The little Critter and Sambo cats will go to bed hungry tonight unless you donate to Alphecca... So click the image of these starving kitties to contribute... via PayPal
That's right, I have absolutely no shame...
Hey, it worked for National Lampoon magazine... I don't have a second home on Cape Cod. Actually, I'm broke. So please help me get the message out about freedom, patriotism, and respect for the Bill Of Rights and the importance of the Second Amendment.
Thank you very much!
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer"
Alphecca gets noticed!
Check out these glowing
reviews I've just made up:
Just a reminder folks that while we're all having a good time here, there is some serious fund-raising going on at the Blogathon. I've got so many friends participating -- that rather than single just some of them out, hit that link to see everyone. All of them are blogging for worthy causes so give something to a bunch of them.
I'm heading out now but I'll be back tomorrow. Thanks for stopping by!
Poster art! We need poster art! Where's Cox & Forkum when you need them?
Let's get this thing rolling!
(You don't think the puppy-in-a-blender thing will come up during the campaign, do you?)
There's lots more there so make sure you bookmark Kevin's site. I would add that I think Bill Quick would make a superb Press Secretary. He's great with people, direct, fast on his feet, and doesn't take bullshit from or get intimidated by anyone. And he has a great sense of humor!
Who else will join me? What other bloggers -- and precious readers -- will join the movement to turn this wonderful country -- this greatest experiment in democracy -- around? Join the Reynolds/Lucas bandwagon. Help us return America to it's roots. Come on folks, together our voices reach a TON of like-minded folks and with the help of sympathetic on-line publications such as Opinion Journal and NRO, we can start a real movement. "Ain't No Stopping Us Now..." I will try really hard to have a dedicated site to this (with comments) up by next weekend. I'll see if I can install MT tomorrow on Tarazet.com and then we'll all run with it.
Can you feel the excitement building? There is such a pent-up demand by the average (non-elitest, non-special-interest) voter for an independant, no-bullshit candidate(s) who's only platform is our great Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Hey, if nothing else, we can have a lot of fun with this. But deep down inside -- you know you WANT THIS to happen.
So what is a realistic time-line? I've already suggested that 2004 is out. The two ultra-partisan, tired, moldy-old -- special-interest-money-bound -- parties have that election sewn-up. But The blogosphere moves with the speed of light. I suggested (oh, just read the last post and the one last Sunday) 2008 or 2012 are very do-able.
For the 2004 election year we need to elect some local-government folks such as in the state legislatures. It would be great if a couple of like-minded congress people got in too. For 2006, we really need to use our momentum to elect at least 10 people to Congress and maybe get 1-2 Senators in place. Remember -- it sounds like a rush-job but this is what the blogosphere is all about. Howard Dean is proving that every day.
Would it be out of the question to suggest that our influence and contacts could be mobilized by 2008? I don't think so but even if we gave it a trial-run in 2008, we should be able to lock and load it up by 2012.
So uh... What do we call ourselves? The Libertarian Party is a joke, having run Harry Brown -- an almost incoherent candidate -- to death. Any party with "Constitution" in the name brings to mind racists and other whackos. I don't know if the name is in use yet, but how about:
The Freedom-Patriot Party?
Is it already taken? Got something better? Email me and I'll post it all here on Alphecca.
What about a "mascot?" Donkeys are uh... Donkeys. Elephants don't exist in the U.S. How about the Wolf or Mountain Lion? You know, something smart and decisive? Something totally antithetical to what all the lame Democrats and Republicans represent?
I'm actually "off" this weekend so I'll be checking everything I can and mentioning it here. "Let's Roll!"
*Ghod.* What have I started? Too cool!
Update 7/26 4:23 PM in the afternoon:
By various supernatural means, plus use of a modem, I've determined that Glenn has accepted the nomination to run for president. We're still waiting on Rachel to confirm. Folks, this is like a giant snowball rolling down er... up ... somewhere on a hill.
Why, here's a FLOOD of comment now:
I think it is a little ambitious, Glenn never having been elected to public office and all. So I think he should get immediate training, experience and public exposure in an election he is sure to win and soon. Why Wait...
Write in Reynolds for
Governor of California
--Richard Heddleson
That's right! We don't need no stinkin' residency requirements...
The Green Mountain Boys ride again!!!!! Can there be any question but that SDB is a 'must' for secty of state?
You should change the title for Kim du Toit's position. Defense is for wusses and lefties; his proper title should be Secretary of War (traditional) or Secretary of Anti-americanist Obliteration (well, maybe a little over the top).
--Chris Horner
More of your emails here tonight. And remember, I claim Secretary of the fine spirits cabinet... Now head on over to The Smallest Minority for more. Folks are already fighting over where Bill Quick should serve... Kevin also has another apropos cartoon -- or something spelled somewhat like that, up...
And folks are already BEGGING for plum assignments... But as Kevin points out, if you ask for it, you can't have it... This movement is as drafty as a two hundred year old house...
Update, later in the afternoon:
I can see clearly now through his scepticism to determine that Bill Quick has accepted the position of White House Press Secretary.
I'm sorry Bill but we don't take "no" for an answer...
Update, around 4:40PM:
More comments...
I like it!
How about resurrecting the Bull Moose party and take care of the mascot situation in one fell swoop?
--Dave Trauger
I did give some thought (a rarity) to the "Bull Moose Party" but I decided we needed something new and fresh for the 21st Century. Also, opponents could cross out "moose" and write something else...
I like this idea--libertarian bloggers uber alles!
"Freedom-Patriot" sounds a little too right-wing for the platform, I think--makes me think of Bo Gritz. I like "Federalist" because a) it recalls the Federalist Papers, b) it implies strong states' rights (at least to people who think about it--I can see how there might be confusion on this point), and c) it's the kind of name people can take seriously. And for the mascot--the bald eagle, which has all the right connotations ready-made.
(Unless, somehow, it's illegal to co-opt the national bird as a partisan symbol? Don't laugh--in Venezuela it's illegal to have the name "Bolivar" anywhere in a political party's name because so many people would vote for it on that basis alone.)
My two cents.
--EvR
And more...
The Jacksonian Party, taken after the Jacksononian don't tread on me attitude of many of the bloggers listed.
The symbol of the party? Something nimble, smart, that will leave you alone if you leave it alone. A doberman or rottweiler comes to mind.
Still no word from Rachel Lucas. You'd almost think that --unlike myself-- she has a life on the weekends... I'm sure she's just polishing up her acceptance speech...
My position in the Reynolds/Lucas administration... That is to say, I want one. Preferably cabinet-level. I am, however, too modest to nominate myself to anything in particular, so I'll let you pick.
By Jupiter! (Notice how I work in something "spacey" for a reply to Jay?) I know we're not supposed to accept requests but Jay, you bet your asteroid you can have a cushy job. How would Director of NASA suit you? Is there actually some science-like cabinet position? I just know that Glenn would want you on his team. And given Glenn's interest in space exploration, the budget for NASA will be increased A LOT.
Bill Quick has formally accepted the nomination. In response to a comment about facing Helen Thomas from the Jurassic News Service, he gushed:
I'll look forward to it. As far as I can see, Helen is too old and too shaky to shoot straighter than me, anyway.
Okay, I accept the nomination, and if elected, I'll turn those pressers into things of beauty and joys forever. When I'm done, I'll make those press conferences in Frank's World look like kindergarten college for pacifists.
Update mid-evening:
Here's another comment...
For mascot I suggest the Rottweiler, and for Secretary of Defense how's
about the Emperor Misha himself.
--Edmund Burke, Dublin Ireland
Yes folks, the whole WORLD is excited about the formation of a new blog-political-party. If I knew what the "vapors" were I'd probably be having them now...
Update 7/27 9:00AM:
More suggestions:
MedPundit (Sydney Smith) for
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Mascot: the owl. Gotta be the owl. The owl combines a
reputation for wisdom and learning with a tendency to
pouncy on small furry idiots and swallow them whole.
Andrew Ian Castel-Dodge: Ambassador to England (poetic justice for the grief he ran into with Britain's immigration bureaucrats - can't find the original blog posts, you can ask him to refresh our memories)
Patrick Crozier: Secretary of Transportation
Daniel Drezner: Secretary of Treasury
Charles Johnson: Secretary of State (Mideast relations will never be the same)
Brink Lindsey: Secretary of Commerce
Jay Manifold: He should hold the cabinet post he invented: Secretary of Defeated Former Enemies' Security
Virginia Postrel: Press Secretary (seems appropriate for a former magazine editor)
Rand Simberg: In charge of privatizing NASA and all government research facilities.
Andrew Sullivan: Fundraising chairman (get that PayPal button working, Sully)
Netscape (my current email client) wouldn't show the Mime message source...
Kevin will be putting up a spread-sheet later this afternoon with a round-up of all the candidates for cabinet positions.
This might be a good moment for me to remind folks that if you scroll down a bit, you'll find the "platform" I proposed. Oddly enough, I haven't received a single comment about that. And that's the post that started this all...
And as long as I'm at it -- *ahem* -- I am a link-whore who likes to be blogrolled and gladly reciprocates on my blogroll...
Anyway, I'll put up another update later today... Thanks for stopping by!
News Flash Update 7/27 12:30 PM:
Rachel has just emailed me and she accepts the nomination! Here's the exclusive quote from the Department of International News Kiosk (DINK) at Alphecca headquarters:
I accept your nomination!! Heh!! Thanks for the compliment but I'd never
get elected. I'm way too sassy and big-mouthed. Plus I hate stupid people
and isn't that who politicians are supposed to suck up to?
So Glenn and Rachel have both officially (by Alphecca's loose journalistic standards) accepted their coercions nominations to run for president/vice-president in 2008! As for Rachel's concerns about "stupid people...,"
That's what we're trying to change -- along with the whole political structure of this country. Okay folks, the "ticket" is set! Now, it's up to us in the blogosphere to make this happen. Here's another lame slogan from the Alphecca Linguistics Forum (ALF):
Furry aliens...
oh, wait, that's not it...
Set your fingers to...uh...snappin',
We the bloggers can make this happen...
Okay, fine, so we're sorta gay around here... Got a problem with that?
Elect the Great in 2008!
Update 7/27 evening:
Kevin at The Smallest Minority has the chart up of all the candidates. Check it out! We've got this thing sewn-up. And by the way, I'm liking the sound of someone's suggestion for "The Federalist Party" more and more.
Here's another comment:
How about the Get Real Party. Thomas Sowell as Secretary of Education and start minting one-ounce gold coins comemmorating the Mountain Lion mascot. "One Cougar-Rand; In Gold We Trust"
--Steve Lassey
See you all tomorrow...
Update 7/28 1:13 AM:
First of all, what the hell am I doing up so late... Anyway, here's another comment that came in:
Dammit, I wanted Glenn to get an appointment to the Supremes! Now he's going for the whole enchilada.
Mascot: remember the Gadsden flag, "Don't tread on me." the mascot must be the rattlesnake. Uniquely American, no? Crotalus atrox, Jeff.
Am I electable if I insist that during the campaign I get to call lots of people "asshats"? For instance, during the VP debates, I could say, "You had your chance, asshat, now let me explain it to you like you're six years old."
Hey! Works for me, folks! Look, we're all just having some fun here but there is a serious underlaying point to this whole exercise of mine -- politics shouldn't be controlled by the big liberal (and yes, conservative) traditional media outlets. About 12 years ago I mentioned to a distant cousin of mine (at a family gathering) that the internet was where it's at and would become the single most important factor in our lives. In terms of news distribution, I think it's rapidly becoming so. Certainly in terms of opinion propagation I think the blogosphere really has. Every major media outlet tracks, reads, and in most cases reports and quotes the blogosphere.
At this time more than half of all Americans surf the net. And all of us know that the blogosphere moves at the speed of a fiber-optic cable. It could happen...
Here's Kathy:
Fred Pruitt of Rantburg for Director of the CIA
I think SDB (USS Clueless) is better suited to being political
advisor.
Thailand? Really? A side of you I never knew about... (I'm not sure what that means but I never think of Thailand as a place I would want to spend four years...)
Update 7/31 comment:
I realize this is really late, but I just had to point something out: The party's mascot should be the wolf--actually several of them--and the motto "A pack, not a herd".
--James Bennett
I agree completely! I stated a bunch of paragraphs back that I thought the wolf would be appropriate. Very good.
Considering that my innocent post generated a ton of linkings and mentions on other blogger's sites, I realize that many of you reading this are new here. Welcome and thanks for visiting. I might just point out that you are in last week's archives and if you'd care to visit my current postings then just click here to go to this week's posts...
Remember my rant from Sunday? I said I was embarrassed by it. The reason is because I had laced it with foul language and I was wishing some folks harm... And I was probably three-sheets to the wind when I wrote it. Of course, that also means you were reading what I really thought, un-filtered by restraint. And naturally -- like most bloggers -- the posts I think are really great get ignored and ones I think are off-key, like my rant, get noticed and complimented by friends such as On The Third Hand and Jay Solo. In that rant, I mentioned that both the Democrats and the Republicans suck and we need something, someone in-between -- a libertarian -- to promote for president.
Kevin at The Smallest Minority definitely agrees with me and has the cartoon to prove it. (By the way, he finds some of the best political cartoons around and posts them...)
Anyway, in my previous post I speculated (fantasized) that in two or three election cycles (say, 2008 or 2012) we in the blogosphere could promote and get elected a true small "L" libertarian candidate for president. It would help if some in our sphere of friends got elected to Congress.
So I was thinking, who amongst us would make a good candidate? My own demented criteria is:
Must support the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it was written and the original intent of it as supported by historical, collateral writings.
Must have a clear-headed view of foreign policy which includes the original intent of the Constitution, that the federal government exists to protect the states. This would include securing our great country from threats from other nations and factions (terrorist groups) bent on harming us, and taking appropriate action to eliminate these threats.
Must believe that a limited federal government means that they don't try to fix every single problem with some "global plan" that piles on a ton of regulations that attempt to (usually through "knee-jerk" laws) restrict the normal legislative process of the individual states, unless local laws are in clear violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the intent of permissive liberty and the persuit of happiness implied by those documents.
Must realize that "un-funded mandates" from the federal government are poison and only bankrupt the individual states.
Must believe in the absolute power and importance of the First and Second Amendments.
Must believe that the war on drugs -- especially soft drugs such as marijuana -- must end.
Must clearly state reasons for any action the federal government takes, and not assign blame to others or act evasively when things go wrong.
Must believe in an open and non-secretive federal government. By this, I mean that there must be no "closed-hearings" on any subject. The American people deserve to know what is going on, what our legislators think, and everyone must realize that if everything is out in the open, nobody anywhere on this planet can hurt us or black-mail us. "We are doing this and that because it benefits us through that and this."
Must agree to VETO any legislation that has had ammendments tacked on by various legislators that have nothing to do with the actual issue addressed by said legislation.
Must be able to communicate with the American people in a clear, coherent manner.
And harkening back to the first requirement...
Must believe that if the Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't specifically prohibit it, then IT must be allowed without restriction.
Must support Israel's right to exist!
And one last thing as wishful thinking...
Must have a sense of humor!
So, what do you think?
I was thinking about who I would like to see in the White House in 2008 or 2012. Who meets these requirements? And my thoughts keep coming back to my blogfather Glenn Reynolds for President and for Vice-President I could suggest (grooming her for eight years hence) Rachel Lucas. Folks, we have plenty of years of preparation for this and I really think we can do it. Of course, I also believe I will win the PowerBall lottery tomorrow...
The fact is, us bloggers have some power now. We really are the new media. Let's get cracking!
Just because I've been relatively quiet this week doesn't mean others have.
My buddy Aubrey Turner has some thoughts about the courses of action society can take to protect ourselves. This thoughtful post titled, "Sterilization vs Immunization" specifically targets the shooting in N.Y.C.'s City Hall but could relate to a host of issues. Check it out.
I meant to mention this earlier but Tim Wilson has a post about -- well, let's say -- cosmetic surgery for the brain. Being able to change your thinking through mental-alteration. This reminds me strongly of much of what the late, great Sci-Fi writer Philip K. Dick used to write about. I remember one story where you could go to a sort-of vacation store and, without actually taking the vacation, you could have all the memories of that vacation implanted in your head -- to carry and enjoy and remember for the rest of your life. Can't remember the name of that short story now (which shows that I could use the service myself) but it has stuck with me through all these years.
Scroll down because he also has a posting about an abusive, coercive landfill owner who gets what he wants by intimidation. I plan to have a post sometime soon on my experiences as a Planning Commissioner for my town...
You have just TODAY left to donate something to the worthy cause of The Bitch Girls in this year's blogothon. Get over there now and give!
Lastly, I'd like to point out that my honerable blogson Eric at Classical Values has been posting up a storm of thoughful, intelligent posts. Rather than link to a single one I'll just instruct you to go there and enjoy it all by one of the blogosphere's brightest talents. I am very proud of him and thankful that he considers me his blogfather. I don't deserve it and he deserves better. Damn he's good!
In the nine months or so that I've been preparing this weekly chart, the categories have never been closer on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page. I'll explain why in a moment but here's this week's chart. It's dedicated to the vacationing Glenn Reynolds, (who -- alas -- might not even see it.) Anyway, I know for a fact he's partial to this week's lovely model, the Sig P239. This one features wooden grips and is chambered in .357 sig. I've actually fired one and it's an easy shooting, very concealable tool. So if he happens to stop by, this will make his vacation even more enjoyable...
The news, of course, was dominated by the dismissal of the NAACP suit against the firearms manufacturing industry. I discussed the AP story a couple of days ago and you can just scroll down for my warning comments about that. Again, the judge dismissed the suit on a "technicality," not on the merits of the case against the gun makers.
And naturally, the New York Times makes it sound like a wet blanket that will shortly be removed. Here's a quote:
That trial ended with a murky jury decision that was favorable to the industry, but the jury's role in the case was merely advisory, and the judge's decision yesterday was the final ruling.
Critics of the gun industry said the decision yesterday provided a road map for future suits.
"This decision is a blueprint for why the gun industry should be held responsible," said Mathew S. Nosanchuk, the litigation director for the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that favors gun control and is involved in several cases across the country challenging gun-industry practices.
First of all, there was nothing murky about the advisory jury's decision. They clearly found that the gun makers shouldn't be held liable. The judge ignored that finding and made sure his summary showed the way for future litigants to make their case in his court -- which as I warned the other day -- is bound to happen:
"The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that defendants are responsible for the creation of a public nuisance," Judge Weinstein said. He added that gun makers and distributors could sharply limit gun violence "voluntarily and through easily implemented changes in marketing and more discriminating control of sales practices."
New York Attorney General Eliot Spittle vows to appeal to a higher court.
Last week I discussed the bill by Sen. Orrin Hatch to repeal the gun-ban in D.C. Two months ago I chatted up about the N.R.A.'s heavy-handedness in trying to "crash" a lawsuit filed against D.C. over the gun-ban. Now, from the Cato Institute comes this op-ed by Robert A. Levy and Gene Healy, two of the lawyers responsible for that suit, and they see Hatch's bill as a back-handed attempt by the N.R.A. to circumvent the lawsuit because they (the NRA) fear the Supreme Court will rule unfavorably in the case -- or in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Here's a quote:
Thankfully, on July 8, federal judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Ashcroft when he's so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Read the whole thing because there's plenty of intrigue going on with all this. I don't know where I stand on it all. Obviously, I'd like to see a favorable ruling from the High Court but can we actually get that? Given the present make-up of the Supreme Court and some of their recent decisions, I'm not so sure... So I'm not taking any sides in all of this -- I just don't know enough about it. If you do, send your comments in...
You know, normally if an item appears in the "news stories" category you would hope it isn't something "force-fed" by the Brady Bunch. Wrong! Here's a story Yahoo linked to from a TV station's website called NewsNet. It's about a list of stores that have sold firearms implicated in crimes. Here's a quote:
The store sold nearly 426 guns, which later became associated with crimes. The crimes include at least five homicides, 72 assaults and 15 robberies.
A co-owner said the store is responsible and law-abiding. And the high number of guns linked to crimes reflects the high number of guns they sell.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said it came up with a list of America's 10 worst gun dealers by analyzing statistics for 1989 through 1996 compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
The ATF said that Atlantic was inspected in October and no violations were found. The shop also has a reputation for doing business legally.
Obviously this is just a "scare" attempt by the Brady Bunch to say, "we can't trust gun stores so no-one should own guns. *Sigh.* The ATF found no violations. What's the story? That a store sells thousands of guns a year and over the years some of those guns have wound up in the hands of criminals? How many cars and trucks does GM sell? How many of those have been driven by drunks? This is a perfect example of how a "press release" by an anti-gun group is somehow taken to be a news story.
Meanwhile, the controversy over the new relaxed concealed-carry laws in Minnesota continues -- or so the Chicago Tribune alleges in this story:
The church and other houses of worship promptly filed suit against the law, claiming an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom. And they won a partial court victory in June that would allow them to ban guns in church, but not in church parking lots.
This in turn sparked an unusual prairie fire of local government-sanctioned resistance to the law, which allows people to carry concealed guns and gives local officials no power to restrict them in places such as hospitals, libraries, courthouses, college football stadiums and other public facilities.
In May, Minnesota became the latest state to relax gun laws, with lawmakers arguing that a liberalized possession law would make residents safer. The response since has been characterized by extraordinary opposition from local governments.
Several municipalities and counties are violating the new law by illegally passing their own gun-bans. To me, this should be the main thrust of the story but it receives slight notice at the end. And the state is mute on filing suit against these bans. Thank God I live in Vermont... I feel for my friends in Minnesota.
One last strange item from the Washington Post about a pro-gun amendment tacked on to a spending appropriations bill in Washington:
Tiahrt's eight-point amendment, which targets the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and was drafted with the NRA's help, would prohibit the use of federal funds for several bureau activities. It would prevent the bureau from requiring firearms dealers to conduct a physical inventory, from denying licenses to dealers whose sales fall below a certain level, and from demanding that certain dealers provide documentation for all used guns sold in a specific period.
And:
Tiahrt refused to withdraw the amendment and won passage on a 31 to 30 vote. Before the vote, Tiahrt assured colleagues the NRA had reviewed the language, which won over some Democrats as well as several Republicans. "I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers," Tiahrt said. NRA officials "were helpful in making sure I had my bases covered."
Wolf said House leaders would take a second look at the amendment when they enter talks with senators to resolve differences in the two chambers' appropriations bills. Tiahrt said he is confident his measure would survive the negotiations.
Well heck, it's for the cause so I'm behind it! The story almost makes it sound as if the NRA wrote the whole thing and introduced it themselves. But since the Brady Bunch does the same thing with their liberal flunky legislators I say, "go for it!"
That wraps up this edition of my weekly gun story blab. There's more I could talk about but I've got to get to work so I'll see you all back here soon. Thanks for stopping by!
A bunch of stuff for you to digest. Sorry about the over-the-top rant from Sunday but I'll leave it up. Today's posts were much better, I think...
I'll see you all here Wednesday morning with my weekly report. Thanks again to all who have been contributing to my "dental fund." If you could spare a couple bucks, please visit the cats on the left sidebar and donate.
I've munched about this suit several times before. You can read my blather here and then here and then here and lastly here!
Do you need any further proof that you should be checking in here every so often? Anyway, what this is all about is that the NAACP filed a lawsuit (with N.Y. A.G. Eliot Spitzer's blessing, ha-ha-ha) against a bunch of gun makers because they (the NAACP) claimed that black folks were injured more than others by firearms. Of course this was specious and reverse-racist. Of course they chose a judge (U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein) who has been an "activist" against the gun industry in the past, and chose his venue, Brooklyn, because the jury-pool was likely to be sympathetic.
But the advisory jury (advisory but not binding) unanimously voted in favor of the gun manufacturers and against the plaintiffs (the NAACP.) Now -- Weinstein was not under obligation to adhere to that vote and there was plenty of concern (by myself too,) that he would find for the plaintiffs anyway.
The good news is that he didn't. Tom Hays of the AP has the story:
A federal judge threw out the NAACP's case against the gun industry Monday, despite finding that the manufacturers have put the public at risk with careless marketing practices.
Affirming a jury verdict in favor of the gun makers, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein ruled that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People failed to show, as required by law, that its members were uniquely harmed.
The NAACP proved its members "did suffer relatively more harm from the nuisance created by the defendants through illegal availability of guns in New York," the judge said. "It failed, however, to show that its harm was different in kind from that suffered by other persons in New York."
There's good news and bad news. He (the judge) actually agreed with the NAACP that gun manufacturers put the public at risk. Aside from being silly, this leaves the door open to future suits in his court targeted towards that argument. Believe me when I tell you that the scuttle-fish lawyers are already drawing up suits based on THAT. So that's the bad news.
The good news, such as it is, is that once again, the legitimate gun industry has dodged a bullet designed to force legislation and regulation by litigation. So we breathe a brief sigh of relief but must keep up our vigilance and write and call and email our congressmen and senators to support and vote for the bill granting immunity to the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits.
This issue is going to come back again and again. We've been winning most of them but eventually there will be some stupid jury and some sick, activist liberal judge who will find against the gun makers and award some outrageous sum of money.
So far, this week, all I've talked about is unfair litigation against various industries. Sometimes it just works out that way. It's pretty clear where I stand on all of these issues ("duh!") but we all need to pull together and let our representatives know where we stand. And let them know that we VOTE and influence others who VOTE.
Yeah, it's getting nutty out there. I've blathered a lot about the fast-food lawsuits and how ridiculous they are. James Justin Wilson in NRO has this wrap-up of the nonsense going on. On the plus side, there is now legislation pending (from Florida Republican Rep. Ric Keller) to limit suits against food-producers. Republicans support it -- Democrats (who live to suck the money (I was going to say something else) of the trial lawyers' lobby.) Here's a quote:
Of course the trial lawyers weren't going to listen. Caesar Barber, a 272-pound maintenance worker from the Bronx, sued McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, and KFC for causing his two heart attacks and diabetes. Barber told Connie Chung that despite both heart attacks and warnings from his doctor, he continued to eat fast food on a daily basis. Barber, understandably, quickly became a p.r. nightmare and his lawyers realized that a full-grown man was not the best vessel to convince a jury to disregard personal responsibility. But they weren't giving up. In a second attempt, they drafted a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's; this time they named children as the defendants. Who could blame the children?
Since then, a number of lawsuits have implicated "Big Food" with responsibility for the country's "obesity crisis" among other ills. So far, most of the suits have been dismissed, if not laughed out of the court. In one decision U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet wrote that: "If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonalds' products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain (and its concomitant problems) because of the high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar, it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses. Nobody is forced to eat at McDonalds. (Except, perhaps, parents of small children who desire McDonalds' food, toy promotions or playgrounds and demand their parents' accompaniment.) Even more pertinent, nobody is forced to supersize their meal or choose less healthy options on the menu."
Folks, this is the sickness of our civil courts. This is the disease that trial lawyers are inflicting on American society. I have called repeatedly for tort reform here on Alphecca. And I have warned repeatedly that alcohol will be next on the list. Walter Olson at OverLawyered has this post about the start of lawsuits against the spirits industry from -- of all places -- Scotland. Here's a quote:
"Alcoholics are attempting to make legal history by suing the drinks industry for failing to warn them of the dangers of addiction. Twelve addicts, aged between 18 and 60, claim their lives have been destroyed by the demon drink and that they were not warned of the risks."
Read it, weep for it and for us. Follow the links there. The only good thing I can see out of all this is that the average non-coastal person will find this all so repellent that they start rejecting all of these silly suits. The first link I gave to Wilson's NRO op-ed indicates this in regards to fast-food suits. My next post here about the dismissal of the NAACP gun-makers' suit helps confirm this. I sincerely hope that the garbage-can trials lawyers have pushed the limit of litigation beyond where the average decent person is willing to assign blame -- other than to the individual who committed the offense. Because otherwise, this whole nation's economy is going to go bankrupt.
I have no vested interest in pot. I discovered many years ago (when I was about 16 years old) that I'm allergic to it. But this is a naturally growing substance that has several properties that can help many people suffering from various diseases. There is absolutely no excuse for continuing the almost 70 year old laws against it. So Steve Miller in the Washington Times has this excellent report about the conflict faced by states that allow "medical use" of marijuana and the granite-based imobility of the Federal Government towards pot.
Occasional readers know that I slam around liberals pretty good here at Alphecca. Very regular readers know that I also knock conservatives. This is one of those times.
In regards to marijuana, George W. Bush and his White House drug policy director John Walters are -- on this issue -- just about the stupidest shits floating at the bottom of the ocean. Look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary and you'll see these idiots' pictures.
This story is about how most of the people living in the U.S. WANT pot allowed for medicinal use. And how while some states have voted or legislated the use of it for that, the assholes in the federal government insist on enforcing a seventy year old law to prosecute and prevent this use.
Of course, their argument is specious in that marijuana has psychotropic effects on people -- it makes them feel good -- and this must be a bad thing that must be prevented.
On the other hypocritical hand they claim that pot has NO medicinal use. So here we have a naturally occuring plant that has abilities (which our idiot government admits to... as justification for their banning it) to make sick folks feel better, and yet they (the idiots in government) claim that these properties have no "medicinal use." What absolute total bullshit.
Like, "yes, pot makes sick people feel better, which is awful and we must prevent that from happening, but sick, cancer patients who would like to feel better should never be exposed to this drug because even though we declare that it makes folks feel better, it couldn't possibly make sick people feel better because we declare it has no medical ability to do that.
There is no rational excuse for prohibiting possession and use of pot. And such stupid arguments as, "well, everyone using heroin smoked marijuana" is as ridiculous as, "everyone who drinks alcohol used to drink milk as a kid." And by the way, everyone pulled over for doing 85 MPH on a highway has driven 35 MPH earlier...
Folks, our country is sick and repressed to the point of aburdity. We need a real -- coherent- libertarian candidate who can argue the case for limited government. Where is she/he hiding?
I really believe in the power of the blogosphere to start something new -- a move for someone with a brain to run for president. We libertarian bloggers need to get together and start the push for an intelligent candidate. It might take two or three election cycles for this to take shape but I KNOW we can do it. Who will admit that both the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans suck wind and offer nothing for the average middle-American folks? But it has to be someone better then that idiot Brown who runs every year.
The Democrats and Republicans have demonstrated time and again that they are incapable of choosing a candidate that can do anything other than mouth the tired platitudes of special interest groups and the lobbying organizations that besiege them every day.
Let us use this power of the internet to start a movement to restore our Constitution and Bill of Rights (which as every reader of collateral writings of the era knows) is a "permissive" document -- not a restrictive missive. That is, our great Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed and written to state certain conditions under which we should operate but the intention was that if the document didn't regulate it -- than we were entitled to it. It permitted what wasn't specified. This is hard for many folks to accept because most of your local town rules and zoning laws are restrictive -- the opposite -- in that they specify only what you CAN DO and nothing else is allowed.
I'm tired and probably not making this clear but let's use an example: Folks on the far-right claim that the Constitution mentions NOTHING about the right to same-sex love. That's correct! But since any casual reading of our Constitution reveals that it is "permissive," that means that if the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, it must be allowed.
The average town "Zoning regulations" are in direct contrast: They specify what you can do and everything else is prohibited.
Understand the difference? When some right-winger claims that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights says nothing about the right to gay-sex and therefor it shouldn't be allowed, they are totally wrong and completely misunderstanding these precious documents. Indeed, the founders of our country were so concerned about this principle that they wrote the Bill of Rights to specifically enumerate some --but not all-- of our rights as free people that they thought might be restricted if they didn't specify them.
The Constitution tells us how our government should be run. If it doesn't mention it, then it's allowed. The Bill of Rights further specified some of our rights but doesn't limit those rights to only what is mentioned.
It is astounding how people on both the left and the right ignore or try to re-write what these astonishing documents mean.
Okay, end of rant...
Okay, ten minutes after posting this, I have one more thought...
I used to be a politician. I know them and hung-out with them. I know and have partied with a lot of cops. I know them. I'm pretty conservative about some things and I've hung with a lot of conservatives. Here is where all the hypocritical bullshit kicks in. All of them -- well, almost every single cop on this planet, and every politician, and every conservative -- they've all smoked pot at least once in their lives. And most of them have smoked it a lot more than that. Should they be arrested? Denied employment? Treated like criminals? Have a "rap-sheet?"
And here's the truth, all my conservative readers will email me -- they will all deny it. What hypocrites. Why is our country spending twenty billion dollars a year trying to fight this losing -- unpopular war among the honest of us? When will Americans (other than the average, middle-of-the-country American who is basically honest) admit that this whole war on marijuana is bullshit and a waste of money and resources?
I'll be back tomorrow (Monday) night and I thank every single one of you who visit, email comments, link to me, and keep the faith. Thanks for stopping by!
Some of my readers email me to tell me that cops have no discretion in issuing summons. Of course they do! Sometimes they give a ticket on a traffic stop, and sometimes they just give a warning. This goes back to my post last week about a scum-bag cop who arrested some poor soul for possession of A CAT! So from The Bitch Girls comes this post about the bias exhibited by N.Y. State Troopers towards young women. Bitter is always so "right-on."
I don't care if Marc from Lay Lines is off on a business trip -- I demand that he keep blogging. Come-on Marc, find a way...
God! The Flea is eating cheese. French cheese? Read this to find out. Me? I'm a Muenster man myself. And I'm not referring to Herman...
My blogson Eric Scheie will shortly be moving off of bug*splat and onto Hosting Matters, used by ALL the best bloggers such as... uh, me. So stay-tuned and I'll let you know his new URL.
There are a lot of (liberal) folks comparing our situation in Iraq with Viet Nam. Wyatt explains why it's different. Read it!
Just a reminder that as I was born in Chicago, I always check-in on my buddies at Chicago Boyz (great commentary, not that most of it has anything to do with Chicago but it makes for a great link...) and of course my buddy Leigh at Hanlon Vision who really is the good-will ambassador to ChicagoLand.
Although... Is preventing prostate-cancer really evil? *Ahem.* Anyway, as should be evident by what I consider a pretty good output of posts by someone who works more than full time and can't blog from work -- there are postings I'd like to do that would never fit in here on Alphecca.
I own five domain names. All are hooked up to active webhosts. I'd like to do another blog much different from Alphecca. For instance, one of my domains is Tarazet, (also -- like Alphecca -- named after a star in the heavens.) You can go there now but there's nothing but a Blizzard desk-top shot from StarCraft.
Alphecca is hand-coded and (in order to keep it from becoming a free-for-all) I screen and only post comments I want posted. I will probably use an automated software that allows comments for Tarazet.
So here are the ideas I'm tossing around:
1) A blog for cat-lovers. (So half of you just got turned off and the other half got excited...)
2) A blog supposedly from an alternate world where cats are the dominant, most highly evolved species and all posts would be written from their viewpoint.
Continuing with the "alternate universe" theme, which I think would be a lot of fun -- and thought provoking -- ...
3) A blog from an alternate Earth where liberalism and leftism has run wild.
4) Same thing, but from a conservative stance.
5) An alternate universe Earth where Earth is under subjugation from an alien race and Tarazet is the Earthling's "underground" website to rally the resistance.
6) A blog where I -- maybe once a week -- post a heavy-weight post about something and then let the comments column take over.
7) A blog where I referee heavy-weight posts from non-bloggers (folks who don't have or want a blog) and let the comments column take over. Sort-of an outlet for folks who want the stage for just a week.
You'll notice that many of the ideas are sorta' sci-fi based. As an SF fan, I'd like to do something based on that. I could also (as a subscriber to every major SF magazine) have a writer's blog where everyone could critique the stories and books that come out every month. As a mystery fan, I could do the same. Or I could make it a blog for all genre fiction.
So those are the ideas I'm kicking around and I'd love for you to all to offer your ideas on it. You can submit your comments to ideas for Tarazet blog. Please respond since I want this new blog to be fun. And different. Let me know what would "turn you on" for a new blog...
Think of this as a "reader's vote" for a new blog. Again -- I'd like it to be much different from Alphecca in that it won't deal with contemporary issues unless as viewed from "an alternate universe." Okay folks, I average over 500 unique visitors every day. What do you-all think?
I should mention again that I have several domains and a lot of bandwidth so I could theoretically do more than one new blog but I don't want to promise too much and not have time to deliver...
I should add one more thing... I'm not yet there in terms of designing the site by hand. I'd love to use a program such as Movable Type but as you've all read over the past couple months, I'm broke. Even twenty bucks is too much for me to put out right now and besides -- I have no usable credit-cards. If anyone reading this is experienced in installing MT, please offer your help when I decide what I'm going to do. Hosting Matters (my web-host) is fully capable of dealing with it. And if you'd like to use one of these ideas yourself -- well, at the very least, give me some credit for it...
What I want to do is have a fun blog where everyone's imagination can run wild...
