only 10 people died each year, or maybe a hundred, perhaps the risks would be worth it to ensure the freedom of people to own cars and travel of their own free will all about the United States. But 45 thousand? Many would say that any death, one death, is one too many.

So I guess we should ban all private ownership of automobiles. Cars don't have to be a necessesity. From now on you must live within walking distance of where you work, shop, go to school, or party. Or you can rely on public transportation. After all, we want to save lives, right? Isn't that the most important thing? One life lost is one too many. Right?

Swimming pools! My Ghod! Inspite of all our attempts to regulate them and specify the type of protective fence we put around them, over 400 children drown in swimming pools every year! One child lost is one too many. Right? So we should outlaw all swimming pools and all existing swimming pools should be filled in and paved over. Right? Your right to cool off during the summer should not infringe on my child's right to total safety and insulation from any possible threat to his existence.

Huh? You disagree? Okay, how many lives should we allow to be lost before we eliminate the risk to those lives? A thousand? 10 thousand? How many?

Regular readers of Alphecca think they know where I'm going with this; another posting about gun-control. Nope! But let's be honest, the arguments I'm about to present could easily apply to gun-control. But I'm tackling something different today: Total Information Awareness. You've heard of it, of course. It was snuck in, first by the Democrats and then adopted by the Republicans in The House, into the Homeland Security Act. The House has already passed the measure. Now it's onto The Senate. And frankly, I think this particular part of the Homeland Security Act will cost us more then it will save us. From an unsigned editorial titled, "Orwell's Nightmare," here's some background from The Times-Picayune:

By now, Americans may be resigned to having their personal data floating around in the electronic ether. But it's some consolation that no one agency has custody of all that information. To get at data on a specific person, government agencies at least have to ask for it -- and in many cases seek court permission.

If John Poindexter gets his way, though, the federal government will develop technology that systematically collects vast quantities of information on Americans -- e-mail, financial transactions, travel plans and other electronic data. This effort, known as Total Information Awareness, is part of the proposed Homeland Security Act, which has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is headed for approval in the Senate.

Slipping the initiative into such a large, complex bill is a mistake. As its slightly chilling name suggests, Total Information Awareness would vastly expand the information available instantly to federal government agents.

And:

The trouble is that government agents would get that information only after sifting through medical data of hundreds of millions of people.

You don't have to be obsessed with black helicopters and jackbooted federal agents to worry about where this technology might lead. Unscrupulous officials could misuse it. Over time, agencies might use the technology for purposes other than stopping terrorism.

As William Safire brilliantly put it in an article titled, "You Are A Suspect" in The New York Times:

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend ã all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you ã passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance ã and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

About a month ago I discussed this problem. The problem of our elected officials to over-react and rush in with legislation to counter a problem that winds up doing more harm -to our freedom and liberty- then to secure it.

Folks, we face all sorts of dangers every day. Threats to our lives. But we always have. Our distant ancestors faced dangers that led to, or promoted our evolution so we could reach the "lofty" state we enjoy today. Yes, we could try to eliminate every danger to our lives, but would we still enjoy our freedoms? Would we really be safer? Is the United Kingdom safer because they took away every law-abiding citizen's firearm? And put cameras on every street corner? As every statistic provided by the English government itself attests: NO! What did England's citizenry give up in exchange? Besides, of course, their freedom and privacy?

Information about us is collected and passed around every minute of every day. Our medical records, our shopping habits, our credit worthiness. So far, there are "firewalls" between each database. So far, all these collectors of our personal information use it only to further their own interests. Now, the U.S. government wants to put all of it into one place under their scrutiny. To look for patterns. To look for terrorists. To look for threats to our country. Sounds admirable doesn't it? Almost altruistic. And our government would never mis-use that information, right? And they would limit the scope of use of that information to JUST looking for threats, right?

Well, no. So far, the U.S. government has an unspotted, sterling record of mis-using information it collects. What data is collected for one thing can easily be -and always is- used for other purposes. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. "Oh come on, Jeff, you're being hysterical. It's for the National Defense." Yes. The government's NIC database for gun-registration was supposed to dispose of all records after a gun purchase was approved. That was/is the law. Yet Chicago filed lawsuit to obtain those records and the ATF refuses to provide them. Which implies that those records still exist. Here's part of the AP story from Yahoo:

Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued in his filings that the appeals court decision "would significantly intrude upon the privacy of hundreds of thousands of individuals ã including firearms purchasers, potential witnesses to crime and others ã without meaningfully assisting the public to evaluate the conduct of the federal government."

NRA lawyer Stephen Halbrook said if the Supreme Court does not stop the release of the information, gun owners' privacy will be violated.

"The city of Chicago wants all the names and addresses of people who have bought firearms," Halbrook said. "There's no public interest in knowing that, any more than knowing the amount of income you make __ that's between you and the IRS."

Chicago officials argued in their court filings that they were entitled to some information.

"There is simply no reasonable expectation of privacy involved in the purchase of firearms," said the city's lawyer, Lawrence Rosenthal. "And the recovery of a firearm by the authorities in the course of a criminal investigation is even less private."

"No reasonable expectation of privacy..." How about when you rent a video? Or buy a car? Or what groceries you buy? Or your medical records? Your sex life? Your... So finally I'm getting around to my point. Every single time a government agency has been allowed to collect information about us -we, the people- they have shared it, mis-used it, used it against us for purposes other then why it was collected in the first place.

The stated purpose of this provision of the Homeland Security Act is to detect the terrorists amongst us and protect us from them. The problem, of course, is that we give up a precious amount of our privacy. Is it worth it? How many lives could the government save by having and using all of this data? A thousand lives? Ten thousand? And is that many lives enough reason to forfeit our privacy and freedom? I don't know; I'm asking you.

It's very easy to say, "yes, we must give up some of our precious liberty to secure our country and freedom." Really? Personally, watching the World Trade Centers fall was the first time I had cried in many, many years. But we survived. As a country we survived and it made us stronger and more resolute to protect our freedom and way of life. Osama, and Al Queda hate us because we represent freedom of thought, of life, of a way of living that they can't possibly understand and they want to destroy us, as do all "peace loving fanatic Muslims" because we enjoy life, and we reject control by a religion, by a governing body, by fanatics from any stripe.

But! What have they wrought? Instead of shrugging off the attacks by these mutants, of simply retalitating against them -as we should- we have aquieseced to them. We have changed our American way of life. We are giving up our freedoms, our mobility, our privacy, our expectation of a distant government that leaves us alone and protects us from external threats without our having to make lifestyle sacrifices to accomplish it. And I'm going to ask you again; is it worth it? Some bloggers say yes. Giving up a small amount of freedom is worth our security. These are the same arguments "gun-grabbers" use to justify registering or taking away our guns.

As sure as I am sitting here typing away, some mutant Islamic fanatics will eventually attack our country again. Should we give up our freedoms and way of life to prevent it? I can tell you that no matter what we do, no matter what measures, laws, regulations we enact, one of these fanatic Islamic mutants will get through and succeed. And lives will be lost. But somehow, around 270 million of us will survive. I won't even try to do the math and figure out a ratio but I think we should really, really consider whether this loss of life should force us to give up our liberties, our freedoms, and our way of existance. They can't win. They can hurt us, wound us, give us pause from shock, but they can't win. We can and will crush this garbage. They are but tiny, stupid ants upon our floor. And yet we seem to be giving in to them. Our hysterical, sound-bite politicians are rushing forward with laws and legislation that would rob us of the very thing these crumb-bums want to take from us.

We are the ones reeling and changing because of them. So they are winning. So right now, we all have to step back, take a deep breath and say, stop it. Not the terrorists. Nothing will stop them. It's our elected leaders, our government. Stop it! Don't let them dictate the terms under which we have to live. Don't let them change our way of life. Don't let them cause YOU to eliminate the freedoms and liberties that our ancestors fought so hard to secure for us.

Yeah, children have drowned in swimming pools. It sucks. But it doesn't mean we should all give up the pleasure and enjoyment of swimming pools. And yeah, a lot of people die in auto-accidents every year, but that is -and I don't mean this flippantly- the cost of business, as it were. We're not about to give up our cars, nor should we. And yeah, our country is under siege but we should never give up the one thing our assailants hate most about us: Our freedoms, our privacies, our joy in living free from the shackles of a totalitarian government. Don't let them win. Don't let them dictate to us the way we have to live our lives. Write someone, a Congressman, a Senator, the President. They want to over-react for the newscamera, to fill us with fear, to disrupt us, to control us. Don't let Congress do it. That's what our enemy is trying to do. We don't need to help them along. We need to fight them. To keep on keeping on with our way of life. Yeah, it drives them crazy. Good! Fuck 'em!

---

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
--Benjamin Franklin

---

---

I've said it before, I'm not pro-Democrat, but I'm not pro-Republican either. I just don't like the "shrillness" of Democrats or their knee-jerk reactions on so many issues.

From The Guardian:

President Jacques Chirac, a man so partial to good grub that he once sent an ElysÈe palace sous-chef to Spain to learn how to make a decent oxtail soup, yesterday admitted that he had a soft spot for American junk food.

Savaged across the Atlantic for his opposition to the US march to war in Iraq, Mr Chirac said in an interview with Time magazine that he was more saddened than angry when he heard people say that his stance was inspired by anti-Americanism.

"I know the US perhaps better than most French people, and I really like the United States," he insisted, adding: "I've made many excellent friends there, I feel good there. I love junk food, and I always come home with a few extra pounds."

Well, one quick comment: If he's trying to show he really likes America then instead of expressing his love of our junk food, how about expressing his admiration for America's love of freedom, democracy, and human-rights? How about embracing the country that saved France's ass twice in the past century? How about praising the fact that the United States is always the first nation to rush in with aid, food, or troops, to rescue others facing tragedy, starvation, or attack?

How pathetic that all he could come up with is that we have tasty fries...

A month ago I said NYC Mayor Bloomberg was about as Republican as Pataki and Jim Jeffords. Here's Liz Trotta in the Washington Times:

Mr. Bloomberg, a lifelong liberal Democrat who became a Republican just months before he entered the race to gain a ballot berth, has taken some traditionally liberal stances: increased the real estate tax by almost 20 percent; established a $1.52 rise in the cigarette tax; banned smoking in all bars and restaurants and most other public places; is pushing to increase tolls on East River bridges; and has proposed restoring a tax on commuters, an unpopular levy abolished by his predecessor, Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Then there was the $600 bicycle the billionaire mayor bought to set an example of what to do in the event of a possible transit strike.

"He's just tone-deaf," said a critic.

But maybe that's the only kind of Republican that can still get elected in leftist-fascist states such as N.Y. and California.

Incidentally, my Random House dictionary lists definition #3 for "fascist" as, "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views." Interesting. I wonder who wrote that? In any event, these days I believe the ultra-liberal, left-wing in the U.S. (and everywhere in the world for that matter) are far more "fascist" then those on the right. Except in the Arab countries. Well, I thought it was interesting...

---

I have The Today Show on in the background and Katie and Matt are blathering on about the "snow-storm of the century." Geez... a couple feet of snow and they turn the whole show over to their problems. Like hey, the world is wrapped up in possible wars and conflicts but snow is much more important...

William Safire has a good editorial today about why the U.S. needs to be inconsistent in it's approach to Iraq and North Korea but where that same policy is hypocritical in the UN Security Council. Here's a quote:

The menace of Saddam has driven a wedge in the world, with Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing on the side of unending delay, and with the great majority of democratic nations with Washington and London-led Europe on the side of action.

But an even greater divide ã a glaring inconsistency in argument that exposes a weakness in principle ã exists within the camp that opposes the U.S.

For the past year, the central message that Saddam's protectors have been sending to the U.S. is: Do not "go it alone." On the contrary, take the multilateral route. Seek the world's support through U.N. consensus.

But when it comes to the weaponry menace on the other side of the world, the message of Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing is exactly the opposite.

The clear message that the coalition of the unwilling sends Washington about North Korea, which confessed its secret nuclear buildup, then ejected U.N. inspectors just as Saddam did four years ago, is this: Go it alone, America. Korea's nukes and long-range missiles are your problem, not the world's. Hold bilateral talks as the Koreans insist, pay them off as you tried to do before and forget all we have been saying about multilateralism. You work it out with them alone; we'll hold your coat.

Exactly. Why is it all right (in regards Iraq) to keep saying, "let the inspectors do their job and if they find anything -- then we'll authorize war." But even after North Korea throws out the weapons inspectors and admits they have nuclear missiles, suddenly nobody wants to get involved. Great editorial so go read the whole thing. I'll wait here...

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO supreme commander, said on Sunday that he had been asked to run for president in 2004 and was considering a challenge to President Bush.

Who?

Seriously, Dean and Sharpton have nothing to fear here in the "name recognition" department...

---

OK, now I'm falling asleep... See you all back here soon. Thanks for stopping by!

Speaking of our friends, Kenya has -- like so many of the unfortunate countries of Africa -- been beset by so many problems such as poverty, aids, terrible economic conditions, and until recently, the corrupt government of Daniel arap Moi. With the upbeat spirit that newly elected President Mwai Kibaki has given Kenyans, things might slowly start to improve.

This is a country that has been on the receiving end of the worst that those peace-loving extremist Muslims have to offer. Not just the young boys held captive by an Islamic "correctional school." Not just the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi several years ago engineered by Al Quida. And remember that it was only last year that -- again -- Al Quida struck in Kenya by bombing an Israeli owned hotel and fired arm-held surface-to-air missiles at an El Al jetliner.

And Kibaki is reportedly in bad health. Yet through all of this, Kenya has been a staunch friend of the U.S. Like I said in the previous post, when it comes to divvying up foreign-aid, Let's make sure there's plenty for Kenya.

Oh, and "Unbwagable?" That's a current rap song popular in Kenya. It means, "Nothing will defeat us." I hope it catches on here in the U.S.

At least they have finally agreed that Turkey, one of their newer members, is entitled to common defense if Iraq lobs a few in that direction. Here's a quote from AP writer Barry Renfrew's report from yesterday:

The alliance of the United States and 15 other nations finally reached agreement late Sunday after a month of wrangling after France was shut out of talks. The other holdouts, Germany and Belgium, then dropped objections to begin planning to defend Turkey in the event of an attack by neighboring Iraq, NATO officials said.

"Alliance solidarity has prevailed," NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson said. "We have been able collectively to overcome the impasse."

Yes, especially since the whole boondogle was just an attempt to "get-at" the U.S. and make a (typically lame) statement that some NATO members were unhappy that Turkey was willing to support the U.S. troops and offer us staging areas and landing-strips. Unlike the pigs and chickens of Germany and France, Turkey has been relatively supportive (not completely, but supportive enough) of the United States' plans to neutralize Saddam Hussein. When it comes to doling out foreign-aid, We (the U.S.) will remember who our friends are and were. Hey, that's the way the world works and I have no problem with that. It's partly my tax dollars and I want it going to our friends who help us protect and defend ourselves.

...So I guess I'll just keep posting. First of all, when I came home from work and turned on one of the two TV channels I receive I see another lame attempt by NBC to sponsor second-rate football. This time it's called "Arena Football." That should have put me to sleep but it didn't.

Why can't NBC just admit that they made a

Big Fucking Mistake

in 1994 when they decided not to spend the money to continue carrying the NFL? So they've been trying to make up for it ever since by broadcasting nonsense like the World Football League and then the Extreme Football League and now this sorry-ass Arena Football League.

Hey Zucker? Here's a clue: NBC blew-it. Admit it. Just run info-mercials because nobody is going to ever watch you again on Sunday afternoons. Not even if Tiger Woods is playing every week. Got it?

...Over at Susskins Central Dispatch they're talking about and rating the great roller-coasters in America. Great references and comments as well.

In my childhood, I lived a few miles from Palisades Amusement Park in New Jersey. I went there many times and have fond memories of their roller-coaster and the other rides and general "honky-tonk" atmosphere of it all.

And this also gives me an opportunity to leave you all on an upbeat note. See you tomorrow and thanks for stopping by.

... has a terrific photo-post on Allen's Arena of the new video about to be released and "Coming Soon to a Theater Near Iraq."

Like I said, so much talent and wit out there... It makes me proud to be an (albeit microscopic) part of it.

Gabriel Symes at Samizdata has a brilliant post stating with words and pictures just what a monster Saddam Hussein is and just how he earned the nickname, "The Butcher of Baghdad." This is must reading and is the perfect answer for those leftist anti-war protestors claiming Bush (or Blair) are somehow the evil ones.

I'm not going to put a quote up because you really need to read it all and see it in context with the pictures. This is a perfect example of just how powerful the blogosphere can be and just how good some of the participants are.

Look, I've already stated here (at Alphecca) that I don't really have a concrete opinion on launching a military action against Iraq. I don't know that they pose an immediate threat against the U.S. I think North Korea and Saudi Arabia are worse in that department. Please understand, I am not against attacking Iraq; I'm just not foaming at the mouth over it.

I almost think a better reason, and justification for going into Iraq and toppling Hussein is simply his horrible record of slaughtering his own subjects. And by presenting it on those grounds, it would eliminate many of the anti-war left's arguments. Symes makes this type of case in crystal-clear terms.

I'm not feeling very "posty" this morning. I have to work today and maybe I'll do some more tonight when I get home.

Incidentally, Aziz Poonawalla has invited me to join the crowd posting stories and opinion over at Dean 2004. He knows I don't always agree with Howard Dean (though I do like him.) Anyway, real soon now I actually will contribute there. I'll let all of you here know when. In the meantime, check it out because Dean is an intriguing candidate.

UPDATE 9:45 AM: OK, I've made my first post there, nothing major, just something to get my feet wet learning to use Blogger. I gave a brief mention of Howard Dean's wife's desire for privacy...

Remember when LA County passed an ordinance prohibiting gun shows on county property? Here's Daren Briscoe in the LA Times:

Los Angeles County has agreed to pay the organizers of the nation's largest gun show $1.6 million to settle two lawsuits brought by the show's organizers.

Stemming from a 1999 county ordinance barring the sales of guns or ammunition on county property, the lawsuits alleged that the ban violated the 1st Amendment and that the county held "secret meetings" related to the ban.

The settlement ends a nearly four-year battle between the county and the operators of the Great Western Gun Show, which was formerly held at the Los Angeles County fairgrounds. It also brings to $4.3 million the amount the county has paid or agreed to pay to pursue the ban, not counting legal fees.

The taxpayers of that county have paid dearly for their political-correctness. Incidentally, I've always found it interesting that all these Hollywood stars rant and rave against "our gun culture" and yet they all seem to own guns...

But enough about me... Actually, Smith & Wesson has just introduced the largest caliber handgun around. Here's Tom Zucco from the St. Petersburg Times:

The most powerful revolver in the world, the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum, was introduced this week at a trade show in Orlando. This is the Ford Excursion of handguns: a stainless steel, five-shot, .50-caliber weapon that has an 81/2-inch barrel and weighs about 41/2 pounds, or nearly three times as much as many conventional handguns and about a pound more than the mammoth .44 Magnum carried by Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry movies.

I'm not a big guy and I have no plans to buy one but it would be fun to give it a test shoot. Hopefully a member of my gun club will get one so I can try this little bazooka out. I would definitely say this ain't for the concealed carry crowd...