I love blogging. It has given me an outlet for my thoughts that I could never get folks in a tavern to listen to. Alphecca is healing to me, balm for my rage at the nonsense that goes on out in the world. And as long as I don't get too carried away, I can say whatever I like. Plus, I have made good friends (granted -- email or blogging friends) that I never would have but for my humble site on the world-wide-web. Thanks to all of you who visit me. Thanks to all the bloggers who kindly mention and link to me.

Thanks also to the Almighty God for providing me with -- not what I want -- but what I need. He's pretty cool too! And he's a lot nicer than most supposedly religious folks make him out to be. I refuse to apologize for or hide my love of God. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. De-link me if you want. Shun me and diss me if you wish.

I know my blog, Alphecca, is a weird combination of seemingly conflicting ideals. How else to explain the rantings of a pro-gun, pro-God, pro-gay, pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-America blogger? Such as it is, I put it all up here for all (who want) to read it.

I have only a public high-school education. I'm not one of the "brainiacs" on the web. Many of you probably think I'm stupid. Maybe I am. And in the blogosphere, I'm small potatos. But the web gives me a voice. And for better-or-worse I use it. And you nice folks have indulged me. It's the end of the week and as usual, I take weekends off. I'll see you all here next week. Please come back. Have a great weekend and (unlike a lot of bloggers) I freely admit that I really, truly appreciate and value and cherish your checking me out.

Thanks for stopping by!

I have to assume it is the conservative elements of the F.D.A. (and other government flunkies who suck-up to big business) who have decided that labels on food and nutrition supplements should be able to claim almost anything they want. This would fly in direct contradiction with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.

As the law stands now, if Quaker Oats is going to claim that their product reduces incidence of colon cancer, they better have "significant scientific consensus" to back it up. Big business and the F.D.A. (and suprisingly, the American Heart Association) want to change all that. From today's New York Times, here's a quote:

The new rules provide for establishing a graduated set of four claims from the one that now exists. That one would be given the highest ranking and would be designated by the letter A, though the agency has made no decision about whether the letter will appear on the label. At the other end of the scale would be a claim given the letter D that would require it to state that "very limited and preliminary scientific research suggests" the claim, which would be spelled out at that point. It would then add, "F.D.A. concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim."

Now look folks, I think the average blog reader is probably savvy enough to realize that just because "Twizzlers" could now make claims to health benefits, it doesn't make it so and we're unlikely to believe it. The problem is that there are quite a lot of -- shall we say -- dull-tacks in the box that probably would fall for such deceptive advertising. And can you imagine what specious claims would be made for various nutritional supplements?

I'm sorry but I can find no rational reason why the rules should be loosened to allow a confusing and misleading labeling system to be put in place. So this time I have to slam big-business conservatives.

Conservatives suck.

Would everyone please just start thinking like me? I'll lead the way (he said as his flashlight winked out...)

The U.N. is one of the most disreputable, most dishonest organizations in the world. They (it) has absolutely no credibility among thinking, rational, non-retarded humans. Liberals take them as gospel of course. So when they issue a "report" claiming:

The United States has by far the largest number of publicly owned firearms in the world and is approaching the point where there is one gun for every American, according to the Small Arms Survey 2003 released Tuesday.

Well now... Abuse of statistics is nothing new to the leftist-socialist-liberals who run the U.N. But let's take this at face value. Now, personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with high ownership of guns in any society -- I know that these folks know how to take care of themselves, and know how to fight back against mutant criminals.

And it would certainly be expected that the wealthiest and freest country in the world would also be the one who's citizens are best able to afford and want to exercise their right to defend themselves against all who would want to hurt them. Here's another quote:

The survey of global small arms was released on the second day of a weeklong U.N. meeting reviewing progress toward implementing a U.N. program adopted two years ago to combat small arms trafficking. More than 30 researchers contributed to the project, which is coordinated at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva and financed by a dozen Western governments.

Because the stated goal of the U.N. is to disarm all citizens in all countries. What better way to make your case then to use a random statistic to show the world that every single home in America possesses a firearm. Again -- I think every home should! But of course, the real news is simply that there are a lot of folks in the U.S. (including myself) that own several firearms. Actual figures indicate that there are firearms in about 53% of American homes.

Here's an analogy: Four guys from "Birchville" are hanging out and one of them smokes two packs of cigarettes a day. By using statistics, liberals and other U.N. types then state that each of these four guys from "Birchville" average a half-pack a day.

In any event, this is a silly report simply designed to scare "the world" into adopting the U.N.'s sick and demented plan to disarm all people. Naturally, like most leftist-fascist plans, the only ones who would still be armed would be U.N. personnel. Their take on the Second Amendment is the same as their demented opinion on the First Amendment -- it should only apply to themselves and no-one else.

Liberals suck.

---

Update 7/11: I love it! My buddy at Publicola has this post about my thingie here and he says:

I do find that alarming: almost 1 gun? We, as Americans obviously need to go out & buy more guns. Conservatively each & every American needs at least 3 - a rifle, shotgun & pistol.

That's what seperates America from everywhere else. We know a real challenge when we see one. And once again I wonder why more pro-2A bloggers aren't helping Publicola get his cogent message out...

Update 7/11: Of course I'm going to print a comment like this...

Your comment about "pro-2A" bloggers was brilliant. So brilliant in fact that I had to knock together a couple of "+2A" items.

Keep up the good work, I read you every day.

--Dave at Pervasive Light

So how do YOU think a group of 5th graders would vote about a topic such as, "should guns be allowed in school?" Publicola has the story. You might be surprised...

---

Craig at Boone Country is absolutely correct that forest fires are a natural and needed event.

---

James at Hell in a Handbasket has an intelligent post about the "whys" that some of us visit the range so often. I confess that living where I do, I mostly do it for fun. I enjoy target shooting and trying to better myself. Anyway, go read it.

---

Say Uncle covers the silly press release from the Brady Bunch in this post and of course they are totally wrong since the Mississippi shooter used a shotgun.

And then scroll down to his next post for more silliness from Maryland...

---

Last but not least, for those not into guns and politics, Simone Koo continues to post some of the best economic commentary in the blogosphere. Why she doesn't get more notice is a mystery to me...

Carnifex has a new "live weblog" up called Andrew Reeve's Live Journal and as I like him a lot I insist (what power I wield...) you all visit there.

---

Mike Silverman has the link to the mutant Iranian Mulla's cracking down on dissent.

---

Kathy Kinsley has this message to the people of Iran... Here's a quote:

We are not politicians, nor are we generals. We hold no power to dispatch diplomats to negotiate; we can send no troops to defend those who choose to risk their lives in the cause of freedom.

What power we have is in our words, and in our thoughts. And it is that strength which we offer to the people of Iran on this day.

Across the diverse and often contentious world of weblogs, each of us has chosen to put aside our differences and come together today to declare our unanimity on the following simple principles:

- That the people of Iran are allies of free men and women everywhere in the world, and deserve to live under a government of their own choosing, which respects their own personal liberties.

- That the current Iranian regime has failed to create a free and prosperous society, and attempts to mask its own failures by repression and tyranny. We do not presume to know what is best for the people of Iran; but we are firm in our conviction that the policies of the current government stand in the way of the Iranians' ability to make those choices for themselves.

And so we urge our own governments to turn their attention to Iran. The leaders and diplomats of the world's democracies must be clear in their opposition to the repressive actions of the current Iranian regime, but even more importantly, must be clear in their support for the aspirations of the Iranian people.

And to the people of Iran, we say: You are not alone. We see your demonstrations in the streets; we hear of your newspapers falling to censorship; and we watch with anticipation as you join the community of the Internet in greater and greater numbers. Our hopes are with you in your struggle for freedom. We cannot and will not presume to tell you the correct path to freedom; that is for you to choose. But we look forward to the day when we can welcome your nation into the community of free societies of the world, for we know with deepest certainty that such a day will come.

Absolutely. Good work and good words, Kathy.

One voice at a time. It combines with others. It produces a cacophony of voices. A movement. A change. It could happen. God bless America and the wonderful folks who put aside their cares to pay attention to what is happening elsewhere, say in Iran. Only in America could so many caring people get together (the blogosphere) to encourage dissidents in another country to fight for freedom.

Finally, huh? Usually, I prepare this Tuesday evening but there were so few new stories that I held-off hoping something new would turn up. About nine this morning I received an email from someone demanding, "where the hell is this week's chart?" It's flattering to know I'm part of some folks' routine...

As this is the day to show support for the subjects of Iran striving for democracy, I thought I'd take a look at their alleged current constitution in regards to firearms. I could only find one mention:

Article 27

Public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.

Needless to say, this entire article seems to be ignored, judging by the number of student (and other) protestors currently in jail by a terrified dictatorial theocracy (something right-wingers here in the U.S. would love to institute, especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.) Here's another "joke" (I mean that in a very grim way) from the Iranian Constitution:

Article 23

The investigation of individuals' beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief.

And:

Article 37

Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court.

And:

Article 38

All forms of torture for the purpose of extracting confession or acquiring information are forbidden. Compulsion of individuals to testify, confess, or take an oath is not permissible; and any testimony, confession, or oath obtained under duress is devoid of value and credence. Violation of this article is liable to punishment in accordance with the law.

Article 39

All affronts to the dignity and repute of persons arrested, detained, imprisoned, or banished in accordance with the law, whatever form they may take, are forbidden and liable to punishment.

Of course -- here's their "out" to those clauses...

Article 40

No one is entitled to exercise his rights in a way injurious to others or detrimental to public interests.

And so you disappear. I've discussed my thoughts on Iran plenty of times. Here's a good place to find them... Anyway, look-- this weekly feature is about how Yahoo's Gun Control Debate Page is heavily biased against us supporters of the Second Amendment here in the U.S. So let's concentrate on that. Here's the chart:

Regular readers know I favor long-guns. I love the heft and feel and substantialness of a rifle. My favorite gun company is Marlin.

This week's lovely model is the Marlin model 1895G. A lever action 45/70 Government Cartridge big-game rifle. I unfortunately, don't have one but if all my kind readers would just donate ten dollars each to my "kitty fund" on the left sidebar, I could have one next week. Come on folks -- give it up for Alphecca... Anyway, enough of this stuff, let's get going...

There were only three new stories this week so I guess this episode will be short...

Here's an unsigned editorial from the Baltimore Sun about Toy Guns -- again... In their defense, they think it's a non-issue. Unfortunately, they ruin it with this quote:

Catchy slogans aside, restricting the sale of toy guns doesn't address the greater public health concern. In Maryland, gun violence claims the lives of far more children than accidental police shootings. Aren't those the guns that should be outlawed?

The real question -- of course -- is how many lives does gun-ownership save?

From Eric M. Weiss comes this op-ed in the Washington Post about how the Bull's Eye gun shop in Tacoma, Washington has finally! lost their license to sell guns. Well it's about fucking time! Here's what I said a long time ago:

...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...

Good! What took them (the ATF) so long? Bull's Eye should be out of business. Folks, I have no problem with the prosecution of people or companies who actually flaunt the laws of our country. My only problem is with liberal mutants who want to blame these stores or companies who are doing nothing wrong and are only following the laws and producing or selling a legally produced product.

The final story was about the possiblility that the Supreme Court might "hear" and decide on whether the Second Amendment confers a group-right or a personal right to bear arms. From (in my opinion) a very fair, unbiased story, AP writer Gina Holland reports:

The Supreme Court is being asked to overturn an appeals court ruling that said the Constitution does not guarantee people a personal right to own a gun.

The court's past rulings on Second Amendment gun rights ‹ many in the 1800s ‹ are a mess that should be straightened out when the justices return from their summer break, an appeal being filed Thursday at the court said.

The appeal relates to one of two closely watched cases from the liberal-leaning 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in San Francisco. The high court will also decide later this year whether to review a 9th Circuit ruling that banned teacher-led reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because of the phrase "under God."

The gun case includes an unlikely group of challengers ‹ not the National Rifle Association or other organized groups, but some rugby teammates and friends. They include a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views. They had sued the state over laws banning high-powered weapons.

"Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and businesses," their attorney and rugby teammate, Gary Gorski of Fair Oaks, Calif., wrote in the appeal of a ruling that upheld California's assault weapons ban.

The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The 9th Circuit panel said the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals. A more conservative appeals court in New Orleans has ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.

Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court's record on the Second Amendment is thin and odds are against the justices taking the case.

"The court hasn't jumped into it since 1939," he said. "At some point the Supreme Court will want to make sure it is interpreted consistently throughout the nation."

The case brings a politically charged issue to the court just before the presidential election. If justices agree to hear the case, it will be scheduled for argument next year.

This is one of those issues that normally, everyone wants to have settled by the court. But, given what some percieve as a suddenly "liberal" court, they would rather this issue was held back until a clearly "conservative" jury sat on the Supreme Court. I've blathered myself about all of this but I don't know what to suggest either. The NRA has punked out.

I just keep thinking that all of the rights specified by the Bill of Rights refer to individual (a personal) right and yet somehow, the Second Amendment is interpreted by liberals to only refer to a "collective" right for "militias..."

I guess we'll all have to sit on the edge of our seats on this one.

Well -- that's all that was new on Yahoo this week, so I guess this is a short post. Anyway, I thank all of you who kindly stop by. See you soon.

---

Update 7/10 comments received:

Needless to say, the Baltimore Sun article made the same liberal mistake that is so common concerning child gun deaths, which is that any such statistics typically make one or both of two interrelated mistakes. The first is to include people up to 25 years of age in their definition of children. Obviously, this includes the most violent years of male life. Secondly, they typically do not control for criminal upon criminal acts of violence. It turns out that the vast majority of gun deaths, and in particular, in this age group, concern one criminal killing another. Personally, I would also suggest controlling for criminal upon innocent victim deaths, but controlling for criminal on criminal gun deaths would be very useful. (a criminal here defined as someone with a criminal record PRIOR to the gun death).

That said, I do think that there is a problem in some jurisdictions about excessive deadly police force. A developmentally challenged kid was killed this week in Denver by DPD. He had a knife, and they shot him from close range. Apparently within department guidelines, but I think a lot of people consider it extreme. Denver has a much higher police kill rate than many larger cities.

--Bruce H.

And:

I may be wrong but I do not believe that the Supreme Court will resolve whether the 2nd amendment grants an individual right or a collective right. If they wanted to do so they would have in United States v. Emerson from the 5th circuit. The Supreme court denied CERT in that case and refused to hear it. I personally would Love for the Supreme Court to declare that the 2nd Amendment gives an individual right, but also I would like them to Incorporate it to apply to Sate action and not just Federal Action. The 2nd Amendment is one of the few Fundamental rights that has not been applied to state action.

--Lawguy

Kin's Kouch has moved. Here is the new Kin's Kouch site. Adjust your dials accordingly... Nice, clean look, Kinayda!

Freedom of speech is good. So is the freedom of a business to decide how much or how far that speech should go. We're not talking about protesting in the streets or in an op-ed, we're talking about how far beyond the pale a company should tolerate hateful utterances on the radio stations they own. MSNBC fired Michael Savage today. Eugene Volokh sums it up perfectly with this post:

. . .I haven't listened to Savage, but from what I hear this sort of trash was quite predictable. It's too bad MSNBC decided that it wanted to carry his show -- but better learn that lesson late than not at all. And, no, this isn't "censorship": Television networks, newspapers, magazines, and other privately owned communications media are fully entitled (both legally and morally) to refuse to carry this sort of vile abuse. I'm glad that MSNBC decided not to let Savage use its property any longer.

From Volokh, here's the start of the latest transgression:

Savage was taking viewer phone calls about airline horror stories, and a male caller began talking about smoking in the bathroom.

"Half an hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike take your ..." the caller said, before he was cut off and his words became unintelligible.

"So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?" Savage asked.

The caller replied: "Yes, I am."

"Oh, you're one of the sodomites," Savage said. "You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."

Discount Blogger sums it up perfectly at this post:

Michael Savage is as bad for conservatism as Ann Coulter is. Dumbass.

Exactly. This type of hate is what also got Bob Grant fired from WABC in NYC a few years ago. And yet, in one sense, I almost wish these mutants would be allowed to continue because deep down inside, I think that while there are some residents of Darwin's Waiting Room who shout, "Amen" when they hear this sort of hateful garbage, I can't help thinking that most normal folks find it so repelent that it forces them to re-examine their prejudices and maybe moderates them. At some level, I think the best antidote to the darkness of hate is to shine a light on it...

Well, I've blathered enough for one day. I'll be back Wednesday morning with my world famous Weekly (gun story) Bias Chart. Until then, I wish you all well and thanks for stopping by!

Yesterday, Eugene Volokh had an op-ed on Opinion Journal which you should read here about the plight of Nike in trying to respond to attacks on their business practices and how the laws of California work against companies attempting to defend themselves from scurrilous claims by whacko groups. Now -- neither Eugene or I discount the claims, but he thinks (and I agree) that a company should be able to "fight back" in the same media used to attack them. Here's a quote:

Moreover, Justice Breyer suggested, the particular structure of the California false-advertising law was unconstitutional as well. The law lets any citizen sue over allegedly false or misleading statements by a business. In this respect, the law differs from traditional false-advertising laws used by government agencies, or by people who actually bought a company's products in reliance on the ads. This, Justice Breyer said, lets "a large and hostile crowd freely . . . bring prosecutions designed to vindicate their beliefs," without facing the practical constraints that keep prosecutors focused on genuinely economically harmful conduct--and, he reasoned, the risk of such lawsuits may deter businesses from participating in public debates.

Justice Breyer might not be right on this second point: There would probably be a similar deterrent effect even without the special California law. Nike's adversaries could probably find consumers who would say they personally bought Nike shoes because of Nike's assurances, and who could therefore sue under a traditional fraud theory. But Justice Breyer's first point is probably sound, though the line he proposes to draw may be hard to administer.

More importantly, Justices Breyer and O'Connor are among the justices who usually take the narrowest view of the free-speech clause. If even they think Nike should win here, then some of the other justices would probably agree, and may have voted to dismiss just because they thought the case wasn't procedurally ready. That would bode well for businesses should the court consider the issue again.

By the way -- these folks making sneakers in asian countries -- kids too -- are earning the best wages they ever have. And child labor is a tradition there in helping to support and keep their families alive. Think it's different in America? Visit the average farm in this country and watch the children helping with the chores including rising early to milk cows, plowing, mucking, whatever it takes. Or children helping in the (small) family business. This is a vital part of real life that all the limousine liberals don't get and have never had to experience. Of course, they cheap-out when it comes to buying the products but that certainly shouldn't mean that it's all right for kids to help their families. You know folks, liberals are just about the stupidest, most un-connected-with-reality people on the face of this earth... Anyway, back to the theme of this post...

And now PETA gets into the act with KFC... From Yahoo, here's the story:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed the suit in California Superior Court in Los Angeles against KFC and KFC's parent, Yum Brands Inc., seeking an injunction to stop what it says are deceptive statements on the KFC Web site.

PETA contends that the chickens KFC buys from suppliers are abused through drugging, feeding and slaughter practices. PETA's director of vegan outreach, Bruce Friedrich, said the treatment is legal, but "they can't legally lie about it, and they have been."

Folks, how do you measure the comfort of a chicken? Now, PETA will try through litigation what they've failed to do through demented persuasion -- force all Americans to become vegetarians. The legal system of this country is sick and getting sicker. Again I say to you: We desperately need reform of our civil and criminal laws RIGHT NOW.

Overnight, I received two phony emails from PayPal asking me to verify my account with them. The emails contained a link you were to follow that seemed to go to what looked like PayPal. It doesn't! If you study the link carefully, the end of the link winds up at "oRaNgE.SRv2.cOm/..."

Aside from such minor issues as mispellings, being sent twice, being sent on a holiday weekend Sunday -- besides all of that -- the form asks for your password and on the very same form asks you to enter all of your credit card info and bank account info and claims you won't be able to access your account until you do.

I didn't believe it and logged onto PayPal in the normal way. There were no notices about any of this. I emailed PayPal security and they immediately replied with confirmation that these emails are spam. Here's the quote from their email:

Thank you for contacting PayPal.

We appreciate you bringing this incident of spam to our attention. We will investigate this fully and suspend the account of any PayPal user who has violated our Anti-Spam policy. PayPal's referral program is meant to encourage people to introduce the benefits of PayPal to their friends and family, and to people they transact with online. It is not intended to encourage spam. We apologize for this inconvenience and appreciate your report...

And:

PayPal and its representatives will NEVER ask you to reveal your password. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to this policy. If anyone claiming to work for PayPal asks for your password under any circumstances, by email or by phone, please refuse and immediately contact us via webform at https://www.paypal.com/wf/f=sa_pass.

I bring all this up because the spammer probably pulled my email info (to send the bogus email to) off of my site from the "tipping point" code. Many of you fellow bloggers also have this code on your web pages so be forwarned that you might get these emails too -- and what ever you do, don't fall for this SCAM. Instead, report it to PayPal right away.

Brought to you as a public service by the Alphecca Worldwide Protection Network...

I've linked to her before and I will again. Anyway, just go enjoy her again. If I was straight, and she was somehow blind and demented and into tired-old-short-dumpy guys (you know -- I really have to work on my self-esteem...) we could have a life together. Our world needs her more than ever. The voice of civility. After all, the campaign season is just starting.

I missed this last week -- sorry. Kinayda at KinsKouch has his latest installment on the abuse of eminent domain. You remember (well, don't you?) that a couple weeks ago I posted about eminent domain and Kin picked up the ball and decided to run with it. Anyway, if your blood pressure is too low, check it out. NOTE: KinsKouch just jumped to a new website. The post link goes to his old site but my reference to his site goes to his new digs...

---

And [*sigh*... once again, Jeff? --ed] [Yes! -- js] let me again mention that yes, I'm NOT a big time blogger yet, but I am a "large mammel" and unlike many bloggers, I do try to encourage those just joining the blogosphere. If you have me on your visible blogroll, I will gladly add you to my "friends" blogroll. And that keeps you on my "radar" and I'll try to give you a mention every so often. This is what my blogfather Glenn Reynolds has done. Think of me as his weird -- much lesser known uncle... But I try to do my best.

---

The Group Commander at Across The Atlantic picked up on the story I saw on Drudge about the sky-diver who plunged to his death because his parachute was tampered with. And (as most of you know) being a huge mystery genre fan, I'm thinking -- this is the perfect start to a mystery novel. Unfortunately, this was real.

Also, Shell responds with wit and honesty to Acidman's recent quiz. Rob (Acidman) is another of those bloggers I read A LOT and have mentioned before and wish we would blogroll each other...

---

I'm certainly not what anyone could classify as a "liberal." And while I'm conservative on many issues, I don't consider myself a true "conservative." Mostly, I consider myself a small "l" libertarian. I reject most of the nonsense rhetoric coming from the far-left and the far-right.

Anyway... I do recognize that my blogroll is rather "white" and I rue that. I wish I had more diveristy on it.

All this is preamble to the fact that sometimes I just follow links to where they take me and then follow other links from there. And that's how I've discovered some cool new blogs. I've added them to my "interesting links" roll and hopefully can soon move them to my "friends" blogroll.

First up is Hi. I'm Black! A nifty blog by someone who definitely comes across as libertarian. He also links to weird stuff that (I admit) I have to read such as this post about a modern-day "Jeffrey Dalmer." Moth to flame or something. Anyway, he has a most entertaining blog with a wide variety of topics (always a plus to me.)

And from his blogroll I found Bored on the Bus by an Australian guy who ranges over a lot of stuff too, including this very funny post about poorly worded signs and such. Fans and wordsmiths (such as myself) who enjoy Jay Leno's Monday "Headlines" feature (or those similar items in the New Yorker Magazine) will appreciate it. Here's a sample:

Spotted in a toilet of a London office: TOILET OUT OF ORDER. PLEASE USE FLOOR BELOW

In a London department store: BARGAIN BASEMENT UPSTAIRS

In an office: WOULD THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE STEPLADDER YESTERDAY PLEASE BRING IT BACK OR FURTHER STEPS WILL BE TAKEN

As we in the blogosphere are wont to say, "read the whole thing..."

And from his blogroll I came across The Diner at Penda's Realm with plenty of sharp -- definitely not liberal -- observations. Regulars here know I've been blabbing on-and-on about the fast-food lawsuits. Here's her take as she refers to the folks and lawyers suing these fast-food companies:

As each of these plaintiffs leave the courtroom, I want a sniper waiting on the roof of a nearby building to ensure their madness stops.

Blaming corporations providing a convenience because you are too lazy to cook should be a criminal offense punishable by slow starvation and a steady stream of Richard Simmons workout tapes. They don't have to do them, but they must watch.

My kind of woman!

So check them all out and I'll see you all soon. Probably tomorrow night but who knows... Thanks for stopping by!

From the New York Times comes this story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg about the bill to limit pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice suits. Here's a quote:

The bill, similar to one the House passed in March, would limit awards for pain and suffering to $250,000.

The bill has no Democratic sponsors, and Republican leaders, including Dr. Frist and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican whip who will manage the bill on the floor, concede they do not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Good. Because the bill is way too restrictive. Look, I've blathered here plenty of times about how badly this country needs tort reform but a quarter-million for suffering is not nearly enough. I would want to see the cap placed at at least a million dollars. There are some ligitimate suits in the courts against doctors and hospitals that have truly been negligent.

One example is having the wrong leg amputated. So now the victim is confined to a wheelchair instead of at least being able to walk with one leg and a prosthetic. Certainly $250,000 is insufficient compensation for what that person will endure for the rest of their life. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think it's worth 100 million or a billion. But certainly more then just a quarter-million. What's the right amount?

This is where there needs to be much better thought than just a hastily scraped-together bill to satisfy the insurance company lobby.

In addition, there needs to be a better screening process to weed out all the frivolous suits. Perhaps a "grand jury" type board of professional jurers who can cut through all the bullshit too many trial lawyers throw up.

Better yet -- a cap on the fees and commissions paid to lawyers.

Lastly, any bill like this really should extend to all industries, not just the healthcare providers. That would go a long way towards squashing ridiculous suits against fast-food, etc.

---

Update 7/7 comments received:

I agree that tort reform is urgently needed. I have an alternative proposal for how to go about it:

First; the plaintiff can only receive real damages plus costs. Punitive damages can still be awarded w/o limit but the punitive damages go to the US Treasury. Neither the plaintiff nor his/her legal team can get a single penny of it.

The beauty of this is that the deterrent effect of limitless awards is still there but that we'll have put an end to "lawsuit lotto" whereby a careless coffee drinker can get rich for her own stupidity.

Second; if the suit is unsuccessful, the plaintiff and his/her legal team are responsible for the costs/lost earnings etc. incurred by the defendant and possible damages in cases of barratry. (As before, punitive damages go to the US Treasury.)

Third; I think we need the doctrine of contributory negligence brought back. i.e. if a reasonable person would have known that something was a bad idea...

Fourth; although this is not tort per se, any person charged with a crime (as opposed to a civil suit), upon acquittal gets all their legal costs, lost wages etc. refunded by the jurisdiction that brought the charges. No exceptions, no limits. And, yes this means that O.J. Simpson ~would have~ gotten the costs of the dream team paid by the government of LA or California as the case may have been. ( Of course, in that event there'd have been more for the ex-wifes family to recover in the civil suit.)

--Jim G.

Well... I can't agree with all of this. Saying that all "punitive damages ... go to the U.S. Treasury" deprives the victim of the crime or negligence of any compensation for their pain and suffering. I freely admit that many "pain and suffering" claims are bullshit but there are some real ones. Giving the money to the government certainly doesn't help the victim in any way. To go back to my example of the guy who had the wrong leg cut off so now he has NO legs -- actual costs will only pay for actual costs, but if he can't work, can't attract a lover, can't feel self-respect or enjoy life -- why shouldn't he get something for that misery? And for God's sake, why would the Fed be entitled to that money?

I've always felt (and have said so here) that the losing team in any suit pays the costs of the winning team -- even if it's the defense.

As for the "doctrine of contributory negligence," -- what is "reasonable?" Is the reasonable person an MIT graduate or is he/she a high-school dropout from an inner-city with an IQ of 95? My suggestions eliminate guesswork.

Although I don't think it could ever be made law, and if it was, it would bankrupt most small municipalities, the idea of compensation for aquitted crime defendants is appealing. (Now there's a pun waiting to happen...) There is a problem with that related to the reasons I've just given: Most towns would tell their cops to lay-off and not arrest anyone (unless absolutely dead-sure with photographic evidence -- and that didn't even work in the case of the beating Rodney King received) and as a result, enforcement and even basic prevention of crime would become a joke. Towns would be more concerned with the costs of losing then they would with protecting their citizens. A no-win situation.

But interesting ideas and I thank you for your email. Here's another:

I work in the insurance industry as an agent. Let me also state that I don't work in health insurance just property and casualty. I do have a soul, just a small one.

I couldn't agree more with you regarding the ridiculous cap on the bill. One of the reasons that the insurance industry states for support of the cap is that it will help reduce the premium charged to docters for malpractice insurance. This is...ahem...BS.

It will have little effect on premium charged by insurance companies. Insurance companies invest heavily in the stock market to expand their capitol. When the markets started their dive in '98(?) the companies lost a great deal. As a result, most premiums experienced a rate hike.

I don't know if a "cap on the fees and commissions paid to lawyers" will improve anything, but I do know that it will never happen. Uh oh, my pessimism is showing. The nation is run by politicians, and most politicians are lawyers.

--anonymous

I absolutely agree and I'm too lazy right now to look up all the places on Alphecca where I've stated that we need to stop electing lawyers to Congress.

By the way -- that's rather interesting -- that insurance premiums have gone up not just because of lawsuits but because of bad investments by the insurance companies. I would love to hear more about that and put it up here on Alphecca.

Update 7/11: Ask and I shall receive...

Well, you walked right into it! You just had to say, "By the way -- that's rather interesting -- that insurance premiums have gone up not just because of lawsuits but because of bad investments by the insurance companies. I would love to hear more about that and put it up here on Alphecca."

Well here are a few links.

link

Here is a quote of particular interest from that link.

"The vast majority of insurance industry profits come from investment income. When investment income decreases, either because interest rates drop, the stock market drops, or there are price cuts that make profits low, the industry responds with sharp premium increases and reductions in coverage. "

And here is another good link.

link

Finally, there is some evidence that in states where there have been caps placed on non-economic damages, insurance premiums have not gone down, but have gone up instead.

link

I still want tort reform, but reform from frivolous (suing McDonalds because you spilled coffee on yourself) lawsuits not capping damages.

Good luck and have a good weekend!

--K. (anonymous)

Interesting reading, all of those links. And proof that there is a lot more to the cost of insurance premiums than the payouts from lawsuits and claims. I really have the best visitors! Thank you, Kent!

I have to be at work in an hour so I'll just take a peek at what some of my friends are up to...

You know, Metallica was one of the most vocal of the bands decrying music-file swapping. So you'd think they'd be happy with successful arrangements such as Apple's iTunes download system where users can purchase tunes. Apparently there's just no pleasing some people.

Leigh Hanlon of Hanlonvision has this post about how Metallica (and the Red Hot Chili Peppers) are refusing to sign-on because they only want to sell "the whole album." I agree with Leigh that most albums contain maybe one or two good tracks and the rest is just filler. Here's the link to the original story from Reuters. Here's a quote:

"Our artists would rather not contribute to the demise of the album format," said Mark Reiter, with Q Prime Management Co., which manages the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica and several other artists.

Talk about failing to grasp what the future of the music industry is going to be! Hey guys, this isn't the 60's or 70's anymore. And then Reiter says:

Calling the issue more a "creative issue than a financial issue," Reiter said the artists felt that if consumers can download their singles, they are less apt to buy entire albums.

Sounds like a financial issue to me... Oh well, I actually used to be a fan of Metallica, but then I grew up and turned 14...

---

Allen Prather has announced that he will no longer be showing photos of hot babes on his site. Instead, he's going to be concentrating on pictures of things like -- a "40-foot-long mass of decomposing lumpy gray flesh..." Hmmm...

(Just kidding, Allen)

Update 7/11: From my blogson:

I just found the comment you left at Allen Prather's Chilean blob post (after the 25 page rant left by some psychotic leftist), and I was in hysterics.

I couldn't resist clicking on the psycho's home page, and guess where I ended up? North Korea!

(I knew there had to be a connection between Kim Jong Il and Michael Moore...)

---

Jay Manifold of A Voyage To Arcturus points to a superb op-ed by Thom Hartmann regarding the Supreme Court decision striking down the Texas sodomy law. You really should read the whole thing but in essence it points out that there are a lot of rights not specifically granted in the Constitution -- such as eating and sleeping -- and, well, here's a quote:

Echoing Thomas' so-called conservative perspective, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program on June 27, 2003, "There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the Constitution." Jerry Falwell similarly agreed on Fox News.

Limbaugh and Thomas may soon also point out to us that the Constitution doesn't specifically grant a right to marry, and thus license that function exclusively to, say, Falwell. The Constitution doesn't grant a right to eat, or to read, or to have children. Yet do we doubt these are rights we hold?

The simple reality is that there are many "rights" that are not specified in the Constitution, but which we daily enjoy and cannot be taken away from us by the government. But if that's the case, Bush and Thomas would say, why doesn't the Constitution list those rights in the Bill of Rights?

The reason is simple: the Constitution wasn't written as a vehicle to grant us rights. We don't derive our rights from the constitution.

Rather, in the minds of the Founders, human rights are inalienable - inseparable - from humans themselves. We are born with rights by simple fact of existence, as defined by John Locke and written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the Founders wrote. Humans are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...." These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.

The job of the Constitution was to define a legal framework within which government and business could operate in a manner least intrusive to "We, The People," who are the holders of the rights. In its first draft it didn't even have a Bill of Rights, because the Framers felt it wasn't necessary to state out loud that human rights came from something greater, larger, and older than government. They all knew this; it was simply obvious.

Thomas Jefferson, however, foreseeing a time when the concepts fundamental to the founding of America were forgotten, strongly argued that the Constitution must contain at least a rudimentary statement of rights, laying out those main areas where government could, at the minimum, never intrude into our lives.

Well done!

---

Last week I briefly mentioned in passing the Australian handgun buy-back. Benson at Doozy has more on this silly scheme.

---

More tonight...