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:
...ends another week here at Alphecca. I try to take weekends off and I'll return Sunday night or Monday morning. Have fun everyone. Thanks for stopping by!
Like some scratchy-old 78rpm broken record, the New York Times has allowed its hatred of President Bush to remain stuck in the same groove for every news story they publish. From today's edition, Elisabeth Bumiller
shows no journalistic integrity:
President Bush was having lunch with troops at the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station when Joe Hagin, his deputy chief of staff, told him of the massive blackout on the East Coast.
But unlike the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when news of another New York catastrophe sent Mr. Bush on an odyssey on Air Force One, today he continued his lunch and went ahead with plans to attend a $1 million political fund-raiser here this evening. Still, he spent the rest of the afternoon on the phone trying to sort out the damage and the cause of the power failure with his top national security aides.
In addition, he was in constant contact by phone with the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the governors and mayors of the affected areas, etc.
Now, I'm no big booster of G.W. Bush but what more was he supposed to have done? The comparison with 9/11 is a ruse because this was a blackout, not a terrorist attack murdering 3000 Americans. It was (still is) very inconvenient, scary for some, but not an act of war against us. And unlike a hurricane, there hasn't been massive loss or damage to property requiring a first-hand look to access things.
So, while admitting that he spent the afternoon on the phones trying to find out what happened, the editorialist of this "news story" seems to imply that Bush should have grabbed a hard-hat and toolbox and scampered off on Air Force One to offer his assistance at one of the power stations.
The whole tone of this piece -- from darkly hinted implications because the President waited until he had the facts before issuing a statement to implying that that statement wasn't reassuring -- shows that we can't even trust the New York Times to report any story without their leftist bias infecting every sentence.
There's a reason I never buy the New York Times anymore and this "story" just confirms why.
That's true, D.C. is no longer the "murder capital of the nation." They're only #2 on the list. That honor is now held by Chicago, another city that forbids it's subjects the means to defend themselves by forbidding all handgun possession. See my post here. I love the un-subtle image of people brandishing handguns all over the place, "...give me a biggie fries or I'll shoot you..." Oh please!
You could try supporting Senator Orrin Hatch's attempt to repeal the handgun ban in your city. Allow the beleaguered citizens to protect themselves and put some fear into the hearts of the mutant gang-bangers that have turned some neighborhoods into war-zones.
The last thing these thugs want is to tangle with victims who can defend themselves. If you were really serious about reducing the crime-rate you would empower everyone to "keep the peace."
D.C. police say five shootings that killed a man and wounded 13 persons Wednesday night and early yesterday are an "aberration." But the shootings highlight a spate of violence that has pushed the city's homicide rate above one per day for the past three weeks.
There have been 20 killings in the past 19 days through yesterday afternoon, according to D.C. police.
So far this year, there have been 163 killings in the District, compared with 153 at this time last year. The city finished last year with 262 killings, the most since Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey assumed his post in 1998.
"The mayor was obviously disturbed at the many shootings that occurred," said Margret Nedelkoff Kellems, deputy mayor for public safety and justice. "It's a great concern and it was a terrible night in this city."
Gee! I guess the total gun-ban isn't working! Maybe it's time to try something else such as... Oh golly... I don't know... Wait! How about letting the honest, law-abiding folks arm themselves so they can defend themselves and make the mutants think twice before deciding on a life of crime? But no, that will never happen because it makes too much sense and when the hell has anyone in Washington D.C. ever shown common sense?
Update 8/15 evening comment received:
And if the honest, law-abiding folks start to take care of their own defense, those same folks might want to provide other services for themselves thereby cutting the politicians out of that pandering vote buying loop (and cutting off the pol/vampires sustenance, you know money).
Here in Vermont, we never lost power because years ago the state wisely signed a 50 year contract with Hydro-Quebec that insured that we would all overpay for electricity forever...
Since then, the state has been trying to get "out" of the contract which specifically states that barring an act of God, if Hydro-Quebec ever fails to deliver to us, the contract can be terminated. Unfortunately, the ice-storm of several Winters ago was an act of God.
Say Uncle has a post about the Free State Project. This group of libertarians has, for a couple years now (I first heard about it a year ago) been planning to all move to a small, sparsely populated state and "take over the government" to create a libertarian run... He warns me that Vermont is on the list.
No thanks! Land and property are too expensive as it is -- and we don't need another twenty thousand people moving here -- unless it would drive all the flatlanders out and back to N.Y., N.J., and CT...
Earlier in the week I was discussing Spam email. Here's a collection of links about spam from Carol's Chaotic Collection. You might have to scroll down a bit.
Les Jones has a muzzle to muzzle comparison on the Sig P229 vs the Glock 23 (.40 calibers.) I own a Glock 22, the full size .40 cal. You'll have to go over there to read his conclusions. I might point out that I have a 29 round magazine for mine which I bought from -- I think Cheaper Than Dirt but I don't really remember. I presume it would also fit the model 23.
Some folks have dogs or cats. Bitter Bitch wants to keep a liberal. I don't know if they can be house-broken... A fisking follows...
For the chart, this week's lovely model was suggested AND photographed (from his personal collection) by my buddy James Rummel at Hell in a Handbasket, a blog you should certainly be reading and blogrolling. He writes:
Keep in mind that I'm very interested in history. New guns are just great and they offer many advantages over old designs, but there's just something about using old guns. It's like shaking hands with the people who used it before me.
So far as long guns are concerned, my favorite bolt action is the .30-40 Krag, or the Krag-Jorgenson. It was the first bolt action adopted by the US military, and it has the smoothest action of any bolt gun I've ever shot.
[editor's note: You really should check out the above link for some fine historical photos. -- js]
The short, sharp war we had with Spain convinced just about everyone that the Krag wasn't very well suited to modern military operations. The velocity of the round was somewhat lower than the Mauser 8mm, which meant that accuracy suffered. Also, the unique reloading gate on the side of the rifle meant that it was slower to load than using stripper clips.
So the US military junked their rifles after having them for a mere 5 years and adopted the Springfield '01. (Then they decided to develop a special American round, and five years after they got their new Springfields the troops had to turn them in so they could be re-chambered for the .30-06. No one ever accused the government of being efficient except Mark Twain.) They sold the Krags to the NRA, which took them and cut down the barrel and put a "sporterized" stock on them.
After that, I feel bad having "molested" Jame's picture with Photoshop. The bottom (neutral) image is his original:
Meanwhile, back at Yahoo, there were only three new stories linked to this week. The first was this story from USA Today about the bill wending its way through congress to shield gun makers from frivolous lawsuits. I discussed this earlier this week but since I'm never at a loss for words... Incidentally, I might point out that USA Today posted this as a news story but to their credit, Yahoo correctly listed this under "Featured Articles." An article is different from a news story and implies there is more going on than "just the facts." A fine line perhaps but you expect more bias from an article -- just read any edition of the New York Times magazine...
Laura Parker, the author of this article pulls a switcheroo on readers. She starts out discussing the premise of this story about the law to protect firearms manufacturers and then suddenly lurches into "gun control" with this:
The popularity of the bill -- it has 54 co-sponsors in the 100-member Senate, including several top Democrats -- underscores the changed political dynamics of gun control. Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev., has signed on, and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., might do so.
The political divide over gun control has long cut geographically: Rural areas generally oppose greater controls on firearms, and urban areas generally favor them. Republicans usually oppose restrictions; Democrats usually back them. But Democrats in rural areas where hunting is a tradition have a tough time winning elections if they are seen by voters as anti-gun.
Uh, Earth to Laura... This bill has nothing to do with gun control! It's about tort reform! This bill is designed to protect a gun maker from being sued because some mutant criminal decides to take a correctly functioning, legally sold product and use it in the commission of a crime.
If Parker doesn't understand the difference than perhaps she needs a refresher in journalism school -- or perhaps in reading.
From the Detroit Free Press, here's a story that received wide notice in the blogosphere (another nickel to Bill Quick!) A Michigan court tossed another lawsuit against gun makers and dealers out, but not because it was "frivolous" but rather because it violated a bill similar to the one discussed above already enacted by the Michigan legislature. Here's a quote:
The 1999 Michigan suits sought at least $400 million for the medical and law enforcement costs associated with gun violence. But in a unanimous decision released Friday, the Michigan Court of Appeals threw out the suits, which targeted more than 30 gun manufacturers and dealers.
The three-judge panel of the court found that legislation enacted in 2000 to bar such suits applied to the two filed by former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer and former Wayne County Prosecutor John O'Hair in 1999.
Of course there was wailing from the usual suspects:
Shikha Hamilton, Detroit president and national board member of the Million Mom March, called the decision "a gift to the National Rifle Association and no protection for our children."
"The extreme gun lobby wants laws passed to give the industry protection from lawsuits, not because the suits are frivolous, but precisely because they're not," she said. "They're afraid of losing in the courtroom, so the politicians give them a free pass."
A rejection on the basis of the Second Amendment would be better still, of course.
Yes. Now I don't know the wording of the Michigan statute but I have to assume it is similar in regards to the national bill to protect gun makers and dealers, and there is a specific clause allowing suits if the product is defective or if the dealer violates any federal or state law. Way back in April, in one of my weekly thingies, I published the entire text of H.R. 1036, the national bill in question. There's been so much blather by anti-gun folks that I think it would do everyone good to go back and read it. But here's the part of it that specifically states that in the case of wrong-doing, suits are permitted...
(A) IN GENERAL- The term 'qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages or injunctive relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or
(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.
Okay already? Under the federal law, a person could still sue the gun dealer for knowingly allowing a "straw purchase."
So when Sen. Chuck Schumer gets on national TV and states that "victims" will have no relief from the courts -- he is flat-out lying to the American public. If the gun maker or the gun dealer did something wrong then they can still be sued. But they can't be sued just for engaging in a legal business. Got it, Chucky? Brady Bunch? Feinstein? *Sheesh.*
Anyway, the real story minimized by the Detroit Free Press is that what the plaintiffs were focusing on -- incorrectly -- was the gun makers because they have the "deepest pockets." If a gun dealer acted improperly in their "sting" then they should have gone after him.
The third editorial on this week's Hit Parade comes from Monday's New York Times. It is ostensibly about controlling "small arms" flowing into various hot-spots around the globe. I'm going to peel-out two quotes for you:
Controlling small arms is complex. Guns are easily concealed, trading and retrading in a quasi-legal netherworld. Last month, countries met to examine their progress on pledges made at a United Nations conference on the small-arms trade in 2001. Most nations had done little or nothing. That is a mistake. Countries can take measures to make small arms harder to obtain for illegal groups and to catch and punish illegal traders.
And later in the article:
The United States, which has the best laws of any major weapons exporter, could become a world leader on the issue simply by exhorting other countries to meet American standards. Instead, Bush administration officials have opposed international agreements that would tighten regulations worldwide, arguing, absurdly, that limiting small-arms traffic is a step toward violating the rights of American gun owners.
Well now, one of the stated purposes of the UN Conference on Small Arms Trade was to prohibit the sale of arms to anyone not directly representing the government -- "non-state actors" they called it. This would have applied to the U.S. as well as other countries if they had signed-on to the UN bill. (And never mind the regulation and taxation which the UN wanted to enact too!) What this meant for this country was that unless you were employed by the U.S. government, you couldn't buy a gun!
But it means much more than that. You might say, well, guns are finding their way to "rebel" groups in various countries. You know, the case could be made -- under a sweeping "world law" like this if it happened a few hundred years ago that it would be illegal for the American revolutionaries to obtain firearms to throw off the yoke of England. The same thing would happen today with dissidents in Iran or elsewhere.
At the Conference, the UN alleged that small arms kill 500,000 people a year: 300,000 in war, and another 200,000 from murder, suicide, and accidents. For the sake of argument, let us ignore the fact that most war deaths are caused by governments, which would not be disarmed under the UN program. Also, we will ignore questions about whether the antigun programs would effectively disarm murderers and reduce gun suicides and gun accidents, despite strong evidence to the contrary.[2] Rather, let us presume that the UN prohibition would save all 500,000 lives.
Now, compare those 500,000 annual deaths with the more than 169 million civilians who were murdered by governments from 1900 to 1987, as detailed by University of Hawaii political scientist Rudy Rummel.[3] Given that democid--Rummel's term for mass murder by governmen--is confined almost exclusively to regimes that have attempted to disarm their victims, man--perhaps mos--of those lives would have been saved if everyone owned a working firearm and ammunition. In other words, if we accept the premises of the disarmament lobby, gun prohibition appears to be three to four times deadlier than gun proliferation.
Once we acknowledge that people may legitimately possess small arms in order to resist illegitimate governments, especially democidal governments, then another favorite term of the disarmament lobby, transparency, also appears to promote limiting people's fundamental rights. Applied to individuals, transparency is a euphemism for the abolition of privacy. Applied to gun ownership, transparency means that governments keep track of everyone who owns a gun, and precisely which guns they own. In other words, transparency should be more properly defined as "government registration of private activities." No freedom-loving person would want to register the books that she owns or reads, or her personal medical and health conditions, or her sexual behavior. The same is true of small arms. Transparency has repeatedly been used by governments to facilitate confiscation of some or all gun--in democracies such as Bermuda, Canada, and England, and in dictatorships such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the states conquered by them.
As we in the blogosphere are wont to say, "read the whole thing..."
So with the typically misleading, shoddy lack of homework we've come to expect from the N.Y. Times, the un-named editorial writer never bothers to find out why the U.S. didn't gleefully sign-on with the UN agenda. Not one quote from the administration. Just the usual gratuitous slam of President Bush.
That was pretty much it over at Yahoo this week. Since I've only been working on this post now for about four hours, why stop? Here's some good news from the Illinois State Rifle Association:
The ISRA is applauding a pair of county boards for passing resolutions recognizing the individual right to keep and bear arms. The measures, passed in June by the Shelby and Livingston county boards, affirm that law-abiding citizens have the right to possess and use firearms for lawful purposes.
The passage of the county resolutions is seen as backlash to attempts by the Illinois General Assembly to ban the private ownership of most firearms including target rifles, black powder rifles, and all shotguns larger than 28 gauge. Senate Bill 1195, which calls for this sweeping gun ban, enjoys the strong support of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. As of today, SB 1195 remains alive in the Illinois Senate under postponed consideration.
I have slammed Richard Daley here plenty of times but it's so late and I'm tired so I'm not going to look up the links. Suffice to say that Daley is anti-American, a crumb-bum, and worse. He's disarmed Cook County and now wants to disarm all of the state. Fortunately the folks in the few remaining rural areas aren't having any of it.
And here's one for the InstaPundit. This weekend he should hop into the new InstaCar and head over to the Davey Crocket Days Celebration in Greene County (TN) this weekend:
Starting at 10 a.m. on Saturday and at 12 noon on Sunday, the event will be held at the birthplace of Davy Crockett: the pioneer and political leader, and one of Greene County's most famous sons.
Crockett was born at Limestone on Aug,. 17, 1786.
The Tennessee Frontiersmen will be setting up a pioneer camp in and around the recreated Davy Crockett cabin.
The camp will be designed to create a "living history" exhibition of life as it was lived in the late 1700s, including the native American influences, skills and culture.
The East Tennessee Historical Society will show the "Crockett Rifle."
This is the actual flintlock rifle owned by Davy Crockett and used in the early establishment of his fame as a hunter and marksman.
Well, I guess that concludes this edition of my weekly feature. See you soon. Thanks for stopping by!
Another new addition to my "good friends" blogroll is Sound & Fury, just starting out on that long, addicting path of blogging. Stop by and say "hello." This is the first AOL blog to link to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that... I just didn't know AOL had enabled such a function.
Hey! A new post over at KipperCat! The usually quiet John Hitz checks in with a post about why you should vote. Jim Hart is still MIA...
I'll be busy on this day off trying to get MySQL to work and other stuff. Tonight I'll be preparing "that weekly thing" that I do each Wednesday morning so be sure to check in tomorrow. In the meantime, I hope you all have a really fine day ahead of you and as always -- Thanks for stopping by!
Robert Prather at The Mind of Man has his list of the 50 Greatest Americans up. This list was compiled with the help and suggestions of several other bloggers. I really had meant to participate but somehow the weekend came and went and I forgot... Sorry about that but you should definitely check it out.
Thank God that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter don't appear anywhere on it. And also, thank God, some Black Americans do. I have no idea of the "race" -- I just don't know and having grown up in Teaneck, New Jersey, I tend to think of "race" as meaning "human," -- of the participating bloggers but I do know that bloggers tend to hang with like-minded and one reason I'm trying to get my blogroll diversified is that I would like more women and blacks and others on there.
Anyway, it was nice to see such great Black Americans as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman and others included. Of course, one of my favorites -- Eli Whitney came in at #10. A favorite of mine because he discovered how to distill gin from cotten (that last sentence is called a "joke" folks, lighten'-up...) Maybe that's why I myself tend to "hang" with libertarian bloggers...
Thomas Jefferson came in at number one and he probably deserves it. He is one of three historical figures I wish I could spend an hour with. Another, Thomas Paine, came in at #17. I wish his short book Common Sense was required reading. (In case you're interested, my third would be Jesus Christ because -- let's face it -- Enquiring Minds have sooooooo many questions...)
Anyway, a fascinating post deserving wide readership. The one thing I'd like folks to have added to the list is their reasons "why."
Nobody likes paying taxes but most of us do. In my case it's because I'm allergic to going to jail. Seriously, I've never really thought about not paying them because I've been paying them all of my life and I figure someone has to pay to get the roads plowed and in the case of federal taxes, someone has to support the military we field around the world.
Some folks have -- I presume as a protest -- not paid their federal taxes, claiming it's un-constitutional. One such just got away with it -- at least in criminal court so far. From today's New York Times:
A federal jury in Memphis has acquitted a FedEx pilot on six counts of tax evasion after she testified that she wrote letters asking the Internal Revenue Service what law required her to pay taxes but never received a response.
The verdict, reached on Friday, brings into question the I.R.S. practice of ignoring such questions, which it regards as frivolous because the first words of the Internal Revenue Code are "a tax is hereby imposed."
And:
The acquittal does not relieve Ms. Kuglin of the obligation to pay the taxes. Joe Murphy, the federal prosecutor in the case, indicated in court that the government intended to pursue collection in a civil action. Mr. Murphy said yesterday that he was not allowed to comment on the case outside of court.
I do think taxes are too high. Irregardless of whether the country is running a surplus or deficit I think the federal government (in particular) wastes money at an alarming rate. They pay for things we don't need such as research studies on the sex life of beatles, etc. The government pays too much for almost all the goods and services they contract for. They fund things that should be payed for by the private-sector.
Most importantly, they waste an astonishing amout of money enforcing rules and regulations and laws that themselves are patently "anti-constitutional" or that never should have been enacted because there is no compelling reason why they should be. The war on drugs comes to mind. So does the Department of Education. I'd probably throw-in the BATF as an un-needed bureaucracy.
At the local level, there's no reason for states to maintain large Divisions of Motor Vehicles. Cars could be inspected by service-stations. You should only have to register your car when you first buy it. Most towns and cities have way too many cops and most states have way too many state troopers.
Public schools waste far too much on frivolous activities. To my (you might think demented) mind the only classes that schools really need are ones for Science, Math, English (only! -- This is America, damn-it!) and by English I mean reading, writing, spelling and grammer. Lastly, History of course. Maybe computer science although since most households now have computers at home and most kids are more savvy with computers than their teachers, we probably don't even need that.
Schools do NOT need chess clubs and don't need to field water-polo or soccor teams. Or drama clubs. All of that can be sponsored by private donations from interested parties and run by volunteers. If I hear one more crunchy-granola type trying to raise school taxes by resorting to, "but it's for the children" I'll -- well, I don't know what I'll do...
America (and most European countries for that matter) love rules and regulations and adore micro-managing the day-to-day lives and transactions of their subjects. Part of this -- of course -- is a tort system fed by greedy trial-lawyers that has put every single industry and public agency on the defensive. Is spilling hot-coffee on yourself in a moving car really deserving of millions of dollars in compensation?
Look at the bureaucracy of our health care system. If you were to strip-away the amount of money that goes to frivolous litigation and outrageous judgements, that results in humongous insurance premiums, that results in expensive defensive medical practices, that results in un-wieldy HMO and managed-care intermediaries and on and on -- Folks, we are all paying three-times what we should be for our medical care.
What's the answer? I'm not sure but I do know that in all likelihood -- despite all the prospective politicians' blatherings and promises -- we're probably stuck with it. Oh, there will always be a few folks that refuse to pay their taxes but there will never be a large-scale, coordinated effort by millions of Americans to withhold their withholdings and defy the state or federal governments. It just won't happen.
Because in the end, after a big snow storm, we really do want to see those plow-trucks out there. And we want the highways and waterways maintained. And we want health inspectors and safe drinking water and so on. And -- except for the lefty-liberals who dominate our college campuses -- we want our federal government to have a strong defense that protects us and squashes any mutant regimes around the world that threaten us.
As for the sex-life of beatles and other "pork?" We all loath it when we hear about it -- unless of course that "pork" is headed for our state or community...
In the past few weeks I've been listing some blogs at the top of my "Other Interesting Links" list. I've decided to make this a regular feature. Yes, N.Z. Bear and also (where ever it is each week) Carnival of the Vanities feature self-promoted new blogs. I will do something different.
Each Monday I will purposely seek out beginning or almost unknown blogs or other obscure like entities and give them a mention. They'll have their own space on the blogroll (unless --he said self-servingly-- they blogroll me and then they move to that honored BIG roll) and I will give them 15 minutes (or seconds) of fame. Maybe they'll get 30-40 visits out of it and gain some new readership. I won't let politics or ideology get in the way.
Please understand -- I know I'm not a big thing yet but I am a medium-sized thing and just as my blogfather Glenn Reynolds has been very kind to me and remarkably supportive of new blogs, so I will try in some small way to help the "newbies" out. You can't "apply" for this. I will simply seek out five blogs for you all to check out each week. Some of them will probably not appreciate being linked by me -- sorry, and too bad -- you're on the world wide web and accessible to all...
Tram Town comes, I think, from Australia. Short witty posts but she even links to Tim Blair.
Ivy Jews is self-described as "A distinctive voice on matters political, philosophical, sexual and rabbinical..." and has plenty of meaty posts -- though I'm waiting for more of the "sexual stuff." Yes, I'm so deep.
Randolphlee McIver is an artist. Check his fine work out. He seems oblivious to all else and that's how artists should be. I know -- I come from a long-line of artists and musicians. Just google "Soyer" to prove that.
Crazy Woman will, I suspect, never link or blogroll me but she has a lot to say which always makes a blog interesting and worth visiting. It might be personal but that really is what blogs are all about. Even mine.
Battle Royale is a roleplay game from -- I think -- asia but I really don't know. I like the layout and graphics. You'll have to figure it out yourself.
So from now on, each Monday I'll present five new and probably obscure (to me, anyway) blogs. Things much different than what my regular readers expect. Just to be different. Just to expose you all to who knows what... I'll try to develope some spiffy graphic in the coming weeks. Hey, just giving you all another reason to keep on coming by here. I've said it so many times over the last nine months but I really mean it: Thanks for stopping by!
First up, some kind new bloggers who've blogrolled me.
Rocket Jones (aka Ted) likes H.P. Lovecraft, Robert A. Heinlein, and Orson Scott Card. Can't argue with that folks. You know how much I dig genre fiction including horror and sci-fi. He's an ex-Air Force man but he has an interesting post of bio's
about some of the Americans who've had submarines named after them.
This is just not fair. Yahoo chose to show the U.S. men's water polo team in swimsuits, and tiny ones at that, but they go and show the Brazilian women's water polo team in, basically, burqas.
"Whaaaaaaaa..." I don't know, Mike, it seems like a fine policy to me... But that big damn sign in the picture you link to covers WAY to much of these guys... Yeah, I know, I'm so gay...
Daily Discourse is by Grady Romblad, another newcomer who proudly supports the Second Amendment and you should all go visit him and give him encouragement right now. He has more on gun-grabbing in Maryland following the aftermath of the D.C. Sniper shootings.
Another blogger who's been nice enough to blogroll me is D C Thorton though I discovered it by "googling" myself. Yes, we men do that sometimes... I like a pro-gun guy so check him out.
Onto other things --
My blogson Eric at Classical Values -- and I don't know where-the-heck he is at this moment -- has put up another fine post, this one about the Rush vs. bloggers controversy. As usual, Eric has done his research and thought it all out properly. He makes me proud, but he's so much better than me...
And as I mentioned last week, and glaze over more, yes -- sit about 2 1/2 feet away from your monitor and my "Hubble" masthead takes on a 3-D look...
There are just 14 copies of the Bill of Rights known to exist. One of them just resurfaced again after having passed through many hands (some of them "shady") over the years. From the New York Times today:
They said it was theirs. They said it was stolen. They said more than once that they would never, ever pay to get it back.
And now, 138 years after it vanished, North Carolina officials are poised to reclaim their treasured copy of the Bill of Rights, which had fallen into the hands of Connecticut Yankees.
It is a long story, beginning in April 1865, in the final throes of the Civil War, when a Union soldier lifted the sheepskin document from the North Carolina Statehouse and marched home to Ohio with it on his back. The document, one of only 14 copies, then disappeared, surfacing on a handful of occasions, sometimes decades apart. In March, two Connecticut antique collectors tried to sell it to a museum at a carpetbagger profit. That is when an F.B.I. agent, posing as a philanthropist, swooped in and snatched it.
But who really owns the 27-by-31-inch sheet of history, thought to be worth as much as $30 million? North Carolina? The federal government? The treasure hunters who rediscovered it?
I have my own thoughts on this of course. I don't know what the "statute of limitations" is on stolen property -- not the crime but the stolen item itself. I assume there isn't any. Therefore, irregardless of how North Carolina felt about the document at the time it was taken, it's still theirs and should be returned to them immediately.
That being said, considering the value of a copy of the Bill of Rights -- not monetary -- in historical terms, I think North Carolina, or the federal government might just want to end the whole controversy and if they have too, pony-up the money and return it to its rightful owners.
More importantly though, it would be nice if there were a copy (old or new) of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution posted in every single classroom, every courthouse, every legislative building, every police station, etc., in the United States of America. Just as a solemn wake-up call that these rights and ideals should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when learning our history, deciding (or making) the laws and regulations that burden us, or prosecuting those laws.
That's the real value of these documents -- preserving and reminding everyone of our freedoms and rights.
From the ultra-liberal Detroit Free Press comes this editorial masquerading as a news story about the Michigan lawsuit against gun manufacturers being thrown-out by the court. Here's a quote:
The 1999 Michigan suits sought at least $400 million for the medical and law enforcement costs associated with gun violence. But in a unanimous decision released Friday, the Michigan Court of Appeals threw out the suits, which targeted more than 30 gun manufacturers and dealers.
The three-judge panel of the court found that legislation enacted in 2000 to bar such suits applied to the two filed by former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer and former Wayne County Prosecutor John O'Hair in 1999.
So, the suit wasn't rejected because of the "alleged" merits but simply because (rightly) the state of Michigan had (thankfully) passed a law prohibiting such suits. This editorial article seemed miserable about this and spent most of the column quoting the Brady Bunch. Too fucking bad! And this is why we need a national law against this kind of nonsense. See the post directly below.
Anyway, this is a small victory added to the many that we who support the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment have won and can cheer. But there's a long road ahead and many trial-lawyers trying to get-rich-quick on this litigation. We all need to do our part in emailing and faxing and writing and voting for politicians who are true Americans who support our position. Don't leave it to someone else -- you yourself need to help out and add your voice and support to the brave politicians who believe in this country's great Constitution and Bill of Rights. Any other position is anti-American.
So this stupid new story which is really an editorial in USA Today by ultra-liberal Laura Parker decries the move to grant the gun-industry immunity from frivolous lawsuits. She fumes:
Today, much of the conflict over gun control is focused on the litigation bill that is before Congress.
The bill would stop pending civil lawsuits and prevent future claims by victims of gun crimes against companies that sold, imported or manufactured the weapons used in such crimes. Similar legislation has been passed in 32 states. But opponents say the federal proposal is more sweeping and could prevent the firearms industry from being sued in almost any circumstance.
''I would say the breadth of the immunity granted is unprecedented,'' says Dennis Henigan, legal counsel to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. ''No other industry enjoys the kind of protection from legal actions that this bill would grant the gun industry.''
The Brady Center, which is providing legal assistance in about two dozen lawsuits against the industry, says the bill would stop a lawsuit filed by relatives of those slain in a series of attacks that included the sniper shootings last fall in the Washington, D.C., area.
Parker is one of the most dishonest "reporters" I have ever read. What is really happening with this bill is that you REALLY CAN still sue the gun-maker if the gun was defective or if the gun dealer sold the gun by violating existing laws. She doesn't point that out so she's a liar because she's mis-leading her readers by trying to claim that victims of gun violence would have no recourse. Of course they really do but not against the manufacturer who made the gun and did nothing wrong.
In a stabbing-crime, you don't go after the company that made the knife -- you seek justice from the mutant who committed the crime. Or is (in my opinion) fake-phony-lying-fraud Parker suggesting that Ford should be sued because someone drove a Bronco while drunk and hurt someone?
She blathers:
Litigation against the gun industry has come on the heels of lawsuits that cost tobacco companies billions of dollars in settlements.
She neglects to mention that tobacco -- when used according to instructions -- will hurt the smoker. A gun -- when used according to instructions -- will not.
I'm so lame. I keep saying I'm gonna take weekends off and then I post a bunch of stuff anyway. This is how empty my life is. Anyway, you might like to know -- if you read my post at the end of last week -- that I have installed MySQL on my computers and am now immersed in trying to learn it. Soon... Soon! I might have comments around here and shortly I will have the blogger's political website up -- hopefully in about a week.
If the frickin spammers used valid addresses and could process bounces and remove them, this kind of crap wouldn't happen. But since they are mostly disreputable, shady scum who claim to be doing nothing wrong but act like they are, and since some of the spammers make money selling addresses to others who would spam, and since the marginal cost of sending each additional e-mail is almost free, cleaning up the lists is not something that there's any incentive to do.
Part of my duties for my day-job is spamming... Let me refine that. I work for a medium sized, very high-end furniture company. When they visit our website, or if when placing an order, they wish to give us their email addresses, we collect them. We don't share or sell or trade our email list -- ever. But we have started using it. As the guy who (among other things) designs our HTML emails, I try to keep them far apart -- no more often than once a month -- and make them short, with simple -- no flashing, stupid Java or other tricks -- graphics. And as we have a "customer 'id' for them -- a one click (nothing else required, no form to fill out -- just click and you're off the list) removal link.
We don't buy lists or seek them out. Last week I sent out about five thousand of them to our customers living in the N.Y. area. (We have eleven showrooms.) Just former customers who've given us their email addresses receive our advertising emails. Since their "customer id's" are embedded in the email and recorded when they "click-through" to our website, we know how much response and interest we get. About 8.4% usually, which is considered very good. I'd like to think it's because of my brilliant email design but in fact we have a very loyal, often-repeat clientele. This is the biggest money-generating thing we do on the web. In fairness, I should point out that everytime we send out an email like this, about .6% click to ask us to remove them from the email list.
I know Jay was really referring to the "penis enlargement" and "help transfer funds for an orphaned-dictator's son" and "no prescription needed drugs" type emails. Anyway, not all "spammers" are evil folks. But here's a suggestion -- When registering on any site, make sure you seek out the place almost all provide to OPT-OUT of any contact via email. While my company is still altruistic, most aren't and DO sell your email address or make it available to others. And of course, putting a live-link to your email address -- like I do -- on your website just invites "spiders" and other "crawlers" to harvest your email address and send you spam. I don't mind it and just delete it but if it bothers you then just have a "phonetic" listing of your email address.
My buddy Aubrey Turner has more on this and you will realize that as much as you hate spam -- it does get results.
