...I guess this is a wrap for this week. I'm going to be really busy for the next four days so I may not have another posting until this coming Tuesday. So don't get nervous and think I've gone away somewhere. It's just my day job calling me.

So thanks to all who visit or link or blogroll me. I certainly do appreciate it. Your kind contributions (see the kitty-cats on the sidebar) are welcome too.

See you soon. Have a great holiday weekend.

Thanks for stopping by!

From the AP:

A federal agency is moving to pull the license of a gun store where a rifle used in the Washington, D.C., area sniper shootings was traced, The Seattle Times reported Friday.

Citing sources close to the case who asked not to be identified, the newspaper reported that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms moved to revoke the license of Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma for record-keeping violations.

Maybe you think I would have a problem with this. OF COURSE NOT! I said it long ago right here:

Anyway, in regards to this case and the gun shop in question, I discussed this as well way back last November. This gun shop "lost" a bunch of guns from their inventory and didn't report it. And this was not the first time. In fact, the ATF had been investigating losses from this shop dating back two years. But they hadn't closed them down! So look, I have no sympathies for the gun shop and in my opinion they deserve to be a defendant in this suit and they probably do bear some of the responsibility. Not that we know that for certain.

And follow my commentary links in that post for more. I clearly have rebuked this gun shop. They lost guns, for what ever reason, and they should not have still been in business, in my opinion. Now look, most of the responsibility for the sniper murders lies with the DC Snipers (those mutant thugs) themselves. But it has always been my position that if this gun shop has done something wrong -- and it would seem that they have done many things wrong -- then they also should be punished -- and for God's sake, closed down! Okay?

Now can we all just head over to ScrappleFace and have a laugh?

Yeah, like I ever have any. Anyway, here's the first photo of the Earth and Moon taken from the Mars Global Surveyor orbiting -- oddly enough -- Mars. Clicking the photo will take you to the NASA site for the story.

What really impresses me are those giant neon labels floating in space...

---

Update: A friend writes:

What especially impresses me is that when you go to the NASA page, they constantly refer to our planet as "Mother Earth." I guess sexism that feeds into the feminist agenda is A-OK.
--L. from Chicago

Well... "Father Earth" just doesn't have that ring to it. Parent Earth... Parental Guardian Earth... Earth has two daddies Earth... I dunno... There's just something nurturing about "Mother Earth" and so I can't get too excited about this one...

France, Germany, and Russia will graciously side with the U.S. in voting to lift sanctions against Iraq. From the Washington Post, here's a quote:

Meeting in Paris, the French, Russian and German foreign ministers, whose countries led the opposition to the war this spring, announced that they will support the United States' postwar plans despite reservations about what they view as the limited U.N. involvement in shaping the country's political and economic future.

"Even if this text does not go as far as we would like, we have decided to vote for this resolution," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters at a news conference with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. "This is because we have chosen the path of unity of the international community."

So much to rant about and so little time (I really do have to get ready for work) but could I just start out by saying, "No shit, Sherlock!" These are the countries that have been violating the sanctions and embargos all along, France right up until two months before the war. All of them are dependant on revenue generated by imports to Iraq.

"Path of unity of the international community" indeed! Oh please...

---

One quick note: Blogging on my part will be light over the next few days (through Tuesday.) My company has it's biggest sales event of the year over the Memorial Day weekend and my time and energy have to be devoted to that. By the time I get home each night I'll probably be beat. So check out all the great blogs on my left sidebar.

That's all I ask for in life. But enough about me. Anyway, I've got to be at work soon so let me just point you to a couple items to check out:

Firstly, my blogson at Classical Values has this post remembering the riots that followed the trial of San Francisco Supervisor Dan White after he was convicted only of manslaughter for murdering Mayor George Moscone and city Supervisor Harvey Milk. He (blogson Eric Scheie) was there and perhaps participated. A personal remembrance of part of the history of the gay rights movement.

---

Also stop by Queen City Soapbox where my friend Chris Anderson has a post covering and thoughts about a local police chief busted in an online sting for trying to hook-up with (what he thought was) a 15 year old girl.

U.S. (and I suppose allied) forces in Iraq are planning to confiscate guns from Iraqi people. From the New York Times, here's a quote:

Iraqis who are in the military, the police or an authorized security organization supervised by the allies will be authorized to carry automatic or heavy weapons. But other Iraqis will not be allowed to possess weapons, and open-air arms markets, common in Baghdad, will be banned.

Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection.

For a nation as dangerous as Iraq and as rife with weapons, total disarmament is impractical, allied officials say. But Iraqis will not be allowed to take their weapons outside their home without a special license.

And further:

To ensure that Iraqis are aware of the new policy the allies will saturate Iraqis with leaflets, use loudspeaker announcements and radio and television broadcasts. The edict will establish an amnesty period during which weapons can be turned in without fear of arrest.

The proclamation will also prohibit celebratory and other weapons firing within city limits, a measure that is likely to prove hard to enforce given the shooting that is often heard at night.

Something about this just bugs me. I know Iraq is a dangerous and disorderly place with warlords fighting over turf, but I hate to see the U.S. engaged in behavior like this. It just rubs me the wrong way. If they can do it there, they (our government) can do it here if they thought there was too much citizen unrest.

The article, and other reports claim that looting and crime are already dropping on their own as Iraqis adjust to freedom and get their anger over Saddam out of their system. I think that once the U.S. gets it's act together over there and secures the country with a valid police force, things will be fine.

The rules made up sound like something N.Y. or California would come up with. And by disarming the citizens, we leave them open to another coup or dictator easily taking over the country after we're gone. Remember, we still don't know if Hussein is in hiding, waiting to make an armed come-back.

And lastly, this might sound silly, but firing weapons into the air in celebration is a way of life in countries such as Iraq. For us to prohibit that is an indication already that we are forcing our culteral norms on them. Yes, it led to a mistaken bombing of a wedding party in Afghanistan but it just means we have to be more careful.

Now that Iraqis are experiencing their freedom, we should not be taking away their right to preserve it. That's one reason our founding fathers established the Second Amendment (as well as the other Rights) here at home.

Hard to believe it's another week already... For newcomers, each week (on Wednesday) I read every newspaper story and editorial linked to by Yahoo on their Gun Control Debate Page. In a true debate on an issue, there would be an even balance between items that are "for" or "against" gun control. (Well, in a PERFECT world, all newspaper articles would not take a side, just report on the issues.) But Yahoo has a choice in which items they link to and that is the worst of the bias... Anyway, here's the chart. My prattle will follow:

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
05/21/03	13	2	6	NAACP loses jury advice, more Bush vs NRA, Denver fights liberal carry law
05/14/03	11	1	9	Bush vs NRA
05/07/03	7	2	11	Heston, Cincinnati, Minnesota
Apr. Avg.	11	2	6	NAACP suits, Heston retires, Wal-mart
1st qtr '03 weekly avg	12.5	5	5	Good news Il & CO, CA judge dismisses gun makers in suit, ATF prosecutions, Sniper victim lawsuits, England gang murders
4th qtr '02 weekly avg	15.5	3.5	2.5	DC Snipers, Canadian Registry fiasco & NJ "smart-gun" law

So as you can see, I've shortened the chart some more by "quartering" past results. And obviously, Yahoo continues to link to mostly anti-gun articles. No surprise there. Let's examine some of the editorials first since it is a newspaper editorial page editor's perogative to write or link to opinions. Alas that most of them don't at least do what USA Today does and present a differing opinion alongside...

And remember, it's not the subject matter that I consider, it's the slant the writer give it that determines the bias of a story. And then -- overall -- which of those biased items Yahoo links to.

One editorial that I wound up (tepidly) listing as pro-gun came from AP writer Amy Lorentzen in this report on the new president of the NRA:

The new president of the National Rifle Association lacks the celebrity firepower of Charlton Heston. But Kayne Robinson brings political know-how to the role, along with a police and Marine background and an inside-and-out knowledge of guns dating to his Huck Finn-like childhood.

Robinson, 60, was raised in the Wisconsin woodlands by his grandparents, who made their living from trapping, logging and fishing. He began hunting early in life, even crafting his own guns, and became an NRA member as a teenager.

There has been some criticism of Kayne Robinson for comments he made a while back which in essence said that the NRA has Bush in it's back pocket. Stupid comments to make in public, and Bush is proving him wrong, but I won't hang him on that alone. He'll have to prove himself over the next year. And I think that with the possible vote on extending the "assault weapons" ban coming up, he will have a trial by fire.

Now from Newsday, we have this editorial by a Marie Cocco that is so rabidly anti-logical and full of lies that I cannot think of a single reason why Newsday would have printed it. Let's look at just the beginning of it:

The president says he wants to sign a measure to keep in place the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons. The rapid-firing guns are used in such pursuits as schoolyard massacres and drive-by shootings. Without a new law extending the ban, it will go out of existence next year and the weapons that police officers curse as a threat to themselves and a plague on their communities will circulate again, unfettered.

How many lies can we count in the above paragraph? "Rapid-firing guns?" All guns could fire rapidly. Any semi-automatic will fire each time you pull the trigger. The guns banned by the lame "assault weapons" bill had nothing to do with how quickly they fired since they fired at the same rate as any other gun. That bill -- as all rational folks who have read it know -- was all about cosmetics, what the gun looked like, and the magazine capacity.

And every official police and ATF statistic shows that these guns are NOT used for schoolyard massacres and drive-by shootings. That is a flat-out lie on her part. These guns are actually less likely to be used because they can't be concealed, they're expensive, and... but who cares. The statistics show the truth. They are not a significant factor in mass-murders or crime in general. Lies!

The last claim of hers, that police officers curse these guns -- show me a quote from a cop that doesn't come from N.Y., CA, and other liberal coastal states. I think that cops probably fear the mutant pointing the gun at them, not the brand of gun. This whole putrid op-ed is so full of lies that I can never have respect for anything Newsday chooses to print again. Sort of like my feelings towards the New York Times.

I don't often associate the SFGate with unbiased articles about guns but they had one yesterday. Debra J. Saunders wrote this story:

THE FIRST thing you have to understand about proposed gun legislation in Washington is that it isn't necessarily proposed to get passed. Not when it can be used as voter bait during a presidential election.

Anti-gun Democrats have been known to sabotage anti-gun bills so that they can blame Republicans as a means of wooing soccer moms. That happened in 2000 after the Senate passed, then alleged purists in the House killed, a bill that would have required background checks for purchase at gun shows. Dems bolted -- ostensibly in protest of a provision to mandate 24-hour background checks in lieu of 72-hour checks -- but the time period that the Dems seemed the most sensitive to was November 2000.

Republicans, on the other hand, have been known to give lip service to modest gun-control measures, while secretly rooting against them.

In the 2000 campaign, President Bush said he would support an extension of the 1994 assault-weapon ban signed by President Clinton, which will expire on Sept. 13, 2004, unless Bush signs a law extending it. White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said Bush stills supports an extension.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that Bush, who won the NRA's endorsement in 2000 despite his support for the gun-ban extension, won't have to make good on his pledge if Capitol Hill fails to muster the votes to pass a bill. And from the look of things, the big question isn't whether the 1994 assault-weapons ban will die, but which party will kill it first.

I gotta tell ya! This is some pretty sharp analysis and I agree with much of it. Go read the whole thing because she makes her points well. So kudo's to Saunders and the SFGate. Any anomaly deserves recognition!

The same could hardly be said of this op-ed from Tom Teepen in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that starts off:

Bush makes sure gun lobby gets what it wants.

"Bush and the people around him are National Rifle Association finger puppets. The NRA twitches, they bow."

When President Bush announced a couple of weeks ago that he wouldn't oppose renewal next year of the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, you knew something fishy was up. And sure enough, here it is: Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) says that not only will the House refuse to renew the legislation. The leadership won't even let the matter come up. End of issue.

Thus Bush escapes any blame for re-arming the nation's nut cases with weapons that can mow down school kids and postal employees wholesale -- hey, he said he'd back an extension, didn't he? -- but the gun lobby gets what it wants anyway.

Well, I for one resent being called a nut-case (since I own one of the guns banned.) And I can't remember mowing down any school kids or postal employees lately. You can be sure that hell will freeze over before I take any AJC editorial seriously about any subject because they did what others do -- they presented a heavily biased op-ed that slams millions of Americans, and didn't have the guts or honesty to seek out an opposing opinion to print alongside it.

Teepen isn't even rational in his statement of "facts" nor does his hysteria give any credence to his ridiculous arguments.

Folks, this is what we're up against. Those of you who live in the circulation area of these newspapers and who support the Second Amendment need to start writing some letters to the editors to let them know that you will not stand for these sort of editorials filled with lies, innuendos, and slurs. You need to get active RIGHT NOW because there are a lot of undecided others out there who read this stuff and fall off the fence -- and not onto our side of it.

There was, of course, plenty on the NAACP lawsuit against gun makers. I've already discussed this quite a bit (just scroll back and read my archives...) but I remind everyone that while the Jury found for the defendants, it's still up to the ultra anti-gun judge to issue a final ruling. From Mike Adams in SunSpot:

The NAACP's effort to curb gun-related homicides in black communities suffered a setback yesterday when a federal jury rejected its contention that the gun industry knowingly allowed its products to fall into the hands of criminals.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein will make a final determination in the case, tried in federal court in Brooklyn, N.Y. After deliberating for five days, the jury cleared 45 gun makers and distributors but was unable to reach a verdict on 23 other defendants.

I did rate this story as "neutral." I still have a bad feeling about Judge Weinstein and I am not celebrating until he makes his ruling. The only thing one can say about this is that because the "advisory" jury ruled against the NAACP, if Weinstein ignores their findings, there is a very good case for appeal.

One "news story" link clearly pushing for more gun control was this Dan Eggen article in the Washington Post about supposed loopholes in our firearms laws. But he resorts to hysterical claims that terrorists can buy guns here and cause mayhem... Here's a quote:

U.S. gun laws can easily be exploited by international terrorist operatives, who can obtain assault-style firearms or explosives by taking advantage of delays and loopholes in the federal gun control system, according to a Congressional Research Service report to be released today.

I dunno. September 11 was initiated with box-cutters. Other examples of terrorist activities here have relied on common fertilizers. Reasonably speaking, where do guns fit in in regards to international terrorists attacking the U.S.?

As for explosives... I haven't bought any lately (actully ever) and have no idea of where someone goes to buy or obtain them but I can't believe you just drive on down to the mall and stroll on into the local "Explosives 'R' Us" and pick up a few hundred pounds of plastic blasting materials...

To me, this "news item" is just silly and caters to the fears of an uneducated public.

Here's another quote:

Lautenberg, who has introduced legislation aimed at keeping suspected terrorists from obtaining firearms, said in a statement yesterday that the Justice Department is not taking the threat seriously enough.

That's "illegally-run-as-a-candidate" Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey. Hey Frank? Actually it's just YOU that no one takes seriously...

In the meantime, Denver, Colorado is rebelling against the new, statewide laws allowing concealed carry. And the law that says a city such as -- uh, Denver -- can't pass laws that are more restrictive than what the state requires.

There were a few articles about that. But the one I found interesting is this one from the Denver Post about how, after all, there is no mad scramble for Denver denizens to line up for concealed carry permits since the new laws went into effect:

Denver officials had braced for an onslaught of permit applicants under the new concealed weapons legislation, but only eight people applied Sunday, said John White, a spokesman with the Denver Police Department.

Senate Bill 24 requires county authorities to give gun carry permits to citizens who are at least 21 years old and pass a criminal background check and a handgun training course. It prohibits concealed weapons in elementary and secondary schools.

A veritable flood... This reminds me of all those gun-foes, in states that pass pro concealed carry laws, predicting Dodge City results that never materialize.

One last thing. You'll notice that I haven't mentioned in this post the scandel over the CNN report on "assault weapons." That's because Yahoo hasn't seen fit to link to any article covering it (yet.) The purpose of this weekly report is to check the bias of Yahoo, not the media in general. That I (and a lot of others) do all week long. Yahoo is showing quite a bit of anti-gun bias just by the omission, I would say...

Well anyway, I guess that wraps up this week's chart. Naturally, I give continuous coverage to the bias of news stories all week long. Don't bother to thank me... Glad to do it... Anytime...

Thanks for stopping by!

---

Update 5/21 6:30am: Just received this comment from a long-time visitor to Alphecca, in regards to the situation in CO:

Went in two weeks ago to the Arapahoe County (south/east of Denver) Sheriff's office for photo and fingerprints for a concealed carry permit. Had been turned down 3 years ago, with no reason given, other than "it's none of your damned business!" from a deputy. The same deputy who warned a new neighbor that I could go "Rambo" and take out her family, then got in the faces of two neighbors who saw no problem with me getting the permit. This was the attitude under the former, long-time sheriff, who's been out of office a few months.

The current sheriff came in on a "will-issue" platform, well before the state legislators passed the new law. The new application asks if the applicant has ever been turned down by another county, city, or stateŠ That's how bad it used to be.

There's a $100 processing fee, plus $49 payable to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for checking the fingerprints, contacting the FBI, looking for priors... The $49 was up from $36 which was up from none! When I met with a (new and kinder) deputy, I found out that the CBI fee is now $52.50! The CBI thought it would be swamped with apps and have to bring in extra help.

The local papers have been hysterical about the new law and used it as a major article on Sunday, then had to say today that the lines for those wanting permits aren't around the block, although applications are ahead of prior months. Gee, yeah, because now you can expect to get a permit issued!

And, yes, Denver still intends to spend a lot of the taxpayers' money (and cause the state government to spend a lot in reply) suing over "self-rule" for gun laws.

Keep up the good work!

--OldeForce (in CO)

Thanks, and just a reminder to all of you that while I don't have a comment function on Alphecca, I will print comments (even ones that disagree with me) that I receive.

Update 5/22: Yahoo finally linked to a story in the Washington Times from the 19th about the misleading broadcast by CNN on "assault weapons." Alphecca gets results!

When you live in a small town in rural America, you get used to not having a lot of choices for TV. Cable isn't available here and I can't afford a dish. It doesn't really matter since I don't watch that much TV to begin with. But I do enjoy the "charm" of local TV news hosts. Just as newspaper reporters usually work their way up in the ranks, so too do TV newscasters. They all start out at local affiliates such as I watch.

And there's always that segue between news and weather...

Anchor: ...and police don't know how the babies died. [turning to the weatherman] ...Well, nothing dead about our weather today --

Weatherman: --That's right, Julia, our weather is alive and kickin'...

It has it's charm...

In today's Wall Street Journal, James Kerrigan admits he's addicted to downloading from Apple's iTunes. I've discussed and linked about this in the past month and I too have become a "downloading fool." Anyway, here's a quote:

By the time my wife shoved me out of my chair and started downloading Dolly Parton classics, I knew we were on our way to being the Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love of the iTunes set: descending into madness and wrestling for control of the mouse while the "Complete Works of The Troggs" wings its way through cyberspace and onto my hard drive. I started having visions of my formerly happy family living under a bridge while I sat by the road with a "Will Work for Downloads" sign made out of six months of unpaid Visa bills.

What Apple has proved here is that it is possible for the music industry to make money off of the downloads when it's done right. Reasonable cost -- 99 cents per song -- combined with the ability for the user to really USE the download as he/she sees fit. Burn it, mix it up, do whatever.

Well, I gotta go -- I have to be at work soon and I still have another couple tunes to DL...

Jay Solo is having "supermarket moments." I know just how he feels. but he should try living in a very rural area like I do where the supermarket is a small general store... They run out of everything -- that is if they ever had it in the first place.

Note: BlogSpot seems to have confused his perma-links so just scroll down for the two posts. Or better yet, just read everything...

It will go to Bush and Hastert. Sign here.

In the meantime, sorry for the lack of MY commentary tonight... I'm lazy. Anyway, I'll be back soon and check here Wednesday for my Weekly check on the bias of gun control articles at Yahoo. Thanks for stopping by!

My blogbrother at Publicola has the story and commentary. I still can't figure out his perma-link system because I'm really slow or something so just go there and scroll down. But read everything while you're there.

My buddy Tim Wilson has the poll results in this post showing that Americans don't hate us so much. Maybe, with all the scary shit happening in the world, they have more important, more immediate things on their minds. Anyway, it's a good sign and trend.

In actuality though, I receive a lot more "grief" from liberal gays (that would be about 80 percent of them) who disdain me because I don't march lock-step with the liberal/Democratic agenda. I believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I vigorously support the Second Amendment and I like guns.

Even worse, I'm pro-life -- not foaming at the mouth -- but I consider abortion disgusting. Once the fetus has the rudiments of a nervous system in place, it can certainly feel the pain of it's death. And "late-term" abortions are the shame of our society. (There, I just lost another hundred visitors...)

That's true, by the way -- I don't often discuss abortion here on Alphecca because that's not the focus of this blog and I don't have the energy to cover two seperate controversial subjects. But when I have mentioned it, my numbers drop and I'm usually de-linked by a few more blogs.

The alleged Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert thinks he might -- after all and despite Tom Delay and the will of the Republican party -- bring up for a vote the bill to extend the ban on so-called "assault weapons." Jim Vandehei writes in the Washington Post:

Two days after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) infuriated gun control advocates by saying the GOP-led House would let the assault weapons ban expire next year, Hastert raised the possibility of a future vote to extend it. Hastert said he wants to talk with President Bush, who supports extending the ban, before making a final call. "I am not ready to make that decision," Hastert said.

Hey Dennis, here's a clue: Bush was probably hoping this bill would die a quiet death, irregardless of the whining of liberal Democrats. And now you want to bring it up. You are a traitor to all conservative Republicans. You have no business going against the wishes of Majority Leader Tom Delay. I hope he "hammers" you something fierce.

This is a bogus ban based on nothing more than cosmetics and appearances that has nothing to do with how the firearm actually functions -- they function the same as any other gun. You mealy-mouthed wimp.

Gosh... I'm in a sweet mood tonight, huh?

At least according to some of the effetes in major media such as CNN. My blogson Eric Scheie has this post on the subject. Yes, that's right, I now have a blogson. Ahhh... the pressure... And I still have to teach him how to smoke and drink like a real blogger...

I just got home a while ago and tuned in the "Martha Stewart" story. A typical hatchet job by the liberal shits who run NBC. Oh, they just can't stand it. A strong woman who excepts no excuses, knows what she wants, and builds an empire.

Of course that all has to be torn down by the liberal crap who would much prefer a struggling victim of society oppressed by all the forces that make America great because liberals don't believe that America is the land of opportunity -- it's the land of oppression. Don't they compare President Bush to Hitler? (Not withstanding the fact that they hate Jews and are secretly glad so many of them died at the hands of Hitler's regime and are further pleased to make excuses for the suicide bombers of Palistine who they consider "freedom fighters?".)

So the Nothing But Crap network, run by the biggest piece of crap to fall into the media toilet -- Jeffrey Zucker -- decides to portray Martha Stewart, a successful business woman as some evil bitch. All it took was ten minutes of this garbage show to let me know NBC's anti-American, anti-successful woman agenda.

I'm now watching the rest of this drivel out of the corner of my eye as I blog tonight but it's obvious it isn't going to get any more real true to life. How pathetic. But I guess it spares us from the forty or so episodes of Law and Order they show each week -- of abusive cops and prosecutors violating every clause of the Bill of Rights.

Update: I had one more thought this morning (5/20) which is that let's just say this story was absolutely true. But it was a story about a successful business man. You can bet that they'd be praising him as a brilliant entrepreneur. The double standard. A strong man is to be admired. A strong woman is a bitch. Hypocrisy at work.

...And really don't have time to post much this morning, or to rant. More tonight when I get home from work.

French looking Sen. John Kerry -- who served in Viet Nam, by the way -- blames the Bush administration for the bombings in Saudi Arabia last Monday. From Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, he's quoted thusly:

"It's insufficient for this administration to say, 'We notified them, but they didn't do anything.' It's the obligation of this administration to make sure that they are doing something, and you don't do it by passing on a communication and then sitting there. You have to be engaged," Mr. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

The Bush administration "got overly focused on Iraq" and is in "complete disarray" as opposed to the al Qaeda network, which Mr. Kerry said "never went out of business."

Let's see now, five times the administration warned Saudi Arabia that an attack was imminent and even named some targets, including the compound that was hit. They sent over "high-level" administration officials to press the point.

What would Kerry -- he's a veteran by the way, who served in Viet Nam -- have done? Sent troops? Wouldn't that constitute an invasion? Would Saudi Arabia have allowed us to assume the role of armed guards around their nation's capital? Should Bush have threatened a nuclear strike against the house of Saud if they didn't do as we requested?

Folks, at the present time, there isn't one single Democratic candidate running for the nomination that I would vote for. None of them garner my respect. I may not be nuts about Bush in light of erosions in our rights caused by the Homeland Security Act. And I'm pissed that he is planning to sign the extension of the so-called "assault weapons" ban, but if it were him against any of the current Democrats vying for the nomination in the 2004 elections... I'd have to vote for Bush. Pretty much as I had to vote for him last time around because I coun't stand Gore.

As I said last week, the dismissal of the suit by the NAACP isn't a done deal until the anti-gun judge ruling in the case actually dismisses it.

In the Washington Times, this unsigned editorial doesn't think it will happen:

Unfortunately, the jury's verdict is only an advisory one. The presiding judge (U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein, who is said to be one of the most liberal jurists on the federal bench) will actually decide the case. Representatives of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing gun makers, expect Judge Weinstein to throw out the jury verdict and rule against many, if not all, of the 68 defendants sued.

The editorial goes on to speak about the bad science behind the NAACP's case. Interesting read.