Return to
Alphecca Home

So Democrats just got stomped like narcs at a bikers' rally; what to do... what to do... Senetor Tom Daschle is, as usual, concerned. But now Rep. Richard Gephardt is resigning as Minority Speaker of the House because he wants to concentrate on running for President because he heard that hell might freeze over and give him a chance at it. Suddenly, a vacuum equal to that in a can of Libby's Peas has opened up in the House leadership.

Now thoughtful Democrats -- in between pointing fingers of blame at who might have cost them the elections of 2002 -- might speculate that perhaps they needed a serious agenda, a well thought out counter to the message that Republicans were giving. That perhaps they (the Democrats) ought to have something to actually offer voters as an alternative to Republican candidates in terms of ideas and policies. The one thing this just-past election made clear was that extreme ideas on either side weren't cutting it this time around. The Republican winners were mostly moderates. The Democratic losers were mostly leftist extremists (such as Kennedy, Mondale, et al.)

What to do... What to do... Oh! Of course! Let's elect the most extreme leftist, ultra-liberal (from ultra-left-wing-fascist San Francisco) to be (minority) leader of The House. That should bowl-over the voters. We could wow them with bans on cars, fire-places, barbecues, non-organically grown coffee, and outlaw discussion of anything we disagree with. We could euthanize smokers (for their own good) and outlaw God, unless he's that peaceful Islamic God, and pass laws to regulate every fucking aspect of everyone's lives, or at least have our trial lawyers litigate them all into submission. Gosh! Those clueless moderates inhabiting the vast sort-of blank-middle of the country will FLOCK to our side and join the forces of good and self-righteousness. The future belongs to us! Didn't Terry McAuliffe just tell us on November 6th that we were "perfectly positioned for the 2004 elections?"

Think I'm exagerating? Here's AP reporter David Espo in today's Washington Post:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California secured victory in the race for House Democratic leader on Friday when her only formal rival conceded defeat and offered an endorsement.

Pelosi, 62, a liberal who represents San Francisco in Congress, will become the first woman to lead either party in either House of Congress when she is formally elected next week to replace Rep. Richard Gephardt.

And after being accused of being to far to the "left" by Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford:

Pelosi, judged by party officials to be the front-runner in the race, sidestepped the attack and turned her fire on the GOP instead. "We must draw clear distinctions between our vision of the future and the extreme policies put forward by the Republicans," she said in a statement. "We cannot allow Republicans to pretend they share our values and then legislate against those values without consequence."

Republicans support Israel, the war against terrorism, law and order, support for the beleaguered family and their taxes. Nancy Pelosi doesn't. She supports a big-fat government which intrudes into everyone's lives. That condemns Israel, that placates Iraq (she was one of the few who voted against support for the President's plan to neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction.) Pelosi represents everything alien to the average American. She represents everything extreme and anathema to ordinary middle-class folks. She has never met a trial-lawyer with a plan to file suit to force legislation, that she didn't embrace. She is exactly what the voters of this just-past election rejected.

And so for the next two years Americans will be treated to her blathering spectacle on TV, on Meet The Press, on the 6 O'Clock news, in sound-bites. In our face, everywhere representing the Democrats' positions. McAuliffe is right; they are perfectly positioned -- to continue to alienate the average voter and insure that Republicans continue to win in 2004 and beyond. And you know what? That works for me!

Just a quick note that I've been adding more links to GREAT BLOGS on the left-side column under More Great Links.. Since I am the newcomer and interloper here, I'm sure you all are familiar with them already but if not, check them out. I wouldn't have listed them if I didn't like them a lot! If you came here via a link, you're in the archive and should click "Return to Alphecca Home" to get everything. And hopefully you'll "favorite/bookmark" me and return again and again... I appreciate your visit.

I'm now going to work on some of the OTHER parts of my blog and will return tomorrow.

You might remember that last week I started a new weekly feature checking on the bias exhibited by which articles are posted on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page and every week will provide a running total for your pleasure. I'll only count articles that are shown, not archived. Articles will be counted from the following catagories listed: News stories, Opinions & Editorials, Feature Articles, and Audio files. Here is the current tally:

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Articles
Sample Date	Pro More Gun Control Or Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment
11/7/02	17	4
10/26/02	21	4

Granted, this is subjective and unscientific, but I think you'll be able to spot the trend... Perhaps other blogs could keep bias-tables on different areas of the news.

Regular visitors know that Alphecca employs a huge staff of photo-journalists. Because sometimes the real story can only be told through the lens of a camera. Here then are a few images taken after the results of Election 2002 began to sink in...


Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, now an Independent (heh heh) viewing his new office at the Senate


Jim Jeffords (I) joins the members of his new committee assignment


DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe in an unguarded moment


The staff of TAPPED

---

New to Alphecca? We spare every no expense to bring you the world! Check out some other great moments captured by our staff photographers in our archives.

---

11/06/02 8:30 AM by Jeff

In total denial

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe was interviewed this morning on NBC and still doesn't get it. Granted, his job is to smile and try to put a happy-face-on at a funeral pyre but STILL! First, he brings up all the money GW Bush raised, including special interest money from the Pharmaceutical Industry; he's blaming the losses on Smith Kline Beechum...

When finally asked what the Democrats themselves did wrong, he replied that he didn't think they did ANYTHING wrong, they just couldn't get their message out. Yo! Terry baby! Get off that LSD! What message? The Democrats HAD no message other then fear and opposition. They offered no alternative solutions for the economy, or the battle against terrorism, or for anything else. Folks, McAuliffe is toast. He's already talking about the 2004 elections and "how well positioned" the Democrats are.

Did somebody say, "clueless?"

Well, I'm off to work. More tonight or tomorrow.

---

11/06/02 1:00 AM by Jeff

OK, one last thing

I'm so "up" about the National results with the Republicans doing well, retaining the House and possibly regaining control of the Senate. And I'm watching all the grim faces on NBC. Brokow, Russert, etc., all obviously disappointed by the night's results. And all of the Democratic big-wigs they interview suddenly talk about the President's coat-tails, and this and that and they blame it all on everything except what they should be blaming it on: The Democrats had virtually NO message. None! They had no real positions except that they were opposed to whatever the Republicans were in favor of. No alternatives economically, or foreign-policy wise, or any-wise. They had nothing to offer people and yet act shocked, shocked! that the voters have rejected them. I can't wait to read their apologists' op-eds tomorrow morning.

Last word for Vermont... is that Douglas has the slightest of leads over Racine in the Governor's race. Only one percent. Still a lot of votes to count.

Night all!

---

11/06/02 12:15 AM by Jeff

Final report for tonight

A brief word about the National results... Republicans are holding their own. I'm sure the Democrats have their lawyers lined up to file suits for all the disenfranchised, disrespected, discombobulated voters... That's all the left has left, election by litigation. *sigh*

Meanwhile in Vermont the Governor's and Lt. Governor's races will be decided by the state legislature. The latest numbers show Jim Douglas (R) leading Doug Racine 45% to 42% for Governor. Tom Hogan trails with 10%. In the race for Lt. Governor, Brian Dubie (R) is leading Peter Shumlin 40% to 33% with Anthony Pollina third at a very respectable 25%. For those just checking in, here in Vermont you must win over 50% of the popular vote or else the winner is "elected" by the state legislature.

So what's happening in the state legislature? The Republicans are barely holding onto the State House and the Democrats are holding onto the State Senate. Overall, the Replublicans should probably (but not certainly) retain overall control but we'll know more tomorrow. In any event, even if the Democrats assume overall control, they then have to vote in the Republican winners (Douglas and Dubie) OR renege on their promise to elect the winners of the popular vote. This will all happen in January. Should be fun!

Bernie Sanders (I) was easily re-elected to the U.S. Congress with 64% of the vote. Locally, unfortunately, William Sorrell (D) won re-election as Vermont State Attorney General. He is a true putz. On the bright side, Elizabeth Ready (D) retains her post as State Auditor. She is a good friend to gun-owners (not that her position has anything to do with gun laws...)

So that's the story so far from downtown Fairlee, VT. See you all in the morning.

---

11/05/02 10:30 PM by Jeff

Republicans doing well!

Look, it's early, but Republicans are doing better then expected nationally. I'm not going to try to cover national races because there are plenty of bloggers doing that already. I will just mention (since I live near the N.H. border) that at this early stage John Sununu (R) is the declared winner (over Jeanne Shaheen (D)) in the N.H. Governor's race and Benson (R) is besting Fernald (D) in the race for Senator.

In a brief aside:

Anyone who lives in Vermont knows that CVPS (the alleged power supply company) sucks. CVPS is a garbage company run by garbage-can people. The power is flickering on and off, which means there must be a light-shower about 50 miles away. I have GOT to get a UPS. End of mini-rant.

And good news in Vermont...

Jim Douglas (R) is leading Doug Racine (D) by about five points. Not enough -- yet -- to avoid a January legislature vote, but enough to justify the legislature voting him Governor. But I'm not sure Chittenden County has been counted yet. And Brian Dubie (R) is easily beating Peter Shumlin (D) for Lt. Governor but Anthony Polina (I) is doing very well (25%) so this race will also probably be decided in January.

However, it looks like Republicans will definitely lose house and senate seats but still retain control. I'll have a wrap-up next hour.

---

11/05/02 9:40 PM by Jeff

Speaking of paper ballots...

...which I wasn't, but Glenn Reynolds has lately... Vermont is a poor state. Most towns are small and can't afford voting machines. Most towns use paper ballots. Fairlee, my town, does as well. In the 2000 election, I arrived at the poll (there is no plural!) ten minutes before closing. I was roped in (it's a small town) and sworn in to help count the ballots. The paper ballots were divied up, and in groups of two, one would read the ballots and one would tabulate. There really wasn't room for error. Out of the some 600 ballots cast, a couple were "spoiled" because the voter did silly things such as checking-off every candidate, or voting for none, etc. Then, sum-totals were taken, re-checked, and all was well. But this just isn't possible to implement in large cities and states. Yes, you could use paper ballots, but look at the mess in Florida in 2000 with punch cards, or now... Say someone doesn't press hard enough with the pencil... There's no point to this anecdote other then in the end, it really is up to the voter him/herself to make sure they fill out the ballot correctly, or understand and use the voting machine correctly. Obviously if the machine is defective then other problems are involved but the voter must check their results, their votes.

The voters have some responsability for having basic intelligence in casting their votes. They have to stop feeding the lawyers, they have to stop playing the perpetual victim.

---

11/05/02 9:15 PM by Jeff

More news

...Not that it's any surprise, but the Vermont AP press reporters are declaring Bernie Sanders (I) the winner. Look, I have already blathered plenty that I disagree with Bernie about a lot of things, and his record on the 2nd Amendment is not good, but his opponent Bill Mueb (R) was an immature piker who did terrible in the Sunday debate, and is just not ready for prime time. And Bernie HAS been very good for seniors, veterans, and farmers. Sometimes you have to go with that. And around 70% of Vermonters seem to agree.

But this is much more important

Weathermen are predicting five inches of snow. My snow tires don't go on until Thursday. And let's face it, this is all about me...

Oh, actually, that wasn't more important. What is, is that in local Vermont state legislature races, Republicans are losing several seats in the state senate and house races in early returns. Why should you care? Because (in case you haven't read anything on Alphecca before this post, the Governor's and Lt. Governor's races will probably wind up being decided in January by the state legislature. If Democrats control the Vermont State Congress, Doug Racine (D) will clearly be elected. This is a reversal of what I said just a few minutes ago(!) when it seemed that Republicans would remain in control. I can just see the lawyers lining up...

---

11/05/02 9:00 PM by Jeff

Attention blogger shoppers...

You might need to update your Mickey Kausfiles link.

http://kausfiles etc doesn't seem to work anymore. Try:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073478

---

11/05/02 8:00 PM by Jeff

Do I sorta look like Drudge?

NO... The hat isn't quite right and he's better looking... Anyway, returns are starting to trickle in. Vermont polls closed around 7:00 and Bennington has already reported that in the Gubernatorial vote, Racine (D) is slightly ahead of Douglas (R) but no one has 50% and SO IT GOES to the state legislature in January. Now for those just visiting Alphecca for the first time, in Vermont, you must receive 51% of the popular vote in state-wide elections (Gov., Lt. Gov, etc) or else the legislature will elect the position in January (Jan. 9th) when they reconvene. More on this later.

But you should know this: Currently the Vermont State Senate is barely held by the Democrats and the Vermont State House is held by Republicans. Overall, the Republicans hold the edge and in January (if a straight up-and-down vote goes by party lines) the Republicans could elect Jim Douglas (R) even if he (as is likely) receives less votes.

---

In the mean time...

Welcome to newcomers who found me via Bill Quick.

...if you ARE new to Alphecca (well heck, I've only been around a couple weeks) and you'd like to know more of my flavor... check-out last week's postings to get a feel for my humor, my sarcasm, and my seriousness about things. More later.

---

11/05/02 6:30 AM by Jeff

So...

Go Vote!

Then check back here tonight around ten or so for the results from Vermont. Remember, I said last week the Governor's race, and Lt. Governor's race would probably end up being decided in January unless any of the candidates miraculously receive 51% of the vote. So it should be interesting...

---

11/03/02 9:00 PM by Jeff

The Governor's debate on VPT

Vermont Public Television performs a great service by having televised debates of ALL the Vermont candidates on the Sunday before election day. I watched all of them, concluding with the debate between all ten Gubernatorial candidates this evening.

I still tepidly support Jim Douglas (R) for governor. I disagree with some issues, such as his support for a "Megan's Law" for drug offenders. I believe all such laws are bad and counter-productive to cure. If you were convicted, and did your time, and released on parole, your sentence should be over. "Alerting the community" only makes it impossible for you to find housing, get a job, and become a productive member of the community. You are much more likely to simply go back to drugs. In the case of sex-predators, I suppose there is no curing them, but I wonder if these "Megan's Laws" make it more likely that they will kill their victim to prevent them from testifying. I don't know what the answer is.

However, that isn't the point of this post. Most states have lots of "fringe" candidates. But most states have a population measured in the millions. Vermont has only 600,000 or so residents. Around here, there's only one degree of seperation. I do admire all of the candidates who showed up for the debate and presented their views.

From Marilynn "Mom" Christian of the Restore Justice & Freedom party, to Joel Williams; Libertarian, Mike J. Badamo; Progressive, Peter Diamondstone; Liberty Union, Chris Ericson; Make Marijuana Legal, and of course Jim Douglas (R), Doug Racine (D), and Cornelius "Con" Hogan (I).

The most endearing, and one of the most coherent, was an elderly woman named Patricia Hejny from the Vermont Grassroots party. I'm almost tempted to vote for her. And I may do so yet. I would definitely like to meet her and spend the day with her. Here in Vermont, that's almost possible.

The most repellent was a man named Brian Pearl (I) who answered every single question with an attack on homosexuals, our agenda, etc, etc. Even questions about taxation or education he somehow turned into mini-polemics against gays. I felt bad for Doug Racine sitting next to him, having to keep a straight face and answer the questions next.

But I salute them all, and Vermont Public Television for their courage of their convictions and for bringing true democracy to all of us. I wish all of them well.

---

11/03/02 7:00 PM by Jeff

My endorsements in the Vermont races

Vermont is a special place. I have spent the best part of my life here. There is a civility here that is not replicated anywhere else. I have already posted opinions on some of the candidates running in this year's elections. I could report here who I think you should vote for in order to protect a particular party's power. But you know what? I'm tired of Washington Politics, and trying to vote just to keep a certain party in power. I am going to do something different. I don't care what happens in Washington, it no longer matters to me because I no longer matter to them. I'd rather simply tell you who I like in each of the Vermont races. This is, after all, a regional blog.

For U.S. Congressman, Bernie Sanders (I)!

I know what you're thinking. Bernie? Last week I said that I disagreed with most of what he stood for, but I admired him for his un-changing positions. I haven't voted for him in the past but I must tell you, I don't dislike him. I actually DO like him. And I think he's a good guy and means well. His Republican challenger, Bill Mueb, is a drone grasping at straws. Bernie Sanders means and does what he says and I can't begrudge him that. I really do believe he cares about us (Vermonters) and again, I might not agree with him but I think he would do anything for Vermont and I do know he cares and tries to protect our farmers. So, not that he needs my vote (with an almost 80% approval rating) but I will cast my vote for him on Tuesday.

Now as I've stated several times here, the Governor's race, and now that you mention it, the Lt. Governor's race are both very close and both will probably be decided by the Vermont legislature on January 9th. To recap, if no candidate receives over 50% of the vote, the legislature will vote on and determine the winner when they reconvene in January. It is a simple fact that both the Governor's race and Lt. Governor's race will wind up in the legislature. Indeed, in the Lt. Governor's race all three candidates are tied at about 30%.

It's easy for liberal Democratic activists to complain about third parties and say they are hurting the major party candidates. Personally, I welcome third party candidates and wish all political races were more competitive. In any event... I can safely endorse a candidate and know that that race will still end up in the legislature in January. So I will now endorse who I really want...

Anthony Polina (I) for Lt. Governor

I like Peter Shumlin (D) and I also think Brian Dubie (R) is a good guy but I'm going to go with the Independent this time. Polina is a super-strong supporter of the second amendment, and has proven his support for issues that matter to the poor, non-flat-lander residents. And I want third parties to survive.

For the governor's race, this is tough. But finally, I have to go for:

Jim Douglas (R) for Governor

This race, between Doug Racine (D), Jim Douglas (R), and Conrad Hogan (I) is super, super tough. There isn't a lot to distinguish between them. Vermont would probably do well with any of them at the helm. But in the end, I think Douglas is the best qualified to lead our state. He is able to face problems head on, is somewhat of a fiscal conservative (but not nearly as much as I would like) and supports the Vermont Constitution as written, not as interpreted by our liberal, democratic judges. Again, this is all moot since no one will receive 50% of the vote, so the legislature will decide the winner in January. Welcome to the Florida of the North!

The fact that the candidates for each position were so close, so much alike, is testament to the lack of any real issues in the Vermont races. They were so much alike that all you could really do was go by personality. For political junkies, I suppose that's a bad thing since there are no definite hooks to hold on to and typecast with. For Vermonters, it's probably a good think in that there are no serious problems confronting our state requiring quick solutions. I wish all the candidates well. I think Vermont will be fine with any combination of winners.

---

11/03/02 4:30 PM by Jeff

More on The Snipers' shady pasts and why more gun-control wouldn't have helped:

Last week, in a well quoted posting I said:

Of course it (gun control) doesn't work. Let's say a law is passed tomorrow that says everyone must register their gun. Does Chuck Schumer really think that members of The Aryan Nations, or the Bloods and Crips, or junkies, or your average thug are going to pile into a bus or cab and head on down to the police station to do their civic duty and register their guns?

There are currently about twenty-thousand laws on the books regulating firearms. Most of them are not now being enforced. Why would more laws help things? And it's not just gun regulations; it's regulations on every facet of our lives that are routinely ignored, or un-enforced because frankly, there are only so many police, feds, jail-cells, etc. And if we can't enforce all of the laws we have now, how will enacting MORE laws and regulations help? How will we enforce those laws?

We NOW know some of mutant John Muhammad's past. We know he had a restraining order (one of the most useless devices of the legal profession, just get hold of a medium and ask all of the murdered women whom restraining orders have failed to protect.) And in regards to gun laws, we now know that either mutant Muhammad or the person who sold him the gun violated all sorts of gun laws already in place. As Steve Miletich of The Seattle Times reports:

Federal agents have been unable to account for up to 340 guns at Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the Tacoma gun shop that once owned the rifle used in the East Coast sniper shootings, two law-enforcement officials said yesterday.

The audit began after the owner of Bull's Eye was unable to produce a sales record for the Bushmaster M-4 carbine used in the Washington, D.C.-area shootings, even though the manufacturer had shipped the .223-caliber rifle to his store in June.

Two years ago, another audit by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' (ATF) found that 150 guns were missing from the shop.

The latest disclosure raises further questions about the ATF's oversight of gun sales at the Tacoma store.

"You are not supposed to have any missing ã none," said Butch Hulit Jr., an owner of Butch's Gun Shop in Seattle. "Do they occasionally come up missing? Once in a while. But not to the extent of 300."

Gun dealers are required to keep records of sales, which ATF agents compare to records of each firearm bought from gun manufacturers.

So we already have all sorts of firearm regulations not being enforced since we KNOW that the Bull's Eye gunshop was STILL in business at the time the Bushmaster carbine passed from their hands to Mutant John Muhammad's hands. But wait, we don't really know that the problem was with the Bull's Eye gunshop. They might be perfectly innocent. As Sam Skolnik and Lise Olsen report in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

A federal investigation to determine how the rifle used in the D.C.-area sniper attacks made it from a Tacoma gun shop into the hands of the suspects is now focusing on possible theft, rather than an illegal sale or the dealer's bad bookkeeping.

Federal law enforcement officials said yesterday investigators suspect that an employee of Bull's Eye Shooter Supply took the Bushmaster rifle from the store.

In recent days, federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents have been swarming over the store, trying to reconcile a major gap in records.

Let's say that laws were passed by the hysterical left in this country, that anyone who wanted to possess a firearm had to have a Federal license, and register their gun. All together now,: since The Feds, and The Police didn't know who the snipers were (until the last days,) how would a Federal Gun License or Gun Registration have helped anyone catch these defective-brain mutants? Time's up. It wouldn't have helped at all. Until you have a name, a suspect, all the laws in the world can't help a damn.

More details are emerging about mutant John Muhammad. As Jerry Seper and Guy Taylor report in The Washington Times:

ÝÝÝAn investigation by police in Antigua and a separate probe by the FBI in that island nation have focused on accusations that Mr. Muhammad sold counterfeit passports, stolen credit cards and other identity papers for between $1,000 and $3,500 each to support, in part, his nomadic lifestyle.

ÝÝÝÝÝSome of the documents are believed to have been used to smuggle people into the United States, said John Fuller, a member of an investigative task force set up by the Antiguan Attorney General's Office to investigate Mr. Muhammad's actions on that Caribbean island.

ÝÝÝÝÝ"There are allegations that this man habitually forged documents, for various purposes," Mr. Fuller said.

More laws violated and un-enforced. Now we have counterfeiting laws, theft laws, etc., being violated but NO arrest. No jail time. No nothing. The laws were already on the books but that piece-of-shit Muhammad went about his ways. But wait! Astoundingly, there's even more. As AP writer Colin James reports:

ST. JOHN'S, Antigua (AP) - Sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad once suggested kidnapping Antigua and Barbuda's prime minister for a ransom, investigators said Saturday that a witness had told them. John Fuller, chairman of a task force investigating Muhammad's activities in the Caribbean country, said the unidentified witness told investigators the proposal was made by Muhammad nearly two years ago.

And more:

The four-member task force also determined that Muhammad ã who arrived in Antigua in 2000 ã illegally acquired an Antiguan passport and that officials were negligent in approving the U.S. citizen's application.

The task force found that he used a falsified Louisiana birth certificate to acquire a passport in Antigua and Barbuda, Attorney General Gertel Thom said.

AND:

To get his Antiguan passport in 2000, Muhammad presented a falsified birth certificate from New Orleans, claiming his mother was Eva Ferris of Antigua, officials said. Eva Ferris' family said she was not related to Muhammad.

I don't normally use swear-words but sometimes there are things that just call for it. How many fucking laws had John Muhammad broken before he even started his reign of terror? Did any of the laws he violated result in his arrest? Would more laws regulating forgery or credit-card fraud have helped? Would those new laws SOMEHOW have resulted in this piece-of-shit being jailed and prevented from committing his terrible shooting spree? Sorry, once again, time's up! No, NO, NO!

Life in a democracy can be difficult. Freedom can be difficult. And expensive. But it is worth it. Every time. You have to weigh the benefits against the minuses. Maybe this is a poor analogy but: You can be watching a PBS special on Jaguars and marvel at how magnificent they look. And then PBS shows you the Jaguar stalking and killing an antelope. And the violence of REAL life hits you. And you're angry because the beauty of the animal is tarnished by how he actually sustains himself. Democracy and freedom are like that. Freedom is truely beautiful and liberating and something to be envied and strived for. But Freedom does have a price-tag. Freedom IS expensive.

Liberty, and freedom exact a cost. Sometimes it seems to be a terrible cost. In order for us to enjoy our freedom, our liberty, our persuit of happiness, we have to be willing to endure certain costs, in putting up with nut-cases, with mutants, and -- unfortunately -- with precious lives lost. But. But! All of the alternatives are worse. All of the alternatives strangle you. Constrict you. Diminish you. My friends, you HAVE to tell yourselves, you have to say, "Yes, you have hurt us. You have taken some of our precious members from us." But you also have to think and know and believe and remember that a dozen lives have been tragically lost but 250 million of us go on... Enjoying our freedom, celebrating our liberties, rejoicing in our lives; The mutants, the criminals, the terrorists can't take that from us.

You can't intimidate us or steal our love of freedom from us. You can't defeat us. You can't subjugate us, you can't crush us, you can't cower us into submission. We are stronger than you. We are better than you. And our freedom is the reason why we are more inventive and creative then you. Why every major important discovery and medicinal cure and better way of growing food and frankly, every better way of living has come from America. We will continue to celebrate the principles of freedom and liberty. And we (America) are the only country that clearly states in it's charter that we have rights.

And we will not surrender those rights. We have the right of free speech. And we have the right to defend ourselves. And we have the right to vote for those who represent us. And you, you bastards, will never be allowed to take those rights from us. And you will never defeat us. And you will never drive us from our land, our homes, our families, our country. We, unlike any other nation on this planet, are allowed to protect ourselves, to defend ourselves and our nation, to reject your subjugation and drive you out. America is made up of the strong, the proud, the independent, the freedom loving liberty loving people who refuse to surrender to fear and terror. You will not dominate or control us. You cannot win. You will never rule us. And if you don't like that, well you know what? Go fuck yourselves. We are The United States of America and we are better then you and we rule! and it's about time we stopped apologizing for it. America is the greatest nation on this planet. Period.

---

11/02/02 9:00 PM by Jeff

OK... I accomplished NOTHING today. I started watching college football and ... There's always tomorrow. And now I'm mellowing out listening to the great Son Seals, bluesman from Chicago.

Now look, every entry can't be deep and meaningful; this is, after all, a blog. And since I didn't receive a single comment on my "what is it about guns?" posting, I guess I'll take the night off. Incidentally -- since it's all about me -- I shaved my beard off tonight and ghod does it feel good to be rid of that annoying, scratchy thing. You know (he said to a passing cat,) the women all loved it but since that does ME no good... It's not like any guy liked it. Hmmm... maybe I should start growing it back tomorrow... And no, I don't use perma-links on nonsense like this. If you'd like to read better stuff, after the great postings below, read last week's postings in the archive.

Anyway, I have a "date" on Battle.net tonight at Ten, because I can't get enough of StarCraft. So I'll see you all back here Sunday, same Bat Channel....

11/02/02 10:00 AM by Jeff

I'm going to try to fix my ghod-awful code today. While I code to Internet Explorer, I really want things to look the same in Netscape and Mozilla, which they don't right now. I'm also trying to standardize my archival system. Anyway, I hope it won't all be too weird. Blogging will continue tonight...

---

11/01/02 11:00 PM by Jeff

So, what is it about guns?

In today's Washington Post, Donna Britt has a commentary where she tries, in anguish, to understand the allure of guns in the violent society she lives in. And I believe this is an honest piece and I believe she would like to know just what it is that compels so many of us to be gun owners. Here are some excerpts:

Because I don't get it. It seems that neither anti-American zealotry nor drool-inducing madness spurred this cruelty. Our fantasy of an uncommonly bright and organized villain has evaporated before images of a thieving wife-threatener who appears to have held a teenager -- and the world -- in his thrall.

Could an unremarkable thug become this?

My bewilderment took me to a store I'd passed dozens of times but never visited, an establishment just four blocks from where Lori Lewis Rivera was shot dead while vacuuming her minivan.

At Potomac Trading Collectibles, I found knives, dueling pistols, ammunition and rifles lined up against the walls like soldiers at attention.

And I found two very pleasant men who earn their livings selling firearms.

But her Op-Ed is not condescending, I think she really wants to understand. She further says:

I visited the store because I hated guns -- and had no idea why others love them.

Now, I would never confuse millions of law-abiding gun owners with brutes who'd mow down innocents at gas pumps. But as an urban girl too familiar with gun-related agonies, I find hunting distasteful, the NRA's bullying disgusting and the entertainment media's gun-lust outrageous.

I wanted Printz (one of the store owners) to show me the weapon that stole 10 decent lives. And perhaps to help me comprehend why some will never blame guns for their absence.

Well. I don't pretend to be a very smart person. I'm not a lawyer. I won't claim that any of my commentaries in Alphecca.com contain inspired insights or "never before thought of ideas." I can only speak for myself.

I was introduced to guns when I was a boy at Summer camp. Simple 22 caliber bolt action rifles. Target shooting was fun. A challenge. It was the sixties and the cold-war was chillier then hell and this state-run Summer camp, like the Boy Scouts and so many schools, thought it was important to start kids on the road to being able to defend The United States. This was sandwiched between climbing under the desks as the black shades were pulled down.

Of course, most of this was unspoken. We were handed guns, taught (at least at this camp) the full N.R.A. safety program on safe gun handling (I went through it four Summers,) and told to have fun. We did. Riflery was EVERYONES favorite activity. As we got older, our American History classes (which in those days didn't blame America for every evil in the world) taught us that these magical inventions had liberated the United States from the tyranny of England, had protected us from invasion by other nations, and that possession was a fundamental right according to The Constitution. Indeed, in most State Constitutions, possession was a duty in order to protect The State.

Now, those were different times. Violence, at least violence that could result in life-threatening physical harm and death, was a rarity even in urban areas. Not unknown, just much rarer then now. But as I grew up, so did the threat I confronted from others, my fellow Americans. Where once upon a time, a thief would simply rob you, now he would kill you and then rob you. Where once upon a time, men could argue and fight until one was on the ground with a bloodied nose, now all arguments are fought to the death.

I'm not going to go into the role of TV and Media here; that's for another time. I'm also not going to go into the sport of guns, or the food-gathering aspects (hunting) of guns. All of that is also for another time.

I want to address the typical urban dweller who owns a firearm for self-defense. So... I will just say that the stakes are much higher now. There are people out there who want what you have and are willing to kill you for it. There are people out there who hate you and will kill you for it. There are people out there for whom only your (my) death will satisfy them. No matter where you live, there is always an implied danger. It has become a part of our everyday lives.

A simple explanation offered by "liberals" is that the prevalence of firearms has contributed to this. But it hasn't. The number of guns per capita, that is, the ratio of gun-owners in the population has actually gone down over the last 100 years. And, as most of us know, the amount of regulations and restrictions (that's gun-control for the un-initiate) has gone up. Yet deadly violence has continued to escalate. I mentioned this in a previous posting and I will again now. Every animal, every organism, every plant, every man and woman has several fundamental imperitives: To eat, to procreate, and to defend itself. No thinking person would ever begrudge an animal for using every tool, whether teeth or claws, to defend it's life and it's children or family. And most animals have such defenses. Sharp claws and teeth. Even plants, through evolution, develope some very efficient defenses.

Mankind has no such defenses. He must rely on tools. Stones, spears, arrows, and finally, firearms. The things we admire most about humans are their compassion, their caring, their child-rearing abilities, the close family and community units they have developed. Yet then we feel repelled when they (we actually) respond in that most innate response to danger and threat to ourselves and loved-ones. Why? Why is it now wrong for a human being to defend himself from danger?

Because "The State" will protect us? Has it? From thieves and junkies and car-jackers and rapists and... Who has "The State" protected us from? External National threats, yes. Fine. And that, to my reading of the Constitution of The United States should be the ONLY defense they should be responsible for. For the common defense. But what about the personal? The invader of your home and the immediate threat to your family? That, the State is useless, powerless, impotent to help you with. All they can do is respond AFTER the fact and try to clean-up and solve. Cops are fine, but always after the fact.

Every tool. A gun is a magical thing. Small but heavy. Marvelously efficient at helping you to defend yourself. To protect your home and family.

I believe the quote is something such as, "God made all men, Colt made them equal."

Every tool. In fact, for most of us, the only tool available to us. It is our right. A God given impetus built into our genetic makeup; to protect ourselves and loved-ones. For almost all of us, that small tool, the gun is the only thing we have at our disposal. And so, that small piece of steel is a comfort, a balm, an antidote to the nervousness and fear that all of us live with to some extent but keep submerged so we can go about our daily lives. It is the only thing we have available to re-assure ourselves that if the un-thinkable happens, we can react as we are designed to, that we can do our duty to our imperative to protect and defend. In many ways, the gun does more then any anti-anxiety pill ever could.

And like any precious tool, we love it, hopefully with respect and awe. It is necessary. You don't have to use it, you hope you never have to use it, but it's comforting to know it's there. (Almost sounds like the slogan for a newspaper.) Here's a news flash: I'm gay. And I've been hit with tire-chains, beat-up, and had a knife stuck in me multiple times, all because people hate me, because I'm gay. I used to fear going out of my home. I used to fear leaving a gay-bar late at night, I used to fear hearing someone breaking the glass on my door to break-in. Now, through the simple comfort of having the right tool at hand, or in pocket, or on the night-stand, I NO LONGER HAVE ANY OF THOSE FEARS. And friends, that is worth a hundred times what I paid for that revolver. It is a tool I have not had to use, but I am comforted to know it is there and ready. And I will use it if I have to. Something within me compels me to protect myself. Something compels all of us to protect ourselves.

Do I love my gun? Not like I love pizza, or my family. But I do love the security it provides me. The feeling that in a huge world frought with danger -- not of my making-- I still have control over my own security and destiny. That if I lose my possessions it won't be because I hid in fear. That if I lose my life it won't be because some mutant took it from me without a fight. That if someone threatens my loved ones I can put up a defense as ferocious as that of any animal in this jungle called Earth. Yes, guns have been and will be used for terrible actions, but many more un-documented times, un-reported by the media, the gun will be used to fulfill one of the ultimate imperatives of mankind; protection.

---

10/31/02 12:00 AM by Jeff

A new weekly feature!

Yahoo is wonderful for collecting news stories under many different headings. Just go to their US Full News and you'll find every topic under the sun. Most of them are quite topical and one of them, Gun Control Debate, promises (as a "debate" would imply) an open discussion on gun control. But YOUR INTREPID REPORTER (ghod... I'm starting to sound like Rush) has noticed that if this is a debate, then the left-coast elites at Yahoo have forgotten to invite our side much of the time.

Now in all fairness, they do link to some articles from The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc. But these voices in the wilderness are far out-weighed by the leftist prattle of The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, etc. (and yes, it's late and I don't feel like inserting links to every single thing tonight.)

Anyway, I've decided to keep a running weekly total of pro-vs-con links on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page and every week will provide a running total for your pleasure. I'll only count articles that are shown, not archived. Articles will be counted from the following catagories listed: News stories, Opinions & Editorials, Feature Articles, and Audio files. Here is the current tally:

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Articles
Pro More Gun Control Or Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment
21	4

Check here every Wednesday or so for the new table. I'm sure there's no bias in how Yahoo selects their stories.

---