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
That's right, I have absolutely no shame...
Hey, it worked for National Lampoon magazine... I don't have a second home on Cape Cod. 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:
You know... Here at Alphecca, I usually post quite a bit during the week and only take weekends off. But this week -- at least since my weekly bias table Wednesday morning, I've not been around. No, don't get nervous, my wonderful regular visitors, I'm not tossing in the towel. I work for a great furniture company and our biggest yearly sale comes up in two weeks -- as the company web-guy, I've been working overtime to get all our stuff together on-line. Hence the quiet here during the latter part of this week.
On top of that, Propellerhead Software released version 2.5 of Reason, my favorite software program in the universe. (See their link on the sidebar.) Too much to explore and enjoy in so little time.
Now I'm home (but I have to work tomorrow -- Saturday -- and Sunday!) and so I'm just not going to get to comment on all the stuff happening.
I could have come home from work each night and spent it here but it's Spring and everyone is coming down from the hills and my lovely town of 950 folks is coming alive. I'm out there with them.
And I'm reminded of why I'm so glad to live in this great country of ours, in what I consider the greatest spot on Earth -- the tri-state area of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
All of this is my lame way of saying, sorry for the light posting. I'm off Monday and Tuesday and so will resume Alphecca as business as usual... And that's when I'll deal with email.
See you all Monday, have a great weekend, and thanks for stopping by.
...that my page is becoming slow to load because of all the Chris Muir strips I've been featuring. I just enjoy sharing and helping to spread the word about his great work. However, you'll notice I don't perma-link them (except to his own site) and I will probably start deleting some of them once they go into the archives to speed things up. I could just do what Bill Quick does and only post the current one at the top of the page. I'll have to see. Alphecca is a work in progress you know...
Update: I've trimmed some of the strips out because I have mercy on modem users...
Time for the Alphecca weekly Wednesday check on the bias over at Yahoo's Gun Control Debate Page. I always feel as if the theme song from Monty Python should be playing in the background as I write this... For new viewers, I rate the bias shown by Yahoo as to which stories and editorials they choose to link to on their "debate" page and typically, it is slanted far towards the anti-gun position. Let's start with the chart:
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
You can see that the trend towards neutral articles continues because of all the stories about Charlton Heston's retirement held over from the previous week.
Now you should remember that I base my bias judgement on the actual content of the article, not the title. So -- for example -- a title that might seem to favor our side (the pro-gun side) might actually wind up in the anti-gun column of my table based on actual reading.
Let me show you how that plays out. Here's a little chart showing just this week's bias check (from the table above) as well as how the figures would look if I based it soley on the title:
Methodology
Sample Date
For More Gun Control Or Is Anti-Gun
Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment
Neutral Articles
By Content
05/07/03
7
2
11
By Title
05/07/03
8
4
8
I point this out only because someone mentioned that perhaps Yahoo wasn't actually reading the stories they selected, just the titles. But as you can see, based on that criteria the chart becomes even more slanted away from neutrality, or at least balance in pro-vs-con articles.
A perfect example of this is the Washington Post story I discussed earlier this week. The title is, "Gun Firms On Verge Of Winning New Shield." You would think this is good news for pro-gun folks like myself. But when you read the article (really an editorial) you realize it's a screed against the N.R.A. and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Anyway, enough of that. Let's get on with the commentary!
Certainly the most interesting story comes from AP writer David Kravets:
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) upheld California's assault weapons ban in a 2-1 ruling last December. On Tuesday, a majority of the circuit's 25 active judges declined to rehear the case.
The 9th Circuit's ruling conflicts with a 2001 decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said individuals have a constitutional right to guns. The man who challenged California's weapons ban promised an appeal to the nation's highest court.
"I'll have this filed by the end of the week," attorney Gary Gorski said.
Given the importance of the issue in constitutional terms (that is -- does the Second Amendment secure an individual right,) I doubt that the Supreme Court would decline to decide the issue. Eugene Volokh isn't so sure and has quite a bit to say about how the Supreme Court decides what cases it will hear. Go there and read it but here's a quote:
1. Except in rare cases (for instance, when a federal statute is struck down, and the federal government is petitioning for review), the odds are against the Court granting cert, even when there's a disagreement among the circuits -- a so-called "circuit split" -- on the legal question (as there is here, with the Fifth Circuit finding that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and the other circuits, including the Ninth, rejecting that view).
2. Here, the split does cut somewhat in favor of the Court agreeing to hear the case; and this is a sexy, juicy topic, which sometimes also cuts in favor. Sometimes, conventional wisdom says, the Court tries to duck the really controversial issues, but I'm not sure how true this is generally, and especially here.
3. But the Court generally prefers to hear cases when its decision about the underlying legal issue, on which there's a conflict -- here, whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right -- is likely to make a difference to the bottom-line outcome. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but my sense is that this is the Justices' tendency; when something really rides on the legal question, the issue becomes less abstract.
Of course the sticky situation arises that yes, the right to bear arms is an individual right but the state (in this case California) has the right to regulate and limit just which arms should qualify. Should be interesting...
On the anti-gun side, the Kansas City Star (MO) checks in with an unsigned editorial opposing the concealed-carry bill recently passed by the Missouri senate. Even if the bill does wind up on Governor Holden's desk, he has already said he will veto it so the point seems moot. But the editorial says this:
Encouraging people to carry hidden weapons is not a good solution to gun violence. Let's hope that at some point more of Missouri's elected representatives recognize this and reject concealed carry.
But that's not the point or benefit of allowing law-abiding folks to carry. The real reason is to reduce CRIME. If the thugs know their prospective victim might be able to fight back, they're less likely to attack. Statistics bear this out in states with lenient CCW laws. And actually, when you think about it, reducing crime would probably reduce gun violence except among gang-bangers who ignore all laws or concerns about personal safety anyway.
We believe the gun lobbies' power is exaggerated and the deepening political drift of congressional Democrats is being exploited. With weak leadership (Majority Leader Thomas Daschle of North Dakota has been dragooned into signing on to the legislation as a sponsor), congressional Democrats are approving a bill they apparently think will give them a free pass with pro-gun voters.
This is a grave mistake. Democrats formerly strong on gun control are saying this issue is mostly symbolic because blaming gun manufacturers for gun crimes is a questionable legality. That may be true but the symbolism is significant: Allowing lawsuits signals distaste with the gun industry's cavalier attitude about pouring guns into society that have little to do with sports shooting. If Democrats roll over this time for the gun lobby, fearing electoral retribution, the gun lobby will continue to roll them over with bolder attacks on gun control laws already on the books.
Symbolism has no place in our legal system in terms of awarding huge judgements against an industry that has done nothing wrong. They make a legal product and if they are distributing it according to the law, and the dealer follows the instant-check system properly, then there is no cause to find them liable for crimes committed by criminals.
Furthermore, the gun manufacturers aren't "pouring" guns into society. They're not leaving boxes of handguns lying around bus-stops and back alleys. If a dealer has customers for his wares, he orders some more wares. And I can tell you this as a fact -- gun makers and distributors don't ship guns on "approval." They aren't flooding any market. An order comes in and they ship. Same as any other legal product.
Still furthermore, since when does a gun have to be for "sports shooting?" How about for personal protection? This editorial is so off base that all I can finally do is shrug and say, "what do you expect from a Delaware media outlet?" Coastal types indeed...
Anyway, I guess that wraps up this edition. Thanks for stopping by!
An unknown number of Iraqis who worked for Saddam Hussein's government were given passports by French officials in Syria, U.S. intelligence officials said.
The passports are regarded as documents of the European Union, because of France's membership in the union, and have helped the Iraqis avoid capture, said officials familiar with intelligence reports.
The French support, which was revealed through sensitive intelligence-gathering means, angered Pentagon, State Department and intelligence officials in Washington because it undermined the search for senior aides to Saddam, who fled Iraq in large numbers after the fall of Baghdad on April 9.
France is a garbage-can country filled with garbage-can people. This is a worthless, useless, diseased blight in Europe that should be nuked out of existence. The United States should cut off any scrap of money we send them and President Bush should snub France and Chirac at every possible intersection. There is NOTHING that France provides that we need.
So Jay Solo and The Bitch Girls and The Inscrutable American are spreading the word about my candidacy for Governor of Vermont. Boy, rumors really do travel. Scroll through the posts late last week for more details.
In any event, if this thing takes off, and if I'm high enough... So I really need a platform because I'm only 5'6". I was thinking of, "less taxes -- more guns." Has a nice folksy ring to it, huh?. And every campaign needs a slogan. Here's one now:
New ideas for Vermont -- Jeff's full of it...
I know, it needs some work. I could be the first "blogospheric" candidate.
Via Keep And Bear Arms I found this story on World Net Daily about a guy who killed a snake to protect his family and found himself in jail... Here's a quote:
A Michigan man who killed a poisonous snake he says was threatening nearby children has been found guilty of "killing a protected reptile or amphibian without a state permit" and faces a possible jail sentence, reports the Ann Arbor News.
Convicted of killing the rattlesnake during an afternoon outing Aug. 9 with his two sons and their friend at Pickeral Lake northwest of Ann Arbor, 47-year-old James Galloway says he was protecting nearby children and himself, according to the report.
Now, I don't even care what the details are or just how rare this ef'ing snake is. If it was threatening humans (including children) then kill the damn thing. But apparently some busy-body woman saw this and -- just knowing this was a "protected" snake, I mean come-on folks, we're talking about a fucking rattle-snake here... She reported him to the police and since apparently in this dead-ass part of Michigan the cops have nothing better to do than to harrass innocent citizens, they arrested the guy.
As the writer of the story points out, the snake had more rights than the guy it attacked! This is just how sick our society has become. I'm amazed that Drudge didn't pick-up on this.
And that brings me to a point I've felt like making for a long time... This thing about halting all progress and development because of some snail or frog is ridiculous. Oh, all the PETA-bread types claim "endangered species" but you know what? Various species are dying out all the time and NEW species are being created as evolution works it's magic. Does it matter that a meaningless snail-darter disappears because of MAN -- what if it disappeared because of a volcano? Or a meteor? What about the new species -- better suited to living alongside humans -- that are created every day?
Getting back to this stupid story:
A woman observing the events and suspecting the snake was a protected Eastern Massasauga reportedly contacted authorities on her cell phone. In court, an expert testified he doubted Galloway's story, since the Eastern Massasauga is generally a shy snake that usually will flee in the presence of humans.
Did this snake know it was supposed to be "shy?" Maybe the snake was having a bad "scale day." Are the police and prosecutors in Michigan really so lame that they take the word of -- or should we say supposed temperment of a rattle-snake over that of a human man? This is just sick. This is why I stopped being a liberal and stopped listening to their warped blatherings. They've become totally irrelevant to me. I just don't hear them.
...That starting today, Alphecca is a bit bigger then it used to be -- wider. Since this is a blog, I figure I should bore you with every detail of this site... I originally designed the site to be 700 pix wide so even those (like myself actually) who are using crappy old monitors with low resolution would see the entire site without having to resort to the scroll bars. But after Chris Muir kindly gave me permission to reprint his political comic strip, I found that reducing it to fit my narrow blog caused the lettering to become unreadable. I can't have that, and most folks are actually using higher resolution screens so I've expanded Alphecca to 775 pix. So blame it on Chris...
I know, I know, you find this absolutely fascinating...
As with the New York Times, The Washington Post seems incapable of writing an objective news story concerning firearms. It would be fine if it was listed under editorials, but it stinks when it pretends to be a "news story."
The most recent example of this is this story by Jim Vandehei from yesterday. It concerns the possibility that the bill limiting (not eliminating) frivolous lawsuits against gun makers and distributors will pass. Now, I have no problem if a reporter un-biasedly lists some comments from folks ON BOTH SIDES of the issue. But this story is so heavily laden down with anti-comments and insinuations that the NRA has congress in it's hip-pocket that the whole thing reads like a conspiracy theory. Here are some quotes:
Under pressure from the National Rifle Association and a lesser-known organization [National Shooting Sports Foundation --js] funded with $100 million from gun manufacturers, Bush and a majority of lawmakers are on record supporting significant new legal protections for companies that make and sell guns. The legislation would prevent victims of gun crimes from making civil claims against companies that manufactured, imported or sold the weapons.
The NRA calls the legislation a prudent way to prevent companies from going belly up simply because a criminal used their gun illegally. But critics say the measure would allow some gunmakers who misplace caches of weapons -- or dealers who sell guns to felons -- to escape civil penalties.
This is just flat-out wrong. See my weekly Wednesday table from a couple weeks ago for the entire text of the bill. But let me just summarize here. If the gun maker or distributor or gun dealer was negligent, then yes -- they can face civil suit. If they played by the rules, then no they can't. What is so hard to understand about that? And what is wrong with that? Nothing!
Much of the pressure is coming from the little-known National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has raised $100 million over the past five years from gunmakers to fight lawsuits and fund its national political campaign. The foundation entered the political arena in the fall of 1998, when gun control advocates turned to local governments and others to sue gun manufacturers and dealers as a way to clamp down on the industry.
You know, I love the way anti-gun groups demonize the NRA, GOA, NSSF, etc. Hey folks, these are legal, legitimate lobbying organizations. They're doing their job. Should the AARP be demonized for fighting for the rights of seniors? The NEA for lobbying for teachers? It's called free speach. Another area liberals are trying to whittle away at -- but thank God part of the campaign finance reform bill was just struck-down by the courts.
What makes this gun debate even more remarkable is the willingness of so many Democrats to cross trial lawyers, who are among their biggest political donors and supporters, to protect themselves from gun activists. Trial lawyers stand to make millions of dollars each year representing victims of gun crimes in court cases against manufacturers and distributors.
As if trial lawyers aren't themselves a huge lobbying effort? And worse, they try to legislate through litigation. I'll tell you one thing folks, if this bill makes it through the Senate without a filibuster and President Bush signs it, it will be a huge victory for freedom and the Bill of Rights. Now is the time to start letting your Senators know (especially if they are wavering on this issue) how you feel and applying as much pressure as you can on them to support the bill.
My research partner and I are professors at University of
Tennessee-Knoxville and Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. We are
conducting an online survey that examines the motivations for accessing
Weblogs.
