So I guess this brings to a close another week of Alphecca. I tend to take weekends off, something I would recommend to all bloggers -- and everyone else in our society. I'll be back on Monday morning with my usual "Weekly Check on the Bias" report about how our gun-rights are being portrayed in the media.

And this is a very good time to mention to all of you that firstly, I need a timely picture for the coming week's chart. And secondly, I need you to send me links to interesting newspaper or internet accounts of bias about gun rights. My email link is in the top left corner. You have to type it into your email program because I don't want internet "spiders and other bots" harvesting it and sending me tons of spam. And lastly, like many folks, I'm hurting financially right now and if you hit my "tip-jar" somewhere on the left sidebar (the picture of the cats) I would most appreciate it. And bless you for that.

My vacation is over so I have to go back to work. If you email me, please be patient for a response, I do try to answer all but now I'm back to the real world and can only answer in the late evening when I get home from work.

Lastly, I thank you all again for visiting me! And for those few bloggers who link to me, my humble thanks too.

To all of you, thanks for stopping by and I'll see you here soon. May God bless and keep you and I hope you have a terrific weekend. Until Monday...

On Oct. 27th, Lamar C. Tillery robbed a bank at gunpoint. Then, he went on a shooting spree in Dudley Square in the Roxbury section of Boston, killing one man, supposedly a friend, and wounding four others.

There's something you should know about Tillery; he should never have been on the street. He had been released by a judge after being held 98 days while prosecutors failed to indict him on a series of armed bank robberies. From the Boston Globe:

A judge dismissed armed robbery charges against Lamar C. Tillery, the accused Dudley Square gunman, two weeks ago, after waiting more than three months for prosecutors to indict a man police called a "career criminal."

Before the charges were dropped, a judge had reduced Tillery's bail, usually a sign, lawyers say, that a judge is growing impatient with delay in bringing a defendant to trial and wants prosecutors to indict a defendant.

And:

Tillery was facing what might have been a lengthy prison sentence on armed robbery charges. The case, prosecutors say, was solid: Tillery's face was on a videotape, his clothes unchanged at his arrest from when he allegedly robbed the same bank two days in a row.

The natural question asked is, if the case and evidence was so good, why couldn't the district attorney's office file charges within a reasonable time period? The D.A.'s office says it was overworked and understaffed.

There are some who will also ask, "how did this guy get hold of another gun?" The answer, of course is that like most criminals, Tillery ignored the seemingly thousands of gun-control laws that Boston and Massachusetts have enacted. And there in puts to rest the nonsense that gun-control prevents crime.

By the way, Tillery already had priors as well as a history of mental-illness and drug-abuse. That didn't stop him from getting guns either.

No, the real failure here is that our judicial system failed. Failed to indict him. Failed to have him serving lengthy sentenses for previous violent crimes. Failed to prevent him from walking the streets to again terrorize the good, law-abiding citizens of Boston.

And now one man is dead and four others are injured. What's needed, to quote a bumber-sticker I've seen is, "Criminal control, not gun control."

By now most of you have heard about the elderly gentleman who used an un-licensed gun to defend himself from a mutant mugger. If you haven't, here's the story from the N.Y. Post:

A pistol-packing, 80-year-old Bronx man was arrested on gun charges after he tried to turn the tables on a mugger who beat him and stole his Social Security money, authorities said yesterday.

Feisty Lester Campbell - a retired security guard who cops said was carrying a hidden, unlicensed .38-caliber handgun - cashed his $262 Social Security check near his home on East 139th Street in Mott Haven at 10 a.m. Monday.

A husky 6-foot-tall mugger followed him into his building and onto an elevator.

As the elevator headed to his floor, the man pounced on Campbell, throwing him to the floor and hitting him in the head and body.

As the thug rifled his elderly victim's pockets for the money, Campbell whipped out his handgun, cops said.

When the elevator opened, the mutant mugger fled. But typically, the nazi-like police of N.Y.C. arrested Campbell for having an unlicensed handgun. In between arresting other people for smoking cigarettes I suppose...

My buddy Dave at Pervasive Light has set up a donation fund for Campbell's defense. So head on over there and let the world know that some of us think it's okay to defend ourselves with or without a silly license.

---

Thanks to Jay Solo, Glenn Reynolds, and others I don't know about, plenty of people have visited here and clicked through to Dave's to contribute over $500. so far (12:45pm) so Mr. Campbell will be taken care of, I'm sure.

(That's more than all the contributions ever made to me over the past year!)

Further update: As of 3:00pm over $700 bucks! Wow. And Dave has been linked to by NRO.

Shortly, I will be starting up another blog dedicated to our love of our pets, our dogs and cats. It isn't ready yet so I'm putting this post up here.

I have a cat that is almost (just a few months shy of) twenty-years-old.

This picture was taken only a month ago. She (Rainbow) is very old for a cat. And, she's getting frail. She can no longer make it up-and-down the stairs to the mud-room litter box so I set up another one in the (un-used) back room for her. All of her fangs are gone. She walks with effort and it's an obvious task for her to jump-up on the couch to lie next to me. But she does it anyway. The devotion of a friend, a pet, is stunning.

I have "ramps" set up for her so she can stroll up to the kitchen counter and my bed. But it's obvious her legs are weak and will shortly fail her. If I have to, I will carry her everywhere. But I also know that there is a point (that every pet owner knows, dreads, but finally reaches) where the quality of life for your friend really sucks. And I know I have to face that moment soon. Possibly a few months from now, maybe a year or two from now, but it is coming. And I'm stuck dwelling on it.

I don't mean for this to be an emotional post but when I look at and think about and lie next to Rainbow I get "misty-eyed." Most of my cats were taken in by me. I corralled them and took them into my home.

SIDELIGHT: My first cat, Jasper, adopted me at work and I took him home. When he died 11 years ago I buried him in my friend's rented land at his green-house business. So he could be next to flowers and things. End of sidelight...

Anyway, Rainbow is the only cat who chose me! I opened up the front door twenty years ago and there was this small kitten who simply rushed in past me. I knew my cat Jasper would never hurt her so I went to work. I came home to two cats who were best of friends. But more than that, Rainbow was -- still is -- my best friend too. She's old, frail, but still vibrant in that she still likes to play, eat, groom herself, and curl up next to me at night.

I know her end is not far off. And like all of you pet owners, I just can't bring myself to say goodbye yet. I refuse. Many religions claim that our pets don't go to heaven. What horrible religions they must be. If I die and go to heaven and God or St. Peter says, "no, sorry, but your pets aren't here" then I will tell him to send me back to the plot of earth. If I can't have my dear cats with me in heaven, then I don't want to be there either. It wouldn't mean anything to me without my best friends.

I know, or at least I hope that God loves Rainbow. I believe that he has a special place in heaven for her. And all dogs and cats. But I have to tell you that I hope that when the time comes that Rainbow must leave this present life, I hope she will love her place in heaven. And I hope she will wait for me to join her. She's the best thing, the best being, the best soul that ever touched my life and I want to be with her and join her and spend all of eternity with her.

I don't know if there's a heaven. Most of you are probably thinking that I'm a jerk. "Look at this religious idiot's blather."

In the mean time, I dread the day I have to say goodbye to her. She's the most decent, loving person/being/pet/whoever that I've ever met. And I never want to be without her. Not for one moment. I hope that someday soon I win the lottery so I can buy a house with land and if Rainbow finally goes, I can bury her next to my front-door so her spirit can always find me.

I wish you the same with your dear pets. Your cats and dogs. Family is wonderful. Spouses and kids are terrific. But there is something about the no-exceptions love that a dog or cat offers and gladly gives to you... Well, all I can say is that I hug and smooch Rainbow every day. And laugh all you want at my religious, fanciful, perfect-universe idea of what is in store for us in the afterlife.
I will never stop thinking about and dreaming about and caring about her. She's not gone yet and maybe this is silly on my part but I worry about the day I have to lay her to rest. Please God, make her live forever. With me.

---

I've received a bunch of very nice comments (over 20) regarding this post (you all might want to check out my other post, About Our Pets from a few months ago.) Mostly they were personal so I'm not going to put them up here but I do appreciate them a lot. I will have Tarazet up and running as a pets only blog within the week. No politics or guns or anything like that on it. I'll keep that kind of messy stuff here. Tarazet will be for you readers and bloggers who love Dogs and Cats. Strictly for and about our joys and such of pets. Tips, advice, consolations and congratulations, pics you send in, heath issues, and more. I'll announce it here on Alphecca when it's up and running...

First an apology to On The Fritz for getting the fine author of that blog's name wrong. It is of course, Fritz! Ghod it's tough coming off drugs... I've corrected the previous mention below. Sorry Fritz.

---

Everything she writes is gold and here's one reason why. Scroll down to "Little Old Lady." Indigos Insights should be a daily read for wit, wisdom, and humaness (is that a word?)

---

Live From the Guillotine is another friend I love to read and she makes this comment on shopping:

...I detest shopping. If I find an item of clothing that looks good I always buy two or three of the thing in a different color to avoid any more shopping...

I hate shopping for clothes. I go to K-Mart or T.J. Max and if I find something I like I buy several of them so I don't have to go shopping again for a year or two. Now, that's the lame single-guy in me but it works. I just didn't know there were some cool women who did that too...

---

She is one of the most interesting people in the blogosphere. Michelle wants to write a novel. But she's frustrated. Go give her some support. Give her more encouragement than a couple of the commenters did. I've been planning to resume my quest to write fiction and I think I will this afternoon.

---

Wyatt at Giant City notices that Yahoo suddenly didn't link to the recent Ann Coulter column on mainstream media. I thank Wyatt for this item.

I also like Coulter. I know that must shock many of you that I visit her site now and then. Anyway, it's strange that Yahoo should selectively leave out this editorial on their Coulter page. Good catch, Wyatt!

---

The New York Times is [here's a news flash] calling for more gun control and demanding that the Democratic candidates stop attacking each other's positions on the subject and concentrate on the bill before the Senate to shield gun makers from frivolous lawsuits. Here's a quote:

It would be of much greater value to the public to hear the primary rivals discuss the imminent threat in the Senate instead of squabbling over their past records. The Senate measure already has 55 co-sponsors, and the National Rifle Association is applying its campaign clout to making it a filibuster-proof majority of 60.

Various amendments are afoot, including admirable attempts to close the infamous gun-show loophole for dealers and to renew the assault weapons ban, which expires next September. House Republican leaders claim that renewal of the assault rifle ban has waning support as the nation grows more terrorist-wary. Such N.R.A. propaganda is no match for what has proved to be an indispensable law. Defeat of the gun makers' immunity bill would be an excellent prelude to renewing the ban.

How exactly has the "assault weapons" ban been "indispensable? It hasn't stopped any crimes because the named guns on this list are rarely used in crimes. The list is based mostly on cosmetics. "assault weapons" are just guns that operate like any other gun.

Kerry and Dean are going after each other on these issues (and Kerry with his phony pheasant shoot photo-op) because they know that a heck of a lot of voters do care about not having more gun control. Gore lost several states because of the issue. In Vermont, outside of a couple of liberal bastions such as Chittenden County (Burlington et al) and random towns such as Woodstock, Norwich, Brattleboro -- you can't get elected to the state house on a pro gun-control stance.

By the way, Howard Dean was wrong to tell a crowd to stop voting "race, guns, God and gays." Well, I doubt they're voting race these days but God, guns, and gays are still three very hot topics outside of the coastal urban areas. Two of these issues are hot-button for me! And why shouldn't people vote their beliefs? If I was in that audience I'd be very resentful for Dean telling me what I should consider important. I'll decide what's important.

Dean seems to be self-destructing of late. His demagoguery is turning me off. I'm still a voter in search of a candidate.

Some thoughts on CBS deciding not to show "The Reagans." When I first heard about this project via Matt Drudge's radio show over the Summer, I shrugged and said, "that's Hollywood."

After all, you can hardly expect the liberal dominated TV and movie industry to produce a movie flattering to the former president who was responsible for ending the cold war and convincing the former Soviet Union that they had no hope of competing -- could never even afford it financially or technologically -- with the United States military. Not to mention planting the seeds that would bring to an end the second largest communistic society in the world.

But I'm an ardent supporter not just of the Second Amendment but the 1st as well. I felt that CBS had the right to air anything they wanted and it was my right not to watch it.

To some extent I still believe that but I do think there are two valid sides to this issue. Let's face it, a news broadcast is supposed to be unbiased, non-partisan. We all know it rarely works out that way but in principle that's the theory. An entertainment drama, which by it's very nature is fiction, isn't. Sitcoms and dramas are vehicles that serve at the leisure of their producers' whims, opinions, and politics. And those opinions and politics are always skewed sharply towards the "left."

One reason I don't bother getting a satellite dish (cable isn't available here) is that I know what Hollywood is going to serve up everynight. If you are of a conservative bent, there is almost nothing to watch during Prime Time on the big four networks that doesn't insult you. (I'm not including sports programming of course.)

Indeed, conservative views are either never presented or if they are, it is in a mocking, denigrating fashion. As an example, I would be hard-pressed to think of a show where the "pro-life" viewpoint is given in anything resembling a respectful manner. To play further as a devil's advocate, I cannot think of an instance where the gay lifestyle is shown as anything other than wonderful. I happen to think that's fine but I can certainly understand that there are those in the potential viewing audience who might at least like their differing view presented as something other than a manifistation of bigotry.

Let's take another example. On the new "Whoopie Show," the son is a black conservative and is the butt of virtually all of Whoopie's jokes and barbs. He himself is portrayed as almost simple and dim-witted. In one episode where President Bush is visiting town (and in fact her hotel) the entire show is given over to 20 minutes of anti-Bush, anti-Republican vitriol. When I first saw "Whoopie" I liked it -- thought it was funny. The fellow who plays the Persian handyman is hilarious and probably deserves an Emmy next year. Whoopie Goldberg is too. But the anti-conservative rhetoric is too much to take on a weekly basis.

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever seen a Republican or other conservative portrayed in a flattering light during Prime Time?

One final example: Religious people -- people with any sort of strong faith -- are completely un-represented or their views are vilified. I'm not talking about touchy-feely shows like "Touched By An Angel" which is really just New Age claptrap. I'm talking about, say, a devout Catholic or Baptist or what have you appearing as a regular character in a sitcom or weekly drama as a normal, thinking person of intelligence, wit, and integrity. I'd have to go back to Father Mulcahy in "MASH."

I suppose there are others but there's always a caveat to them. Fred Sanford's nutty sister. The caricatures of "AMEN." ABC's "Nothing Sacred" showed a Catholic Priest constantly going against his church's doctrine (not that there isn't plenty in it to go against but my point in this post is that the other side of the issue is never shown.)

In one episode only of "West Wing" President Bartlet wrestles with his "faith" after the death of his secretary. Otherwise, instances are rare indeed. I often wonder if it's because Hollywood writers are incapable of understanding the religious perspective. Maybe I'm way off base here since I rarely watch television and I'm currently limited to two channels. I don't know -- I throw it out there for you all to discuss.

Which brings me back ("finally!" some would say) to "The Reagans." CBS had the right to bankroll this movie and show it. But they promoted it as "behind the scenes of the Reagan years in the White House." They didn't label it as fiction, with made-up scenes and dialogue and that it should be viewed as the viewpoint of one writer (of a book on first wives) and that much of it was simple speculation. No, they advertised it as a true-to-life reenactment of history. They never consulted any of the hundreds of people who actually worked in the Reagan White House. They never fact-checked the book or script.

So it might seem wishy-washy of me to say this but I really don't mind that it was pulled from the schedule and sent to cable oblivian. I'm sure it will still get good ratings now that the hype about it has spread all over the media. And some gullible folks will believe everything they see in this movie. Too bad for them but nobody ever over-estimated the television viewing audiences' brain power. It goes against my First Amendment beliefs but then the producers didn't even try to present a balanced depiction.

One last thing: There have been a lot of "docu-dramas" about JFK, not all of them flattering. But most of them focused on sensational, ratings grabbing scandel about drug use and womanizing. The focus wasn't on politics. But more importantly -- unfortunately of course -- JFK is dead. Ronald Reagan isn't. He's lying in a near vegetative state and being cared for by Nancy Reagan with a love and devotion most of us will never have the luck and pleasure to experience.

Ronald Reagan is still alive, barely, and certainly can't speak for himself or defend himself. Nancy is too classy and decent to do so. Except for publishing the wonderful love-letters from "Ronnie," she has remained out-of-sight for all of these years since the presidency. There's something ghoulish about CBS and these producers taking advantage of that fact to create a four-hour bashing.

That doesn't entirely surprise me since many Democrats and liberals took advantage to turn the memorial to Sen. Paul Wellstone into a political rally. And many on the far left took advantage of the 3000 people killed in the World Trade Center to bash and blame America and somehow forgive the evil perpetrators of this terrible event.

In conclusion to what most of you probably think is a really boring post, as a libertarian, I'm sorry CBS decided not to show "The Reagans" but to be honest, it doesn't bother me too much. A conflict of ideals I'm willing to live with.

---

Comments received:

I asked Roger L. Simon for his thoughts and he wrote back:

...I don't have that much to say about "The Reagans" other than the obvious. You don't go saying disparaging things about people dying of Alzheimer's. That's uncool in the extreme. But my guess is any intelligent person couldn't get through ten minutes of that claptrap. If you're interested in movies, go see "Lost in Translation." That's pretty good. And for political movies, go rent "The Battle of Algiers." Calling "The Reagans" a political film is just silly.

And one of my faithful readers wrote:

In reference to your posting about CBS deciding not to show "The Reagans", it's not a First Amendment issue. The government did not have anything at all to do with their decision not to air the show. Instead, it was a lot of negative opinion and public pressure (probably mostly from Republicans, but that's not the government) that decided them to move it to Showtime. That's essentially a commercial decision It really isn't a conflict in ideals, nor does it go against your First Amendment beliefs (which match mine, by the way).

If I'm wrong, and it was official government intervention (I haven't paid much attention to this past some mentions on various blogs) then we should be outraged. However, I don't believe that is the case, and this is no different than the fan reaction to the Dixie Chicks' comments earlier this year. It's a marketplace issue, not a First Amendment problem.

And that's the way it ought to be.

--Roger R.

Mike at Cold Fury has a stronger view.

So does my buddy John at Useful Fools.

As usual, the always anti-gun Christian Science Monitor has an editorial calling for gun control. It takes to task the Democratic candidates for not coming out full steam for more legislation and restrictions on firearms. Here's a quote:

Top Democratic candidates, however, risk losing support from blacks and other elements of their liberal base by evading the party's past commitments to reducing violent crime through gun-control measures that don't constrain hunting.

None of them, for instance, endorses Mr. Gore's call in 2000 for licensing new handgun owners. And Mr. Dean fudges the issue of more federal controls by saying any new gun laws should be up to the states - hardly a sound policy when guns easily travel across state lines.

Congress still needs to put constraints on gun-show sales and extend the 1994 ban on some semiautomatic weapons, which will expire next year. It must also defeat a bill by Senate minority leader Thomas Daschle (D) that would shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits.

The whole issue of gun control has evolved over the past few decades to incremental steps. Many voters will support reasonable, step-by-step gun measures. And not all stereotypes are true: Gore did win in Michigan, a strong gun-owning state.

I've always thought that blacks, like gays, ought to embrace gun ownership. Many (not all of course) live in high-crime areas and should welcome the means to defend themselves and their families. Anyway, the fact is that gun controls don't reduce violent crime. New York City, Washington D.C., California, Chicago, et al, all have repressive gun control laws and all have staggeringly high violent crime rates.

England and Australia have taken the law-abiding citizens' guns away and all are experiencing drastic rises in violent crimes.

Meanwhile, guns travel across state lines by criminals, and they will always ignore any state or federal laws passed. Which is why, when the CS Monitor suggests "step-by-step gun measures," those steps always lead to a total ban on gun ownership. That's what they're really calling for. As the Three Stooges (one of whom probably wrote this editorial) used to say, "step-by-step, inch-by-inch." That slippery slope.

Lastly, Gore won Michigan inspite of his anti-gun stance because union-members responded to his support of them and there were also enough urban voters to counteract the rural vote. Gore lost his own home state of Tennessee (and others) because there weren't.

Don Watkins at Anger Management is starting up a SURVIVOR: The Blogosphere Edition. I'd enter but I could never keep up with all the young whipper-snappers.

Heck, I can't even finish Dean's questions in a timely fashion. Tomorrow, I swear. This vacation thing has me being really lazy. By the way, he thinks Gephardt is the Democrat's only hope. Interesting. But Gephardt is so anti-gun that I could never vote for him.

---

In the meantime, Eric Scheie is asking the question of what could be considered worse than people knowing you are gay. As he points out, it's even worse if you're straight but folks think your gay. Read it.

---

Well, as crappy as I think the weather is here, Jason has it even worse.

Excuse me while I bitch about the weather. Vermont (and all of Northern New England including New Hampshire and Maine) is very pretty most of the year. But November is simply disgusting. It is cold, dark, sleety, and just plain nasty. The days are cold and gray and the skies are always overcast and it's always raining at 38 degrees. This is the perfect month to commit suicide.

In December, things get better: It's cold and there's snow to brighten things up (and help you see the road and the moose and deer about to leap in front of your car.) Christmas lights are up. And best of all, on December 21st, the days start getting longer!

January and February are low percipitation months so the skies are crystal blue. See, I don't care what the tempurature is as long as there aren't effing clouds in the sky. I hate gray, overcast weather. These months are clear and nice; granted very cold but I can put up with that as long as the sky is blue. It's much easier to warm yourself up in the cold months than it is to cool yourself down during hot ones. And by February, if you stand in the Sun, you feel it's warmth.

By March, you have days approaching 40-50 degrees. Yes, plenty of snow still but with the warm sun days, it melts quickly.

Nothing sucks like November. I'm in it now and I feel like putting a bullet through my head. No, of course I never would. I made a promise to every one of my cats that I would always be there to take care of them. I will. But Ghod! Today is like 36 degrees right now, billowingly overcast skies, rain and sleet, the trees are barron of leaves, aaaarrrrggghhhhh... It's so effing ugly out.

The big propane heater in my living room (the only source of heat in the house) is on full blast making it toasty. I've been invited to a meeting tonight of a new, local "gay meeting place" in West Leb but I'm not going. It's too crappy out and I refuse to leave the comfort of my home.

And I have a full line-up of comfort foods today. I'm going to make lunch in a few minutes and it will be a PILE of scrambled-eggs and sausage and I'll half-cook a baked potato and then continue to cook it in the sausage-grease with some cut-up onions and make home-fries. And I'll have a drink or two. What the hell, I'm on vacation. I will kvell on this for awhile while listening to The Best of Santana. I'll play chess against the computer and then read a few issues of my sci-fi pulps. I'm so far behind (about two years) that I have all the reading material I need for months to come.

Now for dinner, you might think less of me but I really love hot-dogs and I have a package of Jordan's Ball Game Treats (absolutely the best tasting dogs in the world and I've eaten over a hundred different brands) and buns and a can of chili and a bottle of mustard and another of sweet-relish and I am good to go.

Then, just to make sure my gout really understands the depths of my November depression, I am making a can of Campbell's Bean with Bacon soup. Yes, go ahead and goof on me for liking the condensed soups of Campbell's. I love them. And I've tried the "Healthy-Choice" ones (they suck) and Progresso (they suck) and I don't care how lowly you think I am now. I love Campbell's Bean with Bacon, their Cream of Broccoli, and especially (HEAVEN!) their tomato soup. Think what you will of me.

To top it all off, I have a half-gallon of Breyer's Chocolate Ice cream. (No, I won't have the whole thing but I suspect that a large portion of it will disappear.) Rainbow Cat likes it too (and don't give me that bullshit that cats can't eat chocolate because Rainbow has for her whole life and she's almost twenty-years-old.)

Then, I will watch the second part of Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe on PBS. A superb scientist and his view of our universe. And THEN I will curl up with three big fat cats and read some more of my sci-fi pulps. Warm and cozy and no thoughts of tomorrow. But I'll get hungry again and...

For my late-evening snack I have a fresh jar of Skippy Peanut Butter and a jar of Smucker's Strawberry Jam. The locally baked butter-bread is waiting. And the bottle of Smirnoff. Life is good, at least for today. I might also munch on some left-over Halloween candy since I have three un-opened mini-Snickers bars bags. I'll worry about tomorrow... You know, tomorrow...

Have a great day everybody. I've got mine mapped out and I'm starting it NOW. The only thing missing is someone to share it with. That's my loss but maybe some day... See you sometime soon...

One of the nice things about having a week off is that I have time to catch up on the good friends on my blogroll.

Before I go on though, last week I mentioned The Hobbesian Conservative but put up the wrong link. Sorry about that, Greg, but I've only just noticed it. I've just fixed it and as I said last week, this is very good blogger you should all be reading. I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't always verify the links after I've put them up. My bad... Fortunately, the mistakes are rare but please do email me when I screw-up.

---

Fritz is the proprietor of On the Fritz, and besides having a very interesting blog, he's been kind enough to link to me several times. He has a poll about urban survival kits. That is, what do you carry around with you that could help you in an emergency? It gave me pause and you would do well to read, participate, and think about it as well. I put Fritz on my "other interesting links" blogroll and hope to move him to my "good friends" blogroll shortly. A blog well worth reading.

---

Dave Tepper at Interrobang is one of the best but least mentioned bloggers around. Here are two posts you should read. First of all, I mentioned yesterday that Ellen Goodman thinks the bill protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuits is a first. Shame on me -- of course (as even NBC's Today Show pointed out this morning) the HMO and Managed-Care industry enjoys protections. The issue is coming before the Supreme Court and Dave has more including the PDF of a court decision saying that folks can sue and this might impact the gun maker shield bill the president is about to sign.

Below that, he has a post about personal hygiene that is dear to my heart. Folks, I am messy, but not dirty. There's a difference. I have a phobia against barfing and about 15 years ago I found out that most stomach viruses are passed by shaking hands, doorknobs (the way the Norwich virus was passed amongst cruise-ship passengers) and such. I wash my hands about 30 times a day. I shower every morning and every evening if I'm going out. Tobacco stains not-withstanding, I brush my teeth twice a day and floss and would do all of it more if I could. I have trained myself to go to the bathroom (you know -- number two) before I shower and go to work. If I'm killed in a car-accident at least I will be wearing clean underwear. I agree completely with Dave's post here.

Can I just add one more thing? Sex is sooooooo much better when the participants understand and practice bodily cleanliness. This is one reason why I think all guys should have sex with another guy at least once in their lives: So they understand that they don't "shit roses" and just because they took a shower in the morning doesn't mean they will smell like butterfly-wings later that same evening when they ask their girl-friend to "go down" on them. Ask any woman. Most guys just don't get it. Dave does.

---

As I'm on vacation, I understand just how he is feeling...

---

Last week I mentioned String Theory and Brian Greene's PBS special "The Elegant Universe." Greg Ransom at the always excellent PrestoPundit links to this interview with him in Scientific American. Interesting reading, thank you Greg.

You know, I use ellipsis ("...") almost as much as Maureen Dowd. That's not a good thing to emulate and probably shows laziness on my part...

---

Chez at On General Principle has a thoughtful post on the balance between the U.N. concepts of "one nation, one vote" and the conflict it raises about "might makes right." I agree with his conclusions.

---

Ted at Rocket Jones recalls a story from Basic Training. Be careful what underpants you wear...

---

Kelley at Suburban Blight has a round-up of the Dahlonega Blog Meet-up (aka Jawja bloggers) including the truth about the bottle upside the head of Acidman. By the way, she says Rob is a gentleman. Drat, there goes my whole image of him;-}

By the way, Acidman has pictures, including this one. What a crew! He has links to more coverage.

I like where I live but there are so few bloggers up here that I never get to meet any of them and there are never any "meet-ups." Maybe I should move to Georgia or Tennessee. Now I'm lonely...

And again I'm tardy in mentioning it, Jay Manifold's Friday QuagWatch is up. But you probably knew that already since you should all be reading the blogosphere's science writer anyway.

---

And my buddy Robert Prather is hosting the latest edition of Carnival of the Capitalists.

---

And my friend David Strain has the latest installment of Sudden Fiction.

---

And don't forget the Watchers of Weasels!

Another week, another edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias. I'm on vacation this week and have been a little tardy putting this together. It's tough to put down the pizza and beer and do some writing... I'm tempted to say this is a short one but I just checked and it runs about six pages...

Anyway, Each week I read through the stories, editorials, and op-eds linked to on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page. I rate them as pro, anti, or neutral in regards to the issue of gun control and Second Amendment rights.

There was a major shift this week towards the "anti-gun" side with a slew of new links concerning attacks on Howard Dean's gun stance, and the N.R.A.'s "enemies list." As often happens at Yahoo, the story or op-ed might be two weeks old but Yahoo only linked to it in the past week, hence all the bad news for our side coming at once.

The only bright spot this week is the terrific picture of The Fuz (long "U") from WeckUpToThees with his speedgoat taken a couple weeks ago. This is his second contribution to Alphecca's series of charts and I thank him.

Three weeks ago I mentioned the Bob Herbert editorial in the New York Times which "broke" the story of the NRA Enemies List (which -- by the way -- has been moved since I gave the link a few weeks ago and now you can only reach it via other -- non-linkable links, if that makes sense) I pointed out that while I thought it was a bit silly on the NRA's part, it was nothing unique and I gave links to "enemies" lists maintained by Planned Parenthood and the California schools systems as examples from "the left." Well, the story had legs and the entire liberal press and the Brady Bunch have had a field-day with it.

Last Week I mentioned that the (I'm tempted to say "has-been") actor Dustin Hoffman was demanding to be included on that list. I guess when you haven't starred in a hit in awhile you have to resort to grandstanding to get some attention. Hoffman is currently appearing in the film adaptation of John Grisham's Runaway Jury, the anti-gun, anti-gun maker movie not doing that well at the box office.

And while I'm perfectly happy that he exercises his First Amendment rights, taking out a full page ad in newspapers is a bit much. Maybe I need that list after all just so I can avoid the more boorish in Hollywood.

Now columnist Ellen Goodman is whining in the Boston Globe that she didn't make the list either. Gosh Ellen, maybe that's because no one reads you or cares what you think... So then she concludes this op-ed with some lines she hopes will bate the N.R.A. into adding her to the list. Let's take a look:

Outrage One: The NRA wants to make the gun industry the only one in America that you can't sue for negligence. The families of the sniper victims, for example, couldn't even sue the infamous Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, which "lost" over 200 weapons, including the Bushmaster used in shooting 16 people.

Outrage Two: The NRA wants assault weapons back on the streets. The ban is due to expire next September, and the NRA doesn't want it renewed.

Do I qualify yet? Well, try this one: I don't even think someone should be able to shoot his wife, go to jail, get out, cross the street, buy a gun at a show, and go back and take another shot. There, that should do it.

It's G-O-O-D-M-A-N.

Actually, Ellen, it's S-C-H-M-U-C-K. Let's take her "outrages" in order.

Aside from the obvious cliche that someone had to be first in trying to contain the outrageous suits attempting to win (lottery style) tons of money from innocent companies, her contention that this bill [protecting the gun industry and their distributors from frivolous suits] would prevent negligence suits is flat-out wrong. Here's the direct stipulations from the actual bill itself, section 5, of allowable actions:

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(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.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- In subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows or should know the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to use the product, and in fact does use the product, in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.

This is about the fourth time I've posted this part of the bill. If I could find the text of the bill then certainly an alleged "journalist" such as Goodman could too. But she chose not to, or not to pay attention to it because -- why? In this day and age of blogs being sued by other blogs and big media and such -- I will only suggest that in my opinion, which I am allowed by the First Amendment to state, I think Goodman didn't want to quote or refer to the actual provisions of the bill in question because it didn't suit her agenda.

Oh come on Jeff! Okay, either she is stupid and un-informed, or she is a liar. That's my opinion.

The fact is that the DC Sniper Victims absolutely can and frankly, could sue the Bull's Eye Shop under the provisions of this bill because they (the dealer) "lost" 150 guns -- failed to account for them and had previously documented "sloppy" bookkeeping and such by the BTAF. There was (un-reported) negligence involved. I have written about this extensively exactly a year ago. What IS important is that the manufacturer, Bushmaster, did nothing wrong. They sold product to a dealer in a totally legal fashion. The dealer had a valid FFL license. To NOT sell to them would have violated other laws!

Her second "outrage" concerns the misnomer "assault weapons" and the bill due to expire shortly. Ellen, honey, all weapons, whether a gun or a knife or a baseball bat are "assault weapons" when used by some mutant criminal against someone. The weapons listed in this silly "Clinton Bill" differ from other guns only in cosmetics. "They look scary so we'd better ban them."

What if we applied the same standard to kitchen knives? Well, that carving knife looks scary so we'd better ban it. It certainly has no use in peeling a grapefruit. But Ellen, there is no difference between the meat-cutting knife and the fruit-paring knife.

Her third false contention is that someone convicted of murder can get out of jail (which I think would be a failing of our judicial system) and go to a gun show, buy a gun, and continue shooting their victim.

Ellen, dear innocent, uninformed Ellen: Gun shows have tables of guns put out by gun dealers -- licensed by the federal government. They are required by law to run a background check on all buyers. If a convict tried to buy a gun from them he (the convict) would be denied. Now! There are folks at gun shows who are not dealers. I suppose they could do a "person-to-person" transaction in the parking lot without a "Brady Check" but it is no more a reflection on gun shows than anything else occuring away from the show.

You're at a rock concert. Someone in the stands or parking lot offers to sell you a "joint." Is the promoter or the performers somehow guilty of malfeasance? Is there any procedure or law that could have prevented it?

The widely touted "gun show loop hole" is something that cannot be prevented. They (the individuals) could conduct their business in the parking lot, or across the street, or down the block. Goodman has no idea what she's talking about. And if she claims that she does, then she is a liar in the journalistic sense because she has chosen to ignore reality and truth in order to further her liberal, anti-gun agenda.

Another story about all of this, weirdy listed under "Oddly Enough" by Reuters, says:

Hoffman's name has now been added to the list which reads like a Who's Who of American business, culture and religion and which ranges from the American Jewish Congress to A&M Records, ABC News and talk show queen Oprah Winfrey.

There are a lot of people and companies and organizations in this country that do support the Second Amendment and even the NRA and would also comprise a "who's who" of America. You'll see it soon since the NRA is asking folks to sign-up for that as well.

Another big issue this past week was questions (or more correctly, attacks) against Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean about his stance -- which as been changing -- regarding gun control.

Last month Rhode Island Democrat Patrick Kennedy attacked Dean. Now, that haughty, French looking Democratic candidate John Kerry -- who served in Viet Nam, by the way (with apologies to James Taranto) -- says in this Reuters piece:

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator who spoke in a barn before heading out for an afternoon of pheasant hunting on an Iowa farm, criticized a decade-old Dean statement to the NRA that he opposed restrictions on the private ownership of assault weapons.

"When I go out there and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault weapon," Kerry told reporters. "I believe in the right to hunt and be sportsmen but I don't believe we should ever have supported the sale of weapons of war in the streets of America."

Oh yes, Kerry going "pheasant hunting." I sure believe that -- like Gore going duck hunting... I wrote about Kerry's phoniness last June. I also pointed out that he supports the Million Mom March including:

* "cooling off" periods and background checks;
* registration and licensing of handgun owners;
* safety locks for handguns;
* a limit of one-handgun purchase per month per person;
* enforcement of current laws.

He is a fake, phony, fraud. He is the gun owner's worst enemy. Now -- I am also disgusted with Dean for abandoning his principles and supporting the (Democratic) Party line on gun control. Suddenly (as a national candidate) he is endorsing the so-called "assault weapons" ban and closing the fictitious "gun show loophole." But for Kerry to somehow claim the high-road in all of this and hope to appeal to the average American is just preposterous.

Hell will freeze over before Kerry gets my vote. Dean is seriously on the verge of being added to that list.

Here's a strange story just linked to minutes ago as I write this. From Law.com:

Attorneys for a company involved in the gun industry did not forfeit the work product privilege when they vouched for the legality of the company's activities and claimed its practices were cleared by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

Overturning a lower-court judge, the 2nd Circuit said the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office is not entitled to receive notes and other work product simply because the attorneys volunteered the information to prosecutors.

The decision in John Doe Co. v. United States concerned a grand jury investigation into whether the company had violated the country's firearms laws.

I'm not sure what this is about and I will have to rely on the legal-eagles in the blogosphere to comment on it. It's also too late to make my chart but I guess you could add a check-mark to the "pro" category.

So, this all was what was happening on Yahoo. There were some other interesting stories on the web.

Via Glenn Reynolds comes this post about how (via SlashDot) the latest version of Symantic's "Internet Security" blocks all pro-gun sites on the web. This is what happens when liberals rule software companies. They assume their position on political events is somehow the only valid position. And when you think about it, isn't this the problem at Yahoo? They usually only link to negative stories and editorials about guns. In my memory, they have never linked to a positive story about the benefit of using a gun to prevent a crime.

They certainly didn't link to this story in the Tampa Tribune:

For the third time this week a would-be victim in Tampa turned the tables on an attacker.

Late Thursday night, the 63-year-old victim of an attempted carjacking pulled a .357-caliber Magnum on his assailant and fired, critically wounding him, officials said.

The victim of the attempted carjacking, Benjamin Lee Tate, is no stranger to intruders at Engine Rebuild Specialists, his east Tampa business. Tate's forceful retaliation Thursday was his third in three years, Tampa police Capt. Bob Guidara said.

Tate shot two burglars - one in 2000 and another in February, Guidara said. Both suspects survived. No charges have been filed against Tate, whose business is in a high- crime area in east Tampa, Guidara said.

Folks, slowly but surely, the mutants out there will get the message that an armed citizenry can't be intimidated or attacked without suffering consequences. Allowing the law-abiding people to defend themselves will punish and eventually deter criminals. We see that reflected in crime statistics all around the country. Bravo to Benjamin Lee Tate!

By now most of you have seen the Access TV film footage of the L.A. gunman's attack on his lawyer. this happened outside a courthouse. A disgruntled mutant felt his "trust fund administrator" was stonewalling him and he attacked her attorney.

It's horrible viewing as this lawyer is shot several times while trying to place a tree between himself and this psycho. Fortunately, the lawyer is doing okay and the mutant has been captured.

I don't mean this in anyway flippant but (aside from the obvious question of what kind of wimpy revolver was he using) is that in all the TV and film footage, there are obviously a lot of folks standing around watching this terrible event and yet NOT ONE OF THEM came to this poor man's rescue. They stood there as if watching a Hollywood movie being filmed. The footage even caught -- as the gunman "calmly" walked away -- a policeman staying back and not intervening.

Finally, an off-duty deputy tackled the bastard shooter. Only then did these California liberals jump into action and surround the guy.

And so, to use this horrible event as an example, if you can't count on your fellow humans to help you (and NO ONE rushed up to help this injured lawyer, even after the gunman walked away) and you can't count on the cops (one of whom stood lamely by while all of this went on) then who the hell can you count on?

Yourself. Arm yourself. And use that right to protect and defend yourself. If this lawyer had been carrying, he might have stolen a moment to draw his weapon (hopefully something a little more substantial than what the mutant attacker was using) and sent this bastard's skull sailing in pieces into the next county.

---

Meanwhile, around the blogosphere...

My friend Matt Rustler at Stop the Bleating sends along this link to a story about how "safe gun storage laws" sometimes work against you. Or in this case, 14-year-old Jessica.

My buddy Marc at Laylines has this story about cops and an "assault weapon attack." There's almost something funny about it...

Since the start of his blog, I've been one of Publicola's biggest boosters. He has an interesting post on how he got started in his worthy quest to defend the Second Amendment on the web.

The Spoons Experience has it exactly right regarding the Halloween costume folks who brought toy guns into the Capital building last week...

Kevin at The Smallest Minority has the story of an "assault weapns" manufacturer bringing jobs to a small town in Florida. Oh, it's sort of a fisking of the newspaper account which presents it in a different manner...

And lastly, James Rummel at Hell in a Handbasket relays the link from Jackalgirl (in some language I don't understand) of this story about a "vampire hunting kit" auctioned off. It included -- of course -- a pistol and I assume silver bullets. I slather almost everything I eat in garlic and never worry about vampires. Except for the governmental, IRS types. They'll suck everything you own out of you.

---

Finally, way late, this concludes this edition of the "Weekly Report." As always, I thank you for your visits and linkage. Thanks for stopping by!

Just a reminder that if you stumble across an interesting gun story, please send the link to me. Also cool pictures and blog posts. Anything you'd like to see mentioned. Thanks!