You could go way back in my archives. I've always expressed my gratefulness for all of you kind folks who visit me and read my rantings and ravings. And I've always thanked you. Some might think it corny but I don't. I appreciate it mightily.

So this wraps up another week here at Alphecca. As usual, I take weekends off (although I haven't the last few...) I'll see you all back here Monday, same Bat-Channel. Thanks for stopping by! Have a great weekend!

I realize that my "good friends" blogroll -- kind folks who blogroll me -- is getting quite large. I appreciate all of you. I really hope that all my readers will scroll through it and randomly pick out blogs to visit and enjoy. I may start to "randomize" it and move things around from week to week to give everyone a chance to be read. I haven't figured it out yet...

I do not pretend I'm a big fish. But I have become a medium sized fish. And I don't think this is a competition. I try very hard to help all newcomers get some notice. No -- I can't send a couple hundred folks your way, but I do try to mention you all when I can. That's what my blogfather has done for me and so many others. That's why he's the best in the business.

So don't be afraid or shy to write to me. I don't bite. I just nibble around the ears... Ask anyone on my blogroll about me if you're in doubt. Alphecca is getting larger in notice. I'm not big yet but even if I was... -- that is, I will never allow myself to forget where I started from. and forget that I have the responsibility -- make that the pleasure, of helping fellow bloggers, especially those just starting out.

So keep on putting your thoughts on the web. I visit every single person on my blogroll at least twice (usually more) a week. So... Some of us really are noticing and admiring and, when I can, giving you a mention. Promise!

They specialize in idiocy. They published this moronic editorial today about how the proposed relaxed concealed carry law in Ohio would somehow jeapardize everyone. Let's start with this quote about what various law enforcement agencies think of this bill:

So, we count one in favor, two against, and two neutral. That hardly constitutes support, even for skillful practitioners of Clintonesque equivocation or fuzzy math.

Moreover, highway patrol leaders, who serve at the pleasure of the governor, have in the past expressed extreme misgivings about the prospect of ordinary citizens toting hidden firearms, especially in motor vehicles. It¹s one more danger a trooper on patrol would rather not face.

Well, it also hardly constitutes opposition to the bill. Chiefs of Police always oppose these measures because the reason they became cops was so they could carry firearms. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. Rank-and-file organizations always support these measures because they're just regular guys.

But the fact of the matter (which this unsigned editorial writer ignores) is that over thirty states allow concealed carry and NOT ONE OF THEM has resulted in some sort of "Dodge City" or similar situation where cops have to fear pulling folks over. Well, let me clear that up -- cops always fear the moment when they walk up to a car they've pulled over. See, the bad guys have never paid attention to any CCW laws. And every cop knows that when he approaches that automobile his life is definitely in danger. And we've lost a a few good cops because of that. But allowing decent law-abiding folks to carry won't increase that danger. The mutants who hurt people have never applied for a CCW permit and never will. Only the law-abiding do. And cops know this. The risk doesn't increase.

Now, I don't know the details of this bill. According to the writer, pro-gun advocates are against this bill. I'd like to hear from my readers in Ohio about this, and I'll print your comments here.

---

Update 6/21, got a comment from my buddy Aubrey:

I read your post about the Toledo Blade and their opposition to concealed carry. Most states that have these laws have a notification requirement. This means that the person who is carrying has to notify the officer if they are stopped. The Texas CHL requirement is that you must present your CHL to the officer when you are asked for identification (if you're carrying).

The way I handle it is to inform the officer that I have a CHL and that I'm carrying if he asks me for ID. That gives him plenty of warning. So far, I've only had to do this once. I was stopped by a state trooper because they were looking for a vehicle like mine. When he asked me for my license, my response was "Sure, but before I go reaching around for my wallet, I need to tell you that I have a CHL and I'm armed." He asked me where I was carrying and I told him. He had me step out and I showed him my license and CHL. Afterward, he thanked me for my courtesy and I was on my way. No fuss. No big deal.

Anyway, it's not the people with concealed carry permits that the officers have to worry about. But some people (like these editorial writers) are so scared of guns that they can't comprehend this inconvenient fact. This is just one more facet of the thoroughly disproven "blood in the streets" shibboleth that they keep trotting out whenever the subject of concealed carry comes up.

--Aubrey Turner

I haven't written much about it because it's not a priority to me. But I'm glad it seems as if it will be the lay of the land in Canada (another bad pun by Jeff...) I like when "normal" society structures get shook-up. It's good if for no other reason then removing certain barriers such as hospital-visitation rights, or preventing will contestations by surviving family members. But actually, I think anything that encourages marriage is a good thing and strengthens the institution for everyone.

I don't buy the argument that "the foundation of marriage will crumble." That's bullshit. It hasn't happened here in Vermont -- despite everyone's dire-warnings that it would. There has been no big rush by heterosexual couples to get divorced. Teen boys haven't started waltzing around in dresses. Actually, there seems to have been no effect at all on the "institution" of marriage since civil-unions came into being.

As for the claim that it [gay marriage] makes a mockery of marriage -- pay very close attention all you straight guys and girls -- the only ones who can make a mockery of your marriage are you yourselves. And a heck of a lot of you seem to be doing just that.

Anyway, that's my take on the whole thing. The Acidman surprised me with his take (he constantly surprises me in pleasant ways) so I recommend that if you want some good discussion about the issue you head over there. There are several posts involved so just start scrolling.

And The Flea at Ghost of a Flea has this post detailing some of the do's and don'ts at a gay wedding. Sage advice!

Jay Solo has moved to his new digs here. Adjust your radio dials accordingly.

That's the title of this STUPID editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about a woman who lost track of her gun and her kid took it to school and threatened other students. Here's a quote:

Police say the boy had taken the pistol all right -- taken it to school, and many times. They say he brought it to A.G. Bell Elementary School, pointed the loaded pistol at other kids' heads and threatened to kill the principal.

The boy faces 10 criminal charges in juvenile court, including assault and felony harassment. Levitt faces at least one charge herself: reckless endangerment, a gross misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.

That would seem the minimum punishment for someone whose behavior is so careless, so reckless, as to allow so many children to be put at risk. Is it enough to deter unsafe firearms storage?

What exactly is the point of this editorial? Recklessness with a gun IS a crime in every single state of this union. Even just waving it around in a crowd is a crime. The mother is going to be punished and faces a year in jail. The boy faces a lot of charges. The editorial writer says more gun-specific laws are needed. Why? Laws never have and never will deter stupidity. Should we send her to jail for ten years instead of one? What will that accomplish?

We now have some of the most draconian laws against drunk-driving in this country. The problem is that there are a lot of addicts and non-addict but really stupid people who pound down a few and drive anyway. The laws haven't stopped them. The point should be about education regarding safe storage of guns around kids. Not finding ways to lock the mother up so the kid grows up without his mom and turns out even worse. That's the exact point that asshole legislaters always forget. If you lock up the parent, the kid will hate society, resent everyone, and become even more anti-social. Liberals are so stupid... I refuse to get drawn into this. This is just liberal blather aimed at other idiot liberals. If we charge someone with 100 crimes instead of 10 crimes, somehow that will make us all feel better. Idiots.

I just got home from work and I have to be up early tomorrow. So I just have time for a couple of quick things.

The folks at Yahoo do know what I do here but I'm not David with the slingshot bringing Goliath down. However...

One day after mentioning Eugene Volokh's NRO op-ed, and stating that Yahoo would never link to it -- they linked to it! Just this morning. And they almost never link to anything on NRO. [Jeff has just slipped into a strange dream where he imagines he has super-powers... --ed] [Quiet! I'm dreaming... --js]

You can read my comments about it in my Weekly Thingie which is just a scroll below.

---

I first mentioned the case of Ronald Dixon -- a man who defended himself and his family with an unlicensed firearm -- way back in January. Again, you can just scroll down to see all this. Anyway, Paul Walfield of Accuracy in Media has this commentary on the whole sorry prosecution of Dixon. Read it.

---

Young conservative smart-guy David Russell had a blog called "Views on the News." He's moved off of Blog*Spot and has a new home with the name of Proveritate, which translated from the latin is, "For The Truth." Adjust your scopes accordingly.

---

And welcome a new blogger who has the impeccable taste to blogroll me, Marc at Lay Lines, a blog about all sorts of things. Of course, he's very pro-2A and has plenty on that. So stop by and say hello!

---

That's all I have time for now. I will be back tomorrow (Thursday) night. Until then, thanks to all of you who link to or mention me. Thanks for stopping by!

---

Update 6/19 comment received:

Could you confirm for me, in addition to serving 3 days, as a convicted felon (?) is Mr. Dixon now ineligible to own a firearm? Will he possibly be allowed to register his gun in NY?

Curiously,

--Jody Arlington

Good question. His paperwork was in process. I thought this was reduced to a mis-demeaner but I can't locate verification of this. If he still was charged with a felony then he won't get his permit. Can any of you out there answer this?

Prepare yourselves... But first, for newcomers, each week I survey the stories and editorials linked to by Yahoo on their Yahoo's Gun Control Debate Page. While they have no control over the content of the stories, they certainly have control over which ones they'll link to. There-in lies the bias.

Now -- for you regulars -- I realize that the chart I've been using each week was getting kind of tired. It's not as if the results change dramatically from week-to-week. Really, this whole excercise is just an excuse for me to offer my bon-mots of wisdom about the stories. So I've re-done the chart:

Go ahead -- gasp in astonishment! Just remember that the Alphecca Graphics Department slaved for minutes over this. I think I'll use a different gun each week. This week's lovely model is the Smith & Wesson 629 Classic revolver chambered for .44 Magnum or .44 S&W Special. Available with 5", 6 1/2", and 8 3/8" barrels. And remember, when it comes to velocity and penetration -- size matters.

*Ahem.* Anyway, here we go.

First up is a story from the N.Y. Times that I skipped mentioning last Thursday. It concerns various gun control groups as well as Rep. John D. Dingell, (D) Michigan calling for stricter enforcement of gun laws. Well, I have no problem with that. Indeed, the N.R.A. has been calling for this all along. Here's a quote:

More aggressive enforcement of gun laws has been a rallying point for the advocates of gun rights. Mr. Dingell, who said he would probably oppose the reauthorization of the assault ban, said better enforcement was one way of staving off further gun-control measures. "We'd see a lot less pressure for a lot of these unwise gun-control laws that are so hurtful to sportsmen," he said.

Mr. Bush, in campaigning for the White House, said he, too, wanted to bolster lax enforcement of gun laws, a problem that has helped give the United States the highest gun casualty rate in the world.

No complaints; into the neutral column.

There were a couple of anti-gun editorials in the N.Y. Daily News that I've already covered. You can scroll back or check my My Gun Posts page if you're interested but like most editorials from this liberal paper, they're only a couple paragraphs long and have absolutely no substance to them.

One strange story came from the Pioneer Press and discussed the quirk in Minnesota's new --relaxed-- CCW law. Places of business (or churches, etc.) can post a sign stating "no guns allowed" and the law will back them up. Of course, if the guns are concealed, it's not really clear how they would know. Needless to say, anti-gun groups are attempting to put pressure on businesses and malls to post these signs. Here's a quote:

Since Minnesota last month joined more than 30 other states in greatly expanding the number of people who can legally pack a gun in public, organizations have been wrestling with whether and how to ban guns on their property. The law requires operators of gun-free public premises to post a sign and provide some type of personal warning to employees and patrons.

Citizens for a Safer Minnesota - seeking a repeal of the new gun law - is campaigning to get Calhoun Square and Target Corp. to post signs. The gun rights group Minnesota Concealed Carry Reform Now responded with e-mail of its own, urging patrons to tell businesses if they find such signs distasteful.

I suppose a shopkeeper could post the sign and also greet you with, "Welcome to Joe's Fish Market, where guns are not allowed..." Seems kind of silly. Are store owners really expecting gun-fights to break out everytime someone's dry-cleaning isn't ready on time? Not all stores are succumbing to the pressure:

Some companies have decided. Minneapolis-based Target issued a statement saying it's a nationwide retailer that has to comply with a variety of laws across the country, and that its policy is to not post signs regarding guns in any state with conceal-and-carry laws.

Remember that -- readers -- when deciding where to shop this weekend. In any event, I suspect this whole thing will blow over in a few months. Oh sure, some businesses will post the signs to make their "PC" statement. The fact that there have always been some CCW licencees folks in their stores all along seems to have gotten lost on everyone. I'm sure some proponents on either side of the issue will launch boycotts to no appreciable effect. I wish my problems were this miniscule.

Last week I mentioned this USA Today op-ed by a U. of C. student referring to a report that says that women who own guns are twice as likely to be the victim of gun violence. In my post about this I indicated that I didn't trust the statistics and also that there could be other factors involved. To wit:

Some women are involved in abusive relationships. The woman buys a gun to protect herself. The guy shows up, the gun appears. The guy begs for forgiveness, crys, sobs -- he'll never do it again. The woman relaxes her guard. The guy takes the gun and kills her. There is an emotional struggle in these relationships that the gun will not equalize unless the woman is truly prepared to defend herself and to USE the gun. By the way, this is true in some shootings of men as well (in a reverse setting.)

Now Eugene Volokh takes apart a different study claiming that anyone who owns a firearm is twice as likely etc. He does it in this NRO op-ed which I mention even though it isn't (and probably never will be) linked on Yahoo's page. He's a lot smarter than me and offers much better reasons for findings like these:

What the University of Pennsylvania study found was a statistical correlation: Gun ownership is correlated with gun deaths. But that two things are correlated doesn't prove that one causes the other. The sex-crime rate is correlated over time with the use of air conditioning, but not because air conditioning causes sex crime; rather, both rise during the summer months. Likewise, whether someone in your home has been to the hospital recently is correlated with death in your home, but not because hospital care tends to kill people (though sometimes it does). Rather, both hospital stays and deaths often have a common cause: serious illness.

It turns out that a hugely disproportionate fraction of homicide victims are themselves criminals - criminals do dangerous things, and deal with dangerous people. In a recent San Francisco study, two-thirds of all gun-homicide victims (and one-third of all gun suicides) were found to have had arrest records, and other studies of gun-homicide victims yield similar results. And criminals, especially drug dealers and gang members, are particularly likely to own guns; most gun owners aren't criminals, but many criminals are gun owners. So even if gun ownership and gun homicide are correlated, both may be caused by a common factor: Hardcore criminals are especially likely to own guns - and to be killed by guns.

As we're fond of saying in the blogosphere, read the whole thing. I will point out that one of my readers and I also suggested this (see the end of my post.)

And that's a natural lead-in to this N.Y. Times item with the sensational headline, "50% of Dealers Willing to Sell Handguns Illegally, Study Says." Of course, it's only on further reading that that percentage drops to 20%. And that that 20% was of a total sample of -- 20 phone calls! Talk about a microscopic study being used to tar an entire class of retail outlets. Here are some quotes:

Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles, posing as potential buyers, called 120 dealers in 20 cities, giving different scenes for wanting to buy guns. The researchers found that when they said they wanted to buy guns for a boyfriend or girlfriend who "needs it," 52.5 percent of dealers were willing to make the sales.

The researchers said that based on their interviews with law enforcement officials, such sales would amount to illegal straw purchases and would skirt the law intended to ensure that people falling in prohibited categories like felons or people with histories of mental illness not obtain guns.

Industry officials disagreed, saying the questioning was so ambiguous that it could fall under an exemption that allows a buyer to buy a gun as a gift for someone who is not banned from owning one.

The researchers also made 20 follow-up calls to randomly chosen dealers and said they needed to buy guns for girlfriends or boyfriends because they were not "allowed to."

In 16 of those cases, or 80 percent, the dealers responded with unequivocal "nos," indicating that the purchases would clearly be illegal. In the remaining four cases, the dealers agreed to sell the guns, even though they indicated that they knew that would be illegal, the researchers said.

"If you have 20 percent of gun dealers in these urban areas willing to make sales that are clearly illegal, we've got a problem," Susan Sorenson, a professor at the U.C.L.A. School of Public Health and the co-author of the study, said in an interview.

I haven't seen the "study" but I'll offer my opinions here. Given who was conducting this rather un-scientific test, I would say they simply found the results they were looking for in order to further an agenda. It would be very interesting to listen to recordings of those phone calls. I suspect they would show that they intentionally mis-led the gun store owners. It would also be telling to know how they selected these gun stores.

But here's where the N.Y. Times author really gets in a gratuitous remark:

Officials at two gun control groups, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center, said the findings pointed up the need for tougher regulation of dealers at a time when some members of Congress are pushing to shield the gun industry from liability suits.

What on Earth does gun stores not following the law have to do with gun manufacturers and their liability in crime? The only thing I can think of is to stir the pot of anti-gunners and to get them to pressure their representatives into voting "no" on the gun industry shield from liability bill. It will take someone smarter than me (that would be almost everyone) and better resources to dissect this UCLA study and show it as the faulty fraud I'll bet it is.

So those were the stories that caught my eye (plus some others I've already blabbed about earlier this week.)

Now for those of you who are already feeling nostalgic for the old chart, I'll put it up one last time:

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
06/18/03	10	3	8	no dominant story
06/11/03	11	2	8	no dominant story
06/04/03	10	3	8	Mostly Minn. CCL law
May Avg.	11	2	9	NAACP loses, Bush vs NRA, Denver fights new CCL law, Heston
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

See you soon. Thanks for stopping by!

From the Washington Post, this story should get the far-right's buns in an uproar. Canada will definitely allow "gay marriages." And just when everyone thought there was nothing new to yell at each other about...

---

Kin's Kouch has a flurry of new posts up.

And Aubrey Turner is back, with some cool pics of his visit to the U.S.S. Lexington.

And Publicola is almost back.

---

Kathy Kinsly has come to the rescue of those wishing to excape from Blog*Spot. She's offering a reasonably priced service called Blog House.

---

According to this AP story, the Virgin Mary is appearing in a hospital window in Milton, MA. Almost 5000 people are swarming the hospital every day. Here's the quote I like:

"An eye doctor works in that office," she said. The Madonna is "trying to tell us to open up our eyes."

---

Craig at Boone Country offers advice for reloaders.

And Diane at Everything Must Go has been crowing about crewing.

And Joy at CleverHack says nice things about Mac people. Yes, we're special!

---

Okay, time to work on the Weekly special...

Alright, I'll just quote myself one more time to show why I should be hired by some big-time commercial opinion site to write op-eds (he said in a dream state...)

Yeah, maybe the weapons were destroyed right before we invaded Iraq. Maybe they were moved to Syria. But now it's hitting the fan. From the AP:

(Sen. Jane) Harman said it is too early to say whether the administration hyped or manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in order to justify pre-emptive military action. "We're going to find that out," she said on "Fox News Sunday."

Bush and other administration officials maintain that Iraq had an active weapons program and that time will bear that out. More than two months have passed since Saddam Hussein was routed, and weapons of mass destruction have not been found.

According to a new CBS News Poll, six in 10 Americans say it is important for the United States to find the illegal weapons. Two-thirds of those polled said they think the administration exaggerated the weapons threat. That sentiment appeared not to have harmed Bush politically, with his job approval still at 66 percent.

And now the administration is on a full-scale defensive. From Reuters:

"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.

Referring to the ousted Iraqi president, Bush said, "Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."

The president did not mention Iraqi unconventional weapons in his remarks, although accusations Iraq had chemical and biological weapons were central to his prewar campaign to build support for an attack. No such weapons have yet been found.

I'd say the only revisionism going on around here is President Bush now ignoring his original justification for invading Iraq. It was the threat of WMD that took us in there, not just some general, "well, he's a bad guy" threat.

Now while I generally --tepidly as I put it several times-- supported action in Iraq, and I AM glad that we have liberated the people there (although it would be nice if our commitment to post-war rebuilding was as zealous as our invasion) I did warn all my readers here way back in January that the administration needed real proof. Here's what I said then:

Our conflict with Iraq seems like pretty small beer right now. It's almost comical. We're saying, "If the U.N. weapons inspectors don't find anything, it means there's really something there and we're going to war with you." From the AP, here's the story so far:

UNITED NATIONS - U.N. weapons inspectors said Thursday there's no "smoking gun" to prove Iraq has nuclear, chemical or biological weapons but they demanded that Baghdad provide private access to scientists and fresh evidence to back claims that it destroyed its weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush administration warned that Saddam Hussein is hiding evidence and will face serious consequences if he doesn't disarm.

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in Washington.

Then for God's sake, prove it. Show the evidence. Because unless and until you do, any war launched by the U.S. will seem like a pre-ordained mission by a bully who was simply itching for a fight. Now look, I don't place a whole lot of stock in the U.N. to begin with, and Iraq is a country deserving of a beating. But we, America, cannot engage in pre-emptive wars. We just can't. And for the same reasons that I gave for police in this country not being able to arrest people for things they think someone might do. Scroll down a ways to see my post about that nonsense. We can stomp Iraq into powder anytime we want. But the rest of the civilized world wants us to show just-cause. Not some sort of catch-22 bullshit of "heads we win, tails you lose" type justification.

Once again, I was ahead of my time.

So I'm waiting for Johah Goldberg or James Taranto to call...

Big Baby Bill O'Reilly is whining that there's no control over what bloggers write on the internet and that bloggers in general are disrespecting him. Glenn Reynolds slaps him upside the head in his MSNBC column.

My favorite line?

Welcome to the real no-spin zone, Bill.

Beautiful!

You know, this week (same as the past two) are turning out to be blog-heavy. Anyway, as long as I'm quoting myself so much this week (to save you all the bother of reading all my archives) I thought I would point out that once again I correctly predicted events, in this case in Iran. Here's what I said last November about the situation there:

But what about Iran? I don't think we need to go in there at this moment. It wasn't that long ago, less then 30 years ago, that Iran almost became "Westernized." The population was educated, they enjoyed freedom and culture and were joining the 21st century of international acceptance and commerce. They were prospering. A band of Islamic fundamentalists (what else?) staged a revolution and took the whole country back in time about a century.

But those Iranians that are old enough remember, and the teachers at the universities who are old enough to remember, well, they remember how close Iran came to joining and enjoying the fruits of the modern world and the prosperity and freedom it offers. And the youth are learning through oral tradition. And they are starting to rebel. A lot. And the Mullahs are scared and know they are losing their grip. The inevitable is happening. Here are some quotes from a wonderful story filed by Parisa Hafezi of Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Hundreds of Iranian hard-liners clashed with pro-reform students at a demonstration on Monday, the first serious outbreak of violence in 10 days of university protests against a dissident's death sentence.

And:

"We will continue to protest till Shahroudi officially apologizes and there is a guarantee no one will be jailed because of what they say," student leader Saeed Razavi Faqih told Reuters.

And:

The almost daily meetings at universities in the capital and across the country have been the biggest pro-reform protests in Iran since police and hardline vigilantes put down violent Tehran student unrest in the summer of 1999.

Khamenei's intervention was an apparent setback for the hardline judiciary's four-year legal onslaught against leading reformers, liberal intellectuals and the pro-reform press.

The reformists, allied to President Mohammad Khatami, enjoy popular support and dominate parliament, but have run into stiff resistance from conservatives, who control the judiciary and other key state bodies and oppose change to the Islamic system.

This is only the tip of a year of protests by students and other moderates in Iran. I believe the hard-line Islamic government of Iran will soon implode. The people had a taste of freedom and modernity, and they want it back. We (the U.S.) need do nothing. The revolutionary elements of Iran society will eventually win. Let's play hands-off here. We can, through subtle means, support them, supply them, encourage them. But let's not move our military in there. I believe Iran will, because of the bravery and idealism of their young, throw off the shackles of their hard-line government and join the world community again. And we should be the first to say, "welcome back."

That was what I was thinking seven months ago. See, you all should bookmark me and stop by every so often. I write about much more then just guns... Unlike some Islamic fundamentalist countries, Iranians have nationwide cable TV and access to the Internet. These kids know what they're missing and so do their parents and teachers. And they want it back. Iran will implode on it's own and join the real world. At least, that's my hope. I wish them luck.

I have today off and will now curl up with a book. I'll be back tomorrow with my (speaking of guns) world-famous Weekly Chart on gun story bias over at Yahoo... Thanks for stopping by!

Back when I was young and idealistic, I had visions of becoming a great Sci-Fi or Mystery writer. But I lacked the drive to persue it. Later in life I wanted to be an editorial writer but lacked the talent and my submissions were rejected. So now I have a blog where (to the dismay of discriminating readers) I never reject anything that I write.

Anyway, a much more professional publication, The New Criterion Magazine now has a weblog, Armavirumque, and offers this humorous advice on how NOT to get published. They provide four examples of actual cover-letters. Here's one of them:

"My review of Wit is possibly the thing. ...Here's your chance. However, because I've been at the butt end of your snobbishness before, I'm not holding my breath but also submitting to The Hudson Review and other houses, en meme temps. Signal you're interested and I'll cancel the Hudson et al."

Check out the rest because they're all quite funny. This reminds me of a book by literary agent Scott Merideth called, I think, Writing to Sell. Alas, I no longer own this book and so can't quote it verbatim but I seem to remember he had a chapter on "cover letters" with some hilarious examples --also-- of what not to say on it. One example (come on gray matter, you can recall it...) had something like:

...Enclosed is my latest story, which is much better than what you usually publish...

It was a wonderful book and if anyone has a battered old copy they don't need anymore -- would you please send it to me? I'd love to re-read it. Just email me and I'll give you my mailing address. And Alibris has used copies on sale for $2.95. But right now I'm in such dire straights that even that is too much to spend (with S&H) and besides, I don't have any credit cards I can use...

Anyway, I do think new writers (especially of fiction) need to be encouraged. I've mentioned this before but I try to do my part. The ONLY magazines I subscribe to (I can't afford too many) are the pulps still being published. Analog, S&SF, Asimov's, Ellery Queen, Alfred Hitchcock. These are really the only outlets left for aspiring writers of (genre) fiction. So I support them. (It helps that I bought three year subscriptions a couple years ago when I had some money to spare.)

I don't think I need to qualify myself as a computer geek (this site is entirely hand-coded, including each of my posts) but I still like to read my fiction by actually holding a book or magazine in my hands, sprawled-out on my couch, leisurely thumbing the pages, with a big-fat cat sleeping on my belly. What can I say, I'm an "old-folk."

I hope that you all who have some expendable income will (besides helping Alphecca and me out) consider supporting these outlets for short fiction (and newbie-writers) not to mention such worthy outlets for literary criticism as The New Criterion Magazine.

Brendan Miniter has this column in today's Opinion Journal about how all shooting sports competitions have been eliminated from this year's Empire Games in New York State. Organizers claim budget problems. And it is true that a couple of other individual events have been cut. But to cut the entire category of shooting sports? Here's a quote:

The games are run by predominately urban and suburban administrators who've been talking about eliminating the shooting sports for years. And for decades antigunners have forced shooting ranges to comply with expensive environmental regulations to remove lead bullets from the backstops behind their targets as well as to install costly ventilation systems in indoor ranges. Many of the high schools that still had shooting teams were forced to disband them and close their ranges to save money. That, combined with strict gun-control regulations that bar anyone under 21 from processing a pistol, has devastated the youth competitions.

It also doesn't quell any suspicions that officials of the games have rebuffed shooting associations that want to sponsor the shooting events. State officials reportedly have said that they aren't equipped to handle donations to support the competitions but won't disclose how much those events actually cost. The Buffalo News's Mike Levy calculates the cost at about $15,000 and perhaps as much as $30,000. Last year, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association took out $3,000 in ads to support the games. The association's President Thomas King says he'd love to do more for the games, if they would only take his money.

The Empire State Games was an important training ground for Olympic hopefuls and republicrat Mayor Bloomberg is hoping to bring the Summer 2012 Olympics to N.Y.C. and is further claiming that the city is friendly towards the shooting sports. Oh really? Remember, whether you want a pistol for self-defense or for competitive shooting, you still have to jump through all the hoops the city puts up in order to get a pistol license. Yet they (the mayor's staff) wants a letter of recommendation from the president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

I lean towards agreeing with Miniter that the elimination of all the shooting sports competitions is a result of pressure from anti-gunners to eliminate anything to do with guns from our society.

You know, baseball bats are used as a weapon in many crimes. Watch out, Major League Baseball...

Well, I have to get to work now. This is probably the most blogging I've done in a twelve-hour period since I started Alphecca. See you soon. Thanks for stopping by!

A writer I always love, Jonah Goldberg has an op-ed reprinted in today's Opinion Journal where he takes apart Eric Alterman (an easy task, granted) and his new book, "What Liberal Media?" Here's a taste to get you to read the whole thing:

But because Mr. Alterman and friends can't conceive of a media they would ever consider too liberal, they lament any rightward drift at all, and declare it dangerous and unwarranted. Moreover, they are highly selective in their gaze. Mr. Alterman looks to the handful of conservative media outlets and ignores the horde of liberal ones. He fulminates about the influence of the "wild men" at The Wall Street Journal editorial page, for instance, but barely mentions New York Times editorialists. Indeed, at times it seems Mr. Alterman has never even heard that the Times exists, let alone that it is both extremely liberal and more influential than any other news organ.

Anyway, if I could just toot my own horn here, I had a post last November (linked to, he bragged, by both Glenn Reynolds and Tim Blair.) that bears re-reading since I said many of the things Goldberg is saying now:

Yes Paul, for so many years everyone got their news from ABC, CBS, and NBC. And the New York Times and the Washington Post. And those news sources have progressivly slanted things towards the left. Is there any doubt by anyone (other then hysterical liberals) that Ted Kopel, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, et al have some control over what is broadcast each night and that all of them are hard-core Democratic Liberals who demonstrate night after night that they have an agenda? And it doesn't favor conservatives or Republicans? It's always been that way. We just didn't realize it because there were no other broadcasts to compare it to.

Is there even a question anymore that the most quoted newspaper in the world, The New York Times, not only allows liberals to dominate the opinion pages but also allows liberal thought to cloud the actual reporting and indeed which stories actually make it into the paper?

The major syndicated news organizations, Reuters and AP, have become shills for the left. They can't even bring themselves to label terrorists as "terrorists."

Sure, in a perfect world all newscasters and reporters would deliver unbiased, un-slanted news; just the facts, Ma'am. But it isn't and it never was that way.

No, I'll tell you what's bugging these people so much: They're not the only games in town anymore. People have far more choices and are beginning to opt out of being spoon-fed a liberal agenda. I say beginning because for all of Krugman's -and Gore's- whining, the nightly network newscasts on ABC and CBS and NBC average 30 million viewers a night. The Fox newshour is lucky to crack a pawltry million. And even with all it's readers, The Wall Street Journal (the #1 paper in the U.S.) can't begin to reach the aggregate numbers achieved by such left-leaning papers as the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc.

Democrats (and by definition then Liberals) were perfectly happy when all the news outlets favored their point of view. They laughed off accusations of a liberal-bias in the media. Well gang, there's a new sheriff in town and he's allowing all sorts of sources to be heard. Rush Limbaugh achieved his lofty ratings numbers (estimated to be 12 million) because no one else was speaking to the average American. Fox is gaining because no one else is presenting the other side of the news.

I don't know how many of you remember this but during the campaign season leading up to the 2000 presidential elections, NBC's Today Show would show the latest polls and campaign news and they would show a small photo of Al Gore, handsome and smiling. The picture they showed of G.W. Bush was one of him scowling and sneering. They ran with those pictures all Summer and through September and only finally changed Bush's image when folks like me complained.

Perhaps Krugman and Gore should move to one of those peace-loving Muslim countries. There, all dissenting voices are stifled and all TV and radio news is controlled by the state. All media follow the party-line. No, better to keep them around here; we need the comic-relief. But sorry guys, it's a two party system over here. And finally, some news outlets are starting to reflect that.

Was I prescient or what? I might add that those who claim that all the blogs on the web are conservative haven't mastered surfing very well. Sure, if you stumble onto a libertarian or conservative site such as --mine -- you'll find mostly (but not all, in my case) links to like-minded bloggers. We tend to do that. So do liberal or leftist bloggers. Study the huge blogroll over at Rittenhouse Review for proof. All voices are being heard in the blogosphere. It just depends on your vantage point as to where the slant lays.

Didn't we just leave this clam-bake last week? In today's Washington Times comes another prediction that the Republicans are poised to pickup Senate seats in 2004:

"At this point in the cycle, we believe the Republicans are positioned to make Senate gains, most likely in the range of one to three seats. But that could change as retirement decisions are made, and as new economic numbers come in," election analyst Stuart Rothenberg said in his latest newsletter, the Rothenberg Political Report.

Here's what I said last week:

Everyone says that "this time" is different then when Bush Senior ran for re-election. No it isn't. It's still, and always will be, about the economy because that is what people worry about every day. That is what keeps them sleepless at night. Wars, conflicts half a world away are abstractions to most people. Six and a half percent unemployment, valueless retirement funds, and a stock market that is making no one any money will defeat the Republicans.

Read my whole post because it was a good one.

[Ghod! What ego! --ed] [Shut-up, Kaus --js]

Andrew at Carnifex reminds us again that history repeats itself. I can't find a perma-link so read it all (of course) but the post I'm referring to is titled, "Where is Iran's Monck?"

My buddy Mike Silverman (a conservative gay guy like myself) shows liberals why it isn't so bad here in America. They won't listen...

Lastly tonight, I enjoy discovering new bloggers. Not that I'm a big fish (yet) but I like to make friends and encourage and mention newcomers when I can. So long as they're not so virulently anti-conservative or anti-"homocon" that they would embarrass me.

So I'm over at Blogger, which posts a list of recently updated clients. A great place to find new blogs. And I come across Bill and Kent's Place. I check it out. And I'm saddened. They seem like nice guys. And, like myself (or Mike Silverman above) they're gay guys living in rural America. But I gather they're not originally from a rural area. And they haven't gotten to know the joys of living in the "country." They don't even know their neighbors. And when the chance to meet them at a block-party presents itself, they're afraid. Here's a quote from the (at the time of this writing) top-most post:

What if I go and it sucks? I mean, will I be able to make a clean exit? Kent is all set with his excuse. He's out of town next weekend. Maybe I'll just stay home and make a nice quiet dinner for some friends. But then everyone who drives by will know that I didn't go. God this living in the country is hell. I just don't want this to be an arranged thing where people want to meet a real live gay person (yes, I know it looks like I'm paranoid --- ok, I am --- but that has happened to me before). It was weird then and not something I wish to repeat. I'm sure a lot of you have had that experience. I remember shaking some guys hand at a party when I was introduced to him. He really didn't want to shake my hand but also didn't want to look like a jackass, so he reluctantly put his hand out. Then, as he was shaking my hand, glared into my eyes as if to say "try anything and I'll deck ya!". It was... how shall I say it... awkward.

Now, I've lived in a good many different places in my long life. And as an openly gay man, I've had my share of exposure to bigotry directed against me. Heck, I just mentioned it a few posts ago. But in every single case, it occurred when I was living in an urban or suburban area. The knife attack on me. The yelled epitaphs. The punctured tires. The spray-paint. New York City and liberal Northern New Jersey. Never-ever in rural Vermont.

Oh, I'm sure there are people who don't approve of my lifestyle. But I've found that in small-town America, people keep that to themselves (their dislike for me.) Because in a small rural town, there are too few folks around to get away with anti-social prejudice. When the going gets tough, we need each other. I know everyone in town and not one person (population 950) has ever made me feel un-welcome or un-comfortable. Heck, they appointed me to two different public-service committees. (Planning Commissioner and a historic preservation committee.)

Oh yeah, you say, "So how come you carry a firearm?" That's an easy one -- I'm not afraid of the locals per se. It's the unexpected transient that worries me. And even up here in the "bucolic" Upper Valley of N.H. and Vermont, two Dartmouth professors were brutally murdered a couple years ago by a couple of mutant punks bent on robbery. Assault and crime are not exclusive to cities. To me, a gun is sort-of like the New York Times -- you don't have to use it, but it's nice to know it's there...

I will never return to living in a city. Cities are for the young or the rich. I love rural America (I was born in the mid-west) and the closeness it brings to the common folk. And I have to tell you, Bill --the author of the above post -- thinks people might want to meet him to "meet a real live gay person." Trust me Bill, they already know gay people and they already know that they know gay people. Do you really think you're the first one to cross their paths?

That's the interesting thing about living in a small town in a rural area. Remember the movie Six Degrees of Seperation? Where I live, there's only one. Everyone knows everything about everyone. Who drinks, who's broke, who can't hold a job, which men wear women's clothing at night. They've seen it all and know it all. You aren't shocking them unless you rub it into their faces without their permission. And because, in the microscope of small town life they (we) all know we have faults, we keep our opinions to ourselves. We give each other rides when the car breaks down. We plow our neighbor's driveway. Yeah, if Bill and Kent were to go to this party and lock-lips, yes there would be some uncomfortable silences to say the least.

But if you go to have a good time and introduce yourselves and show that you are just like any other couple then I think you'd be surprised at the tolerance and acceptance you'd receive. People in small towns are not necessarily small minded. We all live in a mass communication age where everyone has a satellite dish and internet service. Of course, if you go there with some sort of attitude that you're smarter and worldlier and more sophisticated then they are and that they're nothing but stupid rubes, I'm sure there will be some resentment.

You know, I've been elected president of the local gun club twice. I'm the only gay guy in the club. Most of the others are ex-marines, etc. Would they gladly accept "gay marriage" laws? No. Do they accept me? Obviously. Why? Well, I don't camp-it-up. I don't go to shoots in drag (I don't do drag.) I don't walk around with a chip on my shoulder. I don't act like a perpetual victim. I just act like a normal guy who happens to have different tastes in bed. They can live with that.

Anyway, I'm not sure this post has any direction to it so I'll end it here. I just felt sorry for these two guys who seem to have erected a wall of defensiveness around themselves and I don't think they realize it's become a prison.

---

Hey folks, I've blathered enough tonight. I'll see you all back here soon. Thanks for stopping by!

---

Update 6/16 AM, Bill writes in:

It's nice to be mentioned, and I really do know where you are coming from. I grew up in rural Idaho and it doesn't get much more closed-minded than that. Believe me, they really do think that there are no gay people in Idaho.

Here, it is different. In Connecticut there are many gay people of course. In my writing, I was trying to convey that the fear of others judging you can be as powerful as the judgement itself. And, most always, no judgement comes. And if it does it is usually in the form of "live and let live". It would many times not be the case in Idaho.

I was also being somewhat sarcastic in my description of country life being "hell". Actually, we live in a nice home in the country and almost everyday will mention something about how we love life here. Many of my posts mention that in detail. I suppose you have to read those posts to understand that I was trying to make a joke.

Thanks for taking the time to read our blog and to write! All the best to you!

--Bill from Bill and Kent's Place.

Bill is correct that I only read the first few posts. I might also point out, or add to what I wrote last night that of course there will always be a couple stone-age throwbacks who can't control their manners in any small town. Usually though, most "razzing" comes from teenagers who throw anti-gay epitaphs around with the same abandon they throw any epitaph around (or curse words for that matter) and they usually grow out of it. High-school is hell for anyone who isn't on the football team and that's probably why so many gay folks, when they graduate, can't wait to move out of town and head to the big cities where they perceive they'll be more accepted.

Anyway, I'm glad they (Bill and Kent) really are enjoying country living and I wish them the best.

...that I'm going to take the weekend off and here I am blogging more then ever. And I worked today besides. Maybe I'll take tomorrow off instead. Yeah, right.

From the Washington Post, yet another story about the victims (and I do feel sorry for them, but not about this) and their planned lawsuits against Bushmaster and the Bull's Eye gun shop. I'm going to stop bothering soon. But here's a quote that caught my eye:

Oberoi carries the memory of Sept. 14, when he was shot in the back outside the liquor store where he works. He also carries fragments of a .223-caliber bullet inside his body.

"Those I will have forever," he said.

He said he decided to join the lawsuit after he struck up a conversation with an official from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading advocate of gun control. "When you get shot, you start thinking about it," he said.

Uh huh. Look, as recently as three weeks ago I said yes, if the gun shop did something wrong they are liable. But not Bushmaster. So I'm going to do something unusual here. Rather then rephrase everything I said, here in total is a post of mine from last January where I summed this all up:

01/19/03 3:36 PM by Jeff Soyer

My thoughts on the lawsuit...

Many have already commented about the lawsuit filed against the gun-shop in Washington where the D.C. snipers allegedly obtained the gun used to kill so many innocent folks last fall. The lawsuit also names Bushmaster (the maker of the gun) as a defendant. I'm not going to rant and rave here because I already have in a similar case involving the widow of a slain teacher in Florida. Please read it. In any event, the gun-maker in that case was held five percent liable. I thought it was wrong. In this case, I still do. I hope --here-- to present my thoughts on why Bushmaster should not be named in the lawsuit.

For those (valued by me) visitors who might not be familiar with the suit, here's the story from A.P. via Yahoo:

The family members of James "Sonny" Buchanan and Conrad Johnson claim the gunmaker and store showed "gross negligence" that caused injuries and death, according to the complaint. The relatives are represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The case, filed in Pierce County Superior Court in Tacoma, seeks unspecified damages. It names Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, which either sold the rifle or lost it in a theft; store owners Brian Borgelt and Charles Carr; Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine; and sniper defendants John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo.

"If Bull's Eye and Bushmaster and the other gun industry defendants had acted responsibly in the sale of their guns, Muhammad and Malvo would not have been able to obtain the assault rifle they needed to carry out their shootings," the lawsuit claims.

Now, I can certainly understand why the Brady Bunch wants to include Bushmaster in the suit: They (Bushmaster) are the only ones with "deep-pockets" who can shell out lots of money to satisfy the garbage-can trial lawyers. And, of course, the Brady Bunch has had a tough time of it lately, what with a pro-Second Amendment President and with so many of these frivolous suits brought by various cities being thrown out. The Brady Bunch needs to raise funds and they also know that the only way they can possibly enact more gun laws is through litigation, since they can't by legislation. And NO, I will not provide a link to this garbage, anti-American fund-raising-machine organization.

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.

Of course, the bulk of the responsibility should lay on the shoulders of the two mutant criminals who committed these terrible crimes. But let's face it folks, the thugs who did the killing, and the negligent gun shop probably don't have much money. And, in my opinion (I have to keep inserting that to protect my 1st Amendment rights) the plaintiffs and their lawyers really just want to make a bunch of money off of this horrible incident. In my opinion, if they really wanted to create change for the better, they would sue --not for money-- but for legislation, and the lawyers would offer their services "pro bono" (if that's the correct Latin... I refuse to look it up right now...) My point of this whole long and boring post is that Bushmaster shouldn't be included in the lawsuit.

Actually, this is all secondary to what I want to grumble about today. Let me start by using an analogy:

Popov Vodka (through their distributors) sells to liquor stores and bars. Let's call them dealers. Popov has no way of knowing if some of those dealers are selling to minors or drunks or pregnant women who shouldn't be drinking booze. They can't; there are thousands of dealers. Popov makes a legal product and sells it, as the law prescribes, to dealers who are licensed to buy it and then sell it to consumers. These liquor dealers are regulated and inspected and licensed under the supervision of the local or federal authorities. If one of those bars or liquor stores are selling to minors, you couldn't possibly hold Popov responsible.

Folks, there are THOUSANDS of gun dealers in this country. They are licensed and inspected and regulated by the ATF. Bushmaster makes a legal product and sells it (usually through distributors as do most gun makers) to these thousands of gun dealers. Oh! A licensed gun shop is placing an order with us. Well, the regulatory branch of the U.S. government hasn't told us there is a problem with this shop so of course we will ship to them. Folks, why shouldn't they have? How can they (Bushmaster) possibly keep tabs on every gun store in America? That's the Government's job (both state and federal.) God knows they're consuming enough of our state and federal tax dollars. Just as (to return to my analogy) the regulation of liqour is supposed to be performed by the local state authority in charge of such things.

Of course, the Brady Bunch and the garbage-can trial lawyers keep insisting and calling this gun-in-question a "sniper" or "military" gun. I can look at an SUV and call it a road-rage machine for people with small dicks. It doesn't make it so. A gun is just a gun. The labels that anti-gun groups attach to it are meaningless. The Bushmaster gun in question is a legit hunting rifle with a legit caliber. It isn't advertised as a great gun to go killing people with. But, of course, the liberal TV and Newspaper writers just can't help themselves when they describe it as a "sniper" gun.

Unfortunately, I suspect that when this case actually comes to trial, the garbage-can trial lawyers for the plaintiffs will somehow extract money from Bushmaster. After all, they pick their juries based on just how stupid and gullible the jurers are. You want to see REAL reform in the litigation forum? Don't allow lawyers on either side to have ANY rejections. Luck of the draw and true trial by peers. This will never happen, of course but then we will never live in a perfect world. And in all of this "noise" about the case and with all the possible rewards of cash that the plaintiffs and trial lawyers are hoping to win (because the odds are much better then playing the lottery) the real facts of the case are completely lost: Two mutant criminals went on a shooting spree. They will, of course, do time in jail, but as far as the plaintiffs and lawyers are concerned, they really weren't responsible. That is the tragedy of our legal system today.

---

Now...

You might ask, "Hey Jeff, what the hell do you know about being a victim? Well since you asked... In 1985, a mutant stuck a knife in me seven times. He didn't like gays. Of course, he probably was gay since he came-on to me and tried to move in with me and previously had lived with a gay man. But then (and no, we never had sex and NO, I never tried to have sex with him) he freaked out, probably because he was (I think) on crack at the time.

It took the ambulance corps 45 minutes just to stop the bleeding and stabilize me before they could even transport me to the hospital.

I know what it's like to lay on the trauma-table at that hospital for six hours while two surgeons operated simultaneously on me. I had lost four pints of blood and my lung was punctured and collapsed, so no anaesthesia of any sort could be administered. The doctors relied on my being in shock (I never lost consciousness) to insulate me from the pain of surgery and chest-tubes and all that. And let me tell you folks, when a doctor says, "You might feel some pressure now while I use this rib-spreader..." Well, I can only tell you that THAT was an understatement... I thought about a lot of things that awful night but I distinctly remember asking one of the nurses to, "please hold my hand" because if I was going to die, I wanted to feel that last bond with another human being.

And the detectives didn't think I would live so all the while I was on the "table" they were trying to interview me and show me "mug-shots" and all that. And the hospital didn't know I was Jewish so they had a priest standing by. Weirdly enough though, all I could think about that scary October night was, how did the Giants do against the Cowboys?... And also, how I didn't want to die because I didn't want my parents to see how messy my apartment was...

When I talk about crime and victims and all that, unlike most others around the blogger world, I actually know something about it. I've been a victim and I've been very close to death. I've done my time in intensive-care.

So I really do feel for the victims of the D.C. snipers. But just as I never held the maker of the knife (that was used on me) at fault, so should the surviving victims (and their lawyers and the jurers) not hold Bushmaster at fault for making a legal product. In reality, if ANYONE (besides, of course, the mutant snipers) should be held at fault, it should be the ATF for not closing down the gun shop for all their previous violations. But you can't sue the government. *sigh* And so it goes...

I think that post of mine summed it all up pretty well. And I'm not going to waste anymore time on this story until --maybe-- the actual trial happens.

I get so much email spam. And it really cuts into the time I spend transferring millions of dollars for orphaned king's sons from various African countries into my bank account and ordering Viagra without a perscription over the internet...

Apparently, my blogson Eric is also up in arms about spam, from email AND from the sky... Blogger link wasn't working yet so just scroll to the post entitled, "The Great Big Penis Debate, Enlarged" And with a title like that...

Suddenly I'm all alone here. Speaking of wax Britney Speers -- which I wasn't -- Barry over at BansheeNC says her breasts are heaving. (Had to find something for the rest of you...) You know, I'm starting to feel like Dowd these days...

By the way, one of my secret girlfriends, Michele, is starting up yet another blog, this one of prose and photos and poetry. Who knew she had it in her?

I just noticed that The Smallest Minority has a neat ticker at the top of his page counting down the days (456 as I write this) until the silly "assault weapons" ban sunsets.

Speaking of spam, which I was -- a few paragraphs ago, I literally just got this one in my mailbox a few seconds ago. It's not your ordinary spam either, it's from someone who doesn't like George Bush (no, it's not from Arthur,) or the United States. Here's a verbatim quote:

Since the USA bombed the Cradle of Mankind (The Gulf-War USA and Irak),is the entire Mankind condemned to Hell.When God`s Children are getting bombed,pays the Mankind with the Eternal Penalty. That includes also the USA. The Iraq is the Cradle of Mankind, Tigris Euphrat the Beginning of the Bible. Adam and Eve. The one who`s the Worldpower Number 1- as it happens to the USA-has got the Main Responsibility for the whole Mankind and is liable now even with the Final Solution. Death at the Cross- Hell forever.

If the USA belief that they could make War on their own account- then they have to count with the eternal Punishment. The USA bombed once before the Cradle of Mankind (1991 Irak) and is already condemned to Hell. But for to make a War needs the USA the Permission of God himself. Which will never be granted.

The Brandenburger Nazigate in Berlin is the Hellgate of Mankind and must be pulled down immediately

Germany turned with the Brandenburger Nazigate Got to Devil-Germany is therefore Nation of Kain and High Treason and brought the entire Mankind into Doom.

Germany has got the Worldpower to bring the entire Mankind into Hell if the Brandenburger Nazigate in Berlin is not pulled down immediately and if there will hot be atoned for the second Worldwar. The USA must be careful that they don't come into Hell completely in because the reunion of Nazi-Germany. Who Protects Wholesale murderers and High Traitors like the USA did for Decades, will be executed as Wholesale murderer and as one guilty of High Treason and ends up in the Pond of Fire. The USA raised Nazi-Germany and is liable now for the reunited Nazi-Germany. Germany made an Oath to God and the Leader of the Nazis. That means everything what Germany does falls back to God-Germany caused with that its own Sentence. Which is Death on the Cross and Hell forever. That is now reputed even for entire Mankind. If it would be up to Germany the Mankind would be in Hell already and lost forever. Hence The Mankind must be called now into Paradise. Before a War even takes Place. Anything else means Wholesale murder and High Treason. The condemnation for that is Hell forever.

The USA have got now the Main responsibility for the entire Mankind, and with it also for Germany. The one with the biggest Power must also account for it to God. So the USA is liable for the Final Solution Death on the Cross Hell forever.Jesus Christ is a Diamond,is our Redeemer-can release us from the Guilt and save entire Mankind from Downfall.

Sign from God is no Advertising,but a Message and is reputed for entire Mankind.

The Blind ones lead the Blind ones and all of you will fall into the Black Hole, into the eternal Fire. Final Solution (Endloesung)

THIS EMAIL IS NOT SPAM

Sign from God is the last Key to Paradise and has to be spread Worldwide,becouse Mankind faces the last Judgement and is threatened to leave the Earth.Sign from God is the Salvation.

Everyone who doesn't call Mankind into Paradise has got at least the same much Guilt and Dirt at putting like Adolf Hitler an will be punished just as hard. That means Hell forever:Final Solution (Endloesung)

Signed The Apostle Abraham cradle of mankind

Well. Well! I guess Mr. "Poopy-Pants" Abraham doesn't like us very much. I'd stick my head in the oven right now but it's electric and takes so damn long. There was an email link from Denmark on the page but I'm so upset with life now that I can't paste it in here. Anyway, he says the "End Days" are here so I imagine we'll be hearing more from him on Coast to Coast AM fairly soon now.

From one of my favorite "odd" news sources, Planet Puck, comes this link to an article basically stating that MS Internet Explorer is toast for Mac users. Here's a quote:

Roz Ho, the general manager of Microsoft's Mac Business Unit, has confirmed that no future versions of Internet Explorer will be released for the Mac.

Ho says that the decision has been made to make way for Apple's own Safari browser. 'Some of the key customer requests for web browsing on the Mac require close development between the browser and the OS, something to which only Apple has access,' she explained.

"Roz Ho." Boy, there's a name for ya... (Oh, don't give me that bullshit, you know it's amusing.) Anyway, at this point I really don't use any MS products anymore so uh, hey -- Bill Gates -- fuck you too.

You ought to be kind to strangers anyway, anywhere. But since the CCW permit law in Colorado was "relaxed" -- meaning you didn't have to suck-up to the local sheriff to get your permit -- just have a clean record -- plenty of folks there are applying for licenses.

From the Denver Post comes this story about the rush on permit applications necessitating additional staff at various police stations to handle it. I don't know why, but for some reason I seem to remember an earlier post of mine -- about a newspaper story saying that this wasn't happening when the law first changed. Can't find it now but no matter. Good. It's good to see folks taking advantage of their rights.

And I've pointed this out before but anyone who feels they might be harmed just because of who they are -- for instance gay guys like me -- should be the first in line.

And just in case any liberals have stumbled across Alphecca and are exclaiming in horror about how anyone could be carrying a gun, here's a quote from the story:

Last month, the legislature passed a law requiring officials to issue permits to residents 21 years and older who have passed a firearms training course and a criminal background check.

The county sheriffs and Denver Police Department must perform local background checks. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation checks for a statewide criminal history, and the FBI does fingerprint analysis.

So relax. It's not the new permit holders (good, law-abiding folks) you have to worry about. Actually, it's the mutant criminals who need to worry. Suddenly, their "job" just got a whole lot harder. A lot more of their potential victims might be packing heat and fighting back.