The little Critter and Sambo cats will go to bed hungry tonight unless you donate to Alphecca... So click the image of these starving kitties to contribute... via PayPal
Hey, it worked for National Lampoon magazine... I don't have a second home on Cape Cod or an intern. Actually, I'm broke. So please help me get the message out about freedom, patriotism, and respect for the Bill Of Rights and the importance of the Second Amendment.
Thank you very much!
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer"
Alphecca gets noticed!
Check out these glowing
reviews I've just made up:
I'm not in a good mood tonight. I've had a really bad day. So I'm ending it here. As usual I take Saturdays off and maybe this weekend I'll also take Sunday off. Thanks for stopping by, I'll see you sometime soon.
I'm not going to link to and expand on everything I've already said about the need for this bill but it's passage was decisive and that's a good thing. Here's John Tierney in the New York Times:
After a day of speeches denouncing gun violence and praising the constitutional right to bear arms, the House of Representatives easily passed a bill today limiting lawsuits against the firearms industry.
The measure now goes to the Senate, where it already has enough sponsors to win a majority vote. But neither side is sure it has the 60 votes to prevail against a filibuster promised by Democrats.
The bill would take away one of the chief weapons used by advocates of gun control, who have joined with cities and victims of guns in filing more than two dozen lawsuits seeking damages from the industry for making unsafe guns and allowing guns to fall into criminals' hands. It makes gun manufacturers and dealers immune to lawsuits seeking damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Communist Dianne Feinstein is promising a filibuster so we need to put a lot of pressure on the leftist liberals as quickly as possible. But back to the bill -- which simply says that just as you can't hold a steak-knife manufacturer responsible for the misuse of that knife, so too you can't hold Glock responsible for a crime committed using a gun they legally made and distributed.
There was one minor ugly incident involving Wyoming representative (R) Barbara Cubin alluding that all black folks are drug users. She should be ashamed of her remarks and I wish she had gotten some sort of punishment for them. The Washington Post made that the focus of their coverage of the passage of this bill:
Yesterday's debate suddenly veered from guns to race when Cubin criticized a failed Democratic amendment that would have banned gun sales to drug addicts or people in drug treatment. After noting that her sons, ages 25 and 30, "are blond-haired and blue-eyed," she said: "One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean that if you go into a black community you can't sell any guns to any black person?"
Anyway, we need to follow this bill closely as it moves to the Senate. If it can make it out of there (i.e. if there's no filibuster) then President Bush will assuredly sign it into law. There were some other inane remarks made on the floor of the House during the debate but I won't even give them space here. Read the whole article.
So there are a couple of good stories for you all to digest today. Outside of the "coasts" the Second Amendment is still alive and kicking! But let us stay vigilant.
Good news in New Mexico; Governor signs new concealed carry bill to allow residents to carry loaded firearms out of plain sight. From an editorial in the Amarillo Globe-News:
Current state law allows the carrying of loaded guns in plain view and concealed guns only if unloaded. The new law merely expands this right to carry a loaded concealed weapon.
License qualifications include a $100 application fee, completion of a firearms training course and a criminal background check.
Those with criminal convictions are prohibited from obtaining a concealed handgun license.
I do think the one hundred dollar fee is outrageously high and will make it tougher for poor people to afford. After all, we're not all as wealthy as "give peace a chance" folks like Sean Penn. Still, any bill that expands the rights of people to protect themselves is worthy of support.
I noticed that you commented on the cost of the NM concealed
carry application. Here in Texas, it costs $140 to apply
for the first time (non-refundable), and $70 to apply for
renewal. The license is good for 4 years. If you're
"indigent" or elderly they'll cut the fee in half.
These fees are paid directly to the state and are on top
of the fees for the class (the class is required for both
first-time applicants and for renewal applications). I
paid $110 for my class, but I've seen some that were
less expensive since then (as low as $65.00).
Now I hope that NM will work out a reciprocity agreement
with Texas, so that my CHL will be valid there like it is
in the other states that surround Texas.
Yipes! Thank God I live in Vermont where there ain't no license or fees or permits needed to exercise your rights.
Watching the images flashed instantly from halfway around the world of the events taking place in Iraq and specifically Baghdad take my breath away. This won't be a typical post of mine. It will probably be rather rambling. Since I hand code everything to my index page, I don't want my thoughts interupted by a lot of HTML work. And since this shouldn't really be about me, I'll skip trying to link every third word to something I blathered about back when.
I had downloaded a bunch of pictures of the celebrating Iraqis as well as their "Minister of Information" and had planned a collage behind his picture while he blithely continued to claim everything was fine and dandy and Sadam's forces were just getting ready to repel the American invaders. Then, I was going to have him switch to his previous job's dialog as spokesman for the Tobacco Institute saying something such as, "There's still no proof of a link between..." et cetera. You know; something clever.
I abandoned that because what happened today deserves real thought and comment and not some silly PhotoShop exercise. So with the help of a ten-ton crane, I'll push my huge ego aside and speak seriously for a change.
We have a lot of surviving writings from the Revolutionary War. The early Americans fought to throw off the yoke of tyranny. Of course, in those days wars were fought at a positively leisurely pace. Opposing armys marched days and miles and faced-off and there were actually rules of engagement and breaks for tea and things moved slower then your average TV soap opera.
Now days, everything happens and is reported at the speed of light. If you read about those early days in our history, you will realize that while we were taxed like crazy, we actually were pretty much left on our own. We had our own newspapers voicing dissent and dissatisfaction and it wasn't as if everything you said was monitored and there were jails filled with England-haters who were being tortured.
That's not how it has been in Iraq. For thirty years these good, decent people have lived in absolute terror of saying or doing or talking wrong. And the horrid punishments would make America's early enemies seem like the good Samaritans.
I don't care if we ever (or not) find "weapons of mass destruction." A long time ago (well, a month or so anyway) I said the real reason we should go there was for humanitarian reasons. To free a people living under the most horrible dictator since Hitler. This is something the anti-war crowd -- you know, all those leftist, socialist liberals -- can't possibly understand because they have no clue as to what the beleaguered Iraqi people have been going through for three decades. These liberals hold their demonstrations clasping signs of support for Saddam Hussein. They equate President Bush with Hitler and say that [Bush] is worse then Saddam.
You know folks, I think about groups in San Francisco demonstrations such as "queers for Palistine" and "queers for peace." Do these idiots have any clue as to what their own fate would be in countries or territories like these?
Do all of these inexperienced -- have no clue to the real world -- high school and college students who march in these protests realize what Saddam's punishment was for dissenters?
I've criticized all the armchair generals during the weeks of this conflict for jumping the gun and second-guessing our military leaders. Now look! I am fully aware that this is not nearly over. Iraq is a huge country filled with many pockets of loyalists to Saddam who will continue to fight over the coming weeks. But the bulk of the country, that is the bulk of the Iraqi people have been freed. And Lord how they (now that they really know we're there for the duration) are rejoicing.
Imagine that half of your family has "disappeared" over the past many years for various perceived violations. No trials, no lawyers, no word. Nothing. Imagine that a country rich in natural resources results in dozens of gold-encrusted palaces being built while you and your fellow common folk starve for food and medical attention. Imagine your phones tapped, your conversations listened in on, your children forced into Royal Guard slavery, your wife and daughters raped, your own life lived in abject poverty and subjugation. Imagine making or saying the slightest wrong thing and losing your life for it after horrific torture.
What exactly were all these anti-war protesters thinking? The Iraqi people have lived under one of the most brutal, oppressive regimes that has ever existed on Earth. Worse then North Korea. Worse then Iran. Worse then anything. And their lame solution was to give U.N. inspectors another six months? To give peace a chance? Are they insane?
Have there been Iraqi civilian deaths because of this conflict? You bet. Have coalition forces lost lives? Yes. And it sucks. But President Bush, and our military have bent over backwards to try to minimize them and prevent them. There have been mistakes but hey, Hey, HEY! All of the civilian deaths in this war don't add up to one-one hundreth of one percent of the murders committed by Saddam Hussein's regime on his civilian subjects. Now it's over. The people of Iraq can finally live as human beings.
I remember when, just a year or so ago, we liberated Afghanistan from the horrible clutches of the Taliban. The common people dancing to music for the first time in years, women allowed to attend school for the first time in their lives. The Afghan people thanking us profusely.
And so it was today when the Iraqi people finally felt safe enough to express the pent-up feelings they've kept within themselves out of fear. Those smiles were genuine. Those emotions were real. Watching the Iraqi people experience freedom for the first time in their lives -- watching them express dissent (with Saddam) for the first time in their lives brought tears to my eyes. Watching them struggle to topple the hollow statue of Hussein was incredible. Moving. History. Absolutely breath-taking.
In a way, I almost wish I was one of them just so I could feel what they were feeling -- the weight of oppression lifting off of their shoulders. Oh, how it must feel to finally taste freedom and liberation. How magnificent it must be to suddenly see sunlight for the first time. To be able to tell a joke. To be able to laugh. To voice your opinion. To feel HOPE. My God what I would give to feel that.
Because when you get down to it, our generation(s) in America haven't felt that. We've taken freedom for granted. We assume it and try to spread it but we haven't direct knowledge of that transformation, of what it was like before it. We can read about it in books written three hundred years ago but we can't really experience walking out of the blackness of the tunnel into the light of day. We only know the results. We only have it after the fact. Last year, the Afghan people discovered it. Today, the Iraqi people lived it for the first time. It must be the sweetest nector of the prettiest blossom in the world.
We in America celebrate July Fourth. The good folks of Iraq might decide to celebrate April 9th. I don't know what the final outcome will be in Iraq but right now tears are welling up again. I just know that right this instant there are a lot of people half way around the world who are tasting freedom for the first time in their lives and it must be so wonderful and we in America -- while pursuing our own goals -- have caused it and I suspect we've earned some mighty-fine friends over there who will continue to thank us and love us. Would that our own American citizens could feel the same way about our country. My God but President Bush and our wonderful servicemen and servicewomen have done such a wonderful thing as to bring hope and joy and liberation to 25 million people.
How could anyone in America NOT be proud of our country? How could anyone refuse (still) to admit that what we did was right and just?
God Bless America. And he has. And as is befitting, we pass his blessings on to others. I am so proud to be an American. How could anyone living in the United States not be? I'll never understand that. And maybe that's a blessing for me too. Thank you God.
So here we are with my weekly table tracking the bias shown by Yahoo in the selection of the news stories and articles and editorials they choose to link to on their Gun Control Debate Page. As usual, it's not much of a debate as the balance this week swings sharply towards the "anti-gun, let's have more gun control" side. Here's the table:
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
I would have consolidated March as I have with other past months but I wanted you all to see how "our side" has suffered so much this week. There were a slew of new articles over the past week and most of them favored the anti-gun side. I revisited every story (and there were several new ones even though they had dates of more than a week ago.)
Many of them dealt with the legislation winding through Congress to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors. The N.Y. Times checked in with this hysterical editorial yesterday. Here's a quote:
Under cover of war, the domestic gun industry is prodding Congress to anoint it as the "Arsenal of Democracy" by enacting a disastrous bill to give gun makers and dealers unprecedented protection from liability suits by state and local governments and victims of gun violence. The "Arsenal" argument is being pressed by lobbyists who want to enshrine the industry as the safeguard of freedom "here at home and around the world," as the National Shooting Sports Foundation puts it.
Normally, I would discount anything that appears in the N.Y. Times as a manifestation of the ultra-left liberals. That's how --apparently-- the NYT's has decided to position themselves these days under the sick editorship of Raines. This is, after all, the "newspaper of record" that thinks we shouldn't be in Iraq right now. They still think the U.N. inspectors should be doing their thing for months or years while women and children (and men) in Iraq suffer under the most vile regime since Hitler.
Anyway, this bill before Congress isn't something "snuck in" by the NRA. It's a bill that has been introduced several times over the past few years. It says that just as you can't hold Ford responsible for crimes (such as a drunk driver mowing down people) committed with one of their cars, so too you can't try to suck money out of the gun industry (making a legal product regulated to death by the federal and most state governments) responsible for the misuse of their products by mutant criminals.
This sick editorial continues:
The bill would shelter the industry from the product liability provisions that apply to most manufacturers, even the makers of toy guns. Various local governments are now in court attempting to show that the manufacturers that make guns that too often surface in illegal activities, and the stores that make no attempt to follow the law in selling guns, should be held liable for the relentless damages of gun violence. Survivors of some of the Washington-area sniping victims have gone to court to sue the manufacturer of the gun that is said to be the murder weapon and the gun shop that sold it after discovering that the dealer had reported 238 guns "missing" from its inventory in three years alone.
Let's take all of this nonsense one issue at a time:
The makers of toy guns are responsible for seeing that there are no small parts that can choke a child. The guns are not marketed as weapons, but as toys. Real guns, made by real gun makers, are marketed and sold as dangerous weapons. When used correctly, according to instructions, they will not harm the buyer/user. They will protect him/her from a criminal bent on mutant behavior. Toys are toys and real guns are... real guns. Even the most stupid liberal ought to recognize the difference.
And to claim that guns should be made safe is the same as suggesting that ski slopes should be safe or that football players shouldn't be subject to injury. If a gun becomes "safe" under a liberal's definition, it will become useless in instantly being able to protect family, life, and property.
As for the gun store where the DC Snipers' gun allegedly came from -- yes, they had a ton of violations and the BATF should have shut them down long ago. It is the BATF that regulates and fines and punishes firearm dealers. It can't possibly be the responsibility the gun maker anymore than Budweiser can be held responsible because a 7-11 sold beer to a minor! Pretty simple when you use an analogy like that, huh?
I guess this editorial is just another example of why intelligent folks no longer read or even react to the New York Times. They aren't even quoted much anymore by television media. They are rapidly becoming irrelevant to all but the tired old leftists and liberals inhabiting the coasts and colleges.
That much is illustrated by how, four years ago, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that less than 1 percent of gun dealers accounted for more than half of all guns used in crimes. The government wanted to change the guns laws accordingly. Even some gun manufacturers were willing to embrace efforts to weed out that tiny minority of dealers.
This is another story about how Congress shouldn't grant the gun industry immunity from lawsuits for the criminal misuse of their legal products. I just found this quote fascinating because it admits that the BATF -- which is supposed to regulate the gun industry -- found that only a tiny fraction of all FFL dealers -- 1 percent! -- provide most of the guns used in crime. That would say to me that maybe the BATF is actually doing it's job (OK, even I have to laugh at that suggestion) or maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of gun dealers ARE doing a good job and obeying the laws. It certainly doesn't suggest that somehow gun makers such as Colt and Glock and Sturm Ruger are leaving crates of firearms lying around back alleys and in crack dens.
Look, just as a 7-11 should be held liable if their clerk sells beer to a minor, so too the gun seller who violates federal and state laws should be held liable if they sell or provide a gun to someone who shouldn't be allowed to buy one (this is providing the buyer failed the "Instant 3 day check") but how can you possibly hold the maker of the gun responsible?
Another story from Reuters discussed the decision by Wal-mart to suspend all sales of long guns (they haven't sold handguns for some time) at their stores in California because of repeated violations of California law. Here's a quote:
In a statement, Attorney General Bill Lockyer said investigations in recent weeks found that six Wal-Mart stores had released guns before the required 10-day waiting period, failed to verify the identity of buyers properly, sold illegally to felons and allowed other violations.
I agree! Surprised? Look, I just finished saying (and I have said it many times here at Alphecca before) that if a gun dealer violates the law they should be fined and have their FFL taken away or suspended. I have absolutely no problem with that. Wal-mart did wrongs and they have to be stopped from continuing.
I have never, ever, EVER suggested here at Alphecca that every single person in the U.S. irregardless of their criminal or mental-health record should be allowed to own a gun. So I guess that's the end of this discussion...
One last article to mention, this one from the NY Law Journal. It goes back to the NAACP suit against something like 39 gun makers. It claims that somehow the gun manufacturers are creating a nuisance for black people and creating more crime in black neighborhoods. Here's a quote:
Barnes, in a case brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to seek reforms in the way guns are marketed, stressed the disproportionate harm from gun violence that befalls blacks and members of the civil rights group.
She ticked off what she described as "shocking statistics" produced by handgun violence: black teen-agers in New York City are more than 10 times as likely to be killed by firearms than white teens; nationwide for teens ages 16 to 19, the ratio is 16 blacks killed for each white youth.
Look folks, I don't pretend to be the sharpest tack in the box and I really wish Glenn Reynolds or Eugene Volokh would notice me once in a while and offer a comment or two to help me out. But there's something bothering me about the NAACP suit. Are they saying that black people are more likely to respond to and use available guns to commit a crime?
I don't believe that. I don't think the presence of a firearm causes a person to commit a crime. It might make it easier but it isn't the ignition of the fuse. I do think that many social factors such as poverty, hunger, addiction, desperation, and the lack of hope, combined with the absence of a father-figure can drive people to commit crimes -- often using an available or easily obtained firearm. I truly wish there was a way to vanquish such problems in peoples' lives but I certainly don't lay the blame at the feet of the gun makers. And I don't think the NAACP should either.
Again, I almost think --from reading the suit-- that the NAACP is claiming that black folks are more likely to commit crimes and are more susceptible to the influence of a firearm. I would almost think that is racist. But how can the NAACP be racist against black people? I welcome your comments and will print them immediately following this post. I will not print racist comments. This is a problem that plagues all of us of any race. I want intelligent discussion here.
Anyway, I guess that wraps up another weekly tally. Thanks for stopping by!
Enough of this light-hearted crap, let's get back to guns and violence! A brief item appeared in the N.Y. Post yesterday about how Brooklyn Councilman (D) David Yassky "marched" into city hall with a dozen supporters to demand that the U.S. Congress toss two bills that would exempt gun makers and distributors from lawsuits filed by cities or groups such as -- you guessed it -- the NAACP. I discussed this last week and said that while the bill is a good one, it would be tough to get it passed. Anyway, here's a quote of Yassky:
Councilman David Yassky (D) said, "This bill would . . . put handcuffs on New York as we try and defend ourselves [against] the gun industry."
What bullshit. All these bills are trying to do is put handcuffs on all the trial lawyers trying to suck money out of the industry. I've said it a hundred times but holding Colt responsible for the misuse of their product is like holding Ford reponsible for the actions of a drunk driver. It's all about money, nothing else. That's why the California courts threw out the [California] cities' suits last month. See my post about that here.
See folks, what the anti-gun schmucks of this country don't get is that bearing arms is not like cigarettes or fast-food. It's a right coded directly into the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. Attempting to legislate by litigation is anti-American and most honest judges realize this. But the trial lawyers and the Brady Bunch are bottom feeders who smell money. That's why most of the cities in America that have filed suit against the gun industry did so only after being courted by the lawyers. Ever been to a fish-hatchery with those big cement ponds filled with trout? Remember when the worker brought out the bucket of internal organs and tossed them into the tanks? That's a pretty accurate picture of trial lawyers.
We need to be vigilant in protecting our God-given and founding fathers-given right to defend ourselves.
Now, look under "damned fool" and you'll see a picture of Terence P. Jeffrey writing this op-ed for the Washington Times. As many of you know, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the issue (from Texas) of two consenting adult men being discovered by police (because of a dishonest phone-call by a gay-hating neighbor) to be having gay sex. The police thought there was a gun-battle or something going on in the house and broke in and discovered these two guys in their bedroom. The stupid cops actually arrested these guys and tried to make a case out of it. And the guys were convicted by the yahoo juries and courts of Texas and so now it's a federal case.
So here's what brain-defective Terence P. Jeffrey has to say about it:
So here is the real proposition before the court: If a man has sex with a man, he is expressing a right. If he has sex with two women, he is still expressing a right. But if he marries the two women first the state can punish him to protect matrimony.
The current petitioners may believe this. But one suspects their bedfellows in the cause will soon be clamoring for logical consistency. They will give Justice Scalia a straight answer. To his question, "Why is this different from bigamy?" they will answer: It is not. Bigamy, too, is a fundamental right.
Where does it end? Who can tell ‹ given that a ruling for the petitioners could cause catastrophic collateral damage to the foundation of law itself? All men, said the Founders, "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." If all consensual adult sex is one of those rights, either God gave it to us or some force other than God is author of our liberty.
Seventeen years ago, in Bowers vs. Hardwick, when Laurence Tribe first argued for this right, Justice Byron White, writing for the court, said: "It would be difficult, except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are committed in the home. We are unwilling to start down that road."
Chief Justice Warren Burger scoffed at Mr. Tribe's claim. "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right," he said, "would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."
As with most defective-brained thinkers, Jeffrey equates consenual adult sex with adultry. Well, neither of these men were married -- Texas doesn't allow it. So it wasn't adultry. And he says this opens the door to bigamy. Bigamy is a construct that requires that one or both of the participants FIRST BE MARRIED. They weren't. And if they were allowed to be married, and one of them cheated, then yes, a charge of bigamy could be brought. But they weren't.
But here's the crux of his stupid argument: He quotes Burger as saying, "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right," he said, "would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."
Well, a millennia of moral teaching is why Muslem fundamentalists think it's all right to let young girls burn to death in a school on fire rather then let them escape because they are not "properly dressed."
A millennia of moral teaching says that you should stone an epileptic to death to vanquish the demons within them.
A millennia of moral teaching says you shall not eat port. Do you?
I could go on and on but many others before me have done it much better. Here is what I believe (and this will piss some readers off.) I believe in God -- not in any "organized religious sense" but intrinsically. He gave us some big-assed brains so we could figure things out for ourselves. He expects us to "grow-up" and develope and learn from our mistakes and embrace new -- more current and more logical -- thinkings. Our Constitution says we have the right to pursue happiness. Not to someone else's detriment, but otherwise, we have the right to do as we please.
I would think that the most conservative of my readers would realize that being able to fall in love and spend your life with your beloved is an absolute, fundamental right that should never be subject to government regulation, much less the whims of an employer or landlord.
I just don't get it. How can conservatives, who believe in a minimalist government, who reject interference in day-to-day affairs by ordinary citizens, somehow think that there should be laws against who any person can or should fall in love with?
I have a pretty good relationship with God and I'll tell you this: God has no problem with who you love; he only has a problem with who you hate.
It's Sunday and I'm off from work and I hate getting worked up over a stupid editorial. So now I will chill out and leave you all for the day.
Anyway, excuse the brief rant and thanks for stopping by.
...over at Dean 2004 blog. And yes, I still haven't mastered formatting for BlogSpot yet so it looks weird. Anyway, I won't reprint it here because when someone kindly asks me to contribute something, I always make it an exclusive... So just go there...
You know, this was supposed to be a day off from blogging -- I generally do take the weekends off -- and here I am doing more then ever...
Time to cruise around and see what some of my friends are up to. Incidentally, I have now, really, no-shit turned off the jeff@alphecca.com email account because it was generating a TON of spam. I mean, how many African millionaires can I help transfer money for? And how do they know I need a larger... Well, you know... And I love some of the ploys such as, "the toner prices you requested..." Yipes!
So please use the email link on the left sidebar to communicate with me. Anyway, thanks for stopping by!
But let me turn you onto another terrific essayist, Andrew Reeves at Carnifex. Some very thought-provoking entries including many on one of the subjects (that although I avoid here) I'm most interested in: God. I like Carnifex a lot and I think you will too.
I love this: My good friend MommaBear over at On The Third Hand is reporting that France wants in on the rebuilding action of Iraq. If the French want to hang with the big-boys they'll have to get up off of their knees...
...which I wasn't, NewsPundit is. And he's got a wealth of info and links about it. NewsPundit is rapidly becoming a major news compendium and if you aren't already, you should be checking it out regularly.
My buddy Aubrey Turner is rightfully pissed. Here's a quote:
It isn't hysterical or luddite to demand that the government follow the damn constitution. We have a right to be free from government searches and seizures unless they have a specific and demonstrable reason. What part of that does she not understand?
That ought to make you want to read the whole thing. Go there now...
Especially by leftist professors. Bitter Bitch is all over it. Here's a quote:
Why don't you students like to get yourselves arrested? Why don't you like to risk your personal safety in an unruly mob? What I find more amusing is the fact that it's implied in her comments that it's okay to offend conservatives. People like her made it against the rules for me to offend liberals (her). I would face punishment that could include being kicked out of school for offending her. Don't think I'm lying, there's a history on my campus of bringing up students on charges of "threatening the community dialogue" for being openly conservative. It may be a million times better now, but this was within the last decade.
Go read the whole thing. The archive-link doesn't seem to be working right now but it's worth seeking out. Ghod I love her!
Update: The Bitch Girls have moved to here. Thanks to Matt at It Could Be Better for the heads-up. I've fixed the link above.
I was going to mention this story but Publicola is all over it. Walmart was busted for over 500 firearms violations in California and so --there-- will no longer sell guns. I've only been inside a Wal-mart once and that was in desperation. And I didn't find what I was looking for and left.
I prefer to bring my business to small, locally owned merchants. Speaking of which, so does Leigh Hanlon. He laments the loss of local businesses in his neighborhood. So do I and so I stay away from the big-box stores.
Speaking of guns and stuff, check out the great reloading bench over at Weckuptothees. Sweet!
Well Diane over at Everything Must Go is doing Yoga and detoxing her body. You know, these health conscious people make me sick. (Just kidding.) And Mike Silverman has gone skinhead -- with photos. He calls it his Summer haircut. I'm glad some people are thinking warm thoughts. We just got another dumping of snow, and it's supposed to stay in the low thirties for a while.
So I feel no need to get ready for Summer just yet. That's right -- I can continue to drink and smoke and eat donuts...
While this is a necessary conflict, it is still sad to hear of the deaths of our brave servicemen and servicewomen. But what of the reporters who risk their lives not in fighting but in trying to bring us (back home) the story of what is happening? Oh, not fraud grandstanders such as Geraldo, but folks such as Mike Kelly?
Now, more tragic news -- David Bloom of NBC has suffered an embolism while traveling with the 3rd Infantry. He died at an army hospital. He was 39 years old and died -- to use the cliche -- doing what he loved.
I complimented him a few weeks ago at the start of this war. When you (that means me) only receive two TV stations, you come to depend on what you have. Bloom earned my respect for his objective reporting of the war from the front lines. *Sigh.*
