I guess this ends another week here at Alphecca. I take weekends off but I'll be back Monday morning with my Weekly Check on the Gun Bias in the Media. Thanks to the two folks who thought enough to donate a few bucks. Thanks to the bloggers who kindly mention me. And especially, thanks to all of you for stopping by. You make it all worth it. See you soon and have a great weekend...

From AFP:

Any lingering hopes that the Moon may contain hidden deposits of ice at its poles have been dashed by a study using ground-penetrating radar, which shows that even at its extremities, Earth's satellite seems waterless.

Smithsonian Institution researcher Bruce Campbell and colleagues scanned the lunar poles using a radar with a wavelength of 70 centimetres (30 inches), which is capable of penetrating several metres (yards) of dust and which would strongly reflect any thick ice.

But the radar images yielded no evidence of any significant deposits of frozen water.

I've often felt that -- okay, we've been to the Moon and that's impressive, now let's move on and set our sights on Mars, where mankind really could, after awhile, become self-sustaining.

For a cogent plan on how this could be accomplished, I recommend the books The Case For Mars and Islands In The Sky by Robert Zubrin. He clearly shows that it is doable and affordable NOW.

America needs to restore some of the sense of wonder to our space explorations. Aside from pride and excitement, pushing our boundaries out benefits all of us by setting goals that wind up creating new technologies, jobs, and (as Zubrin points out) commerce.

---

Then again, Jay Manifold points out that some folks want to keep Mars off-limits. Like myself, he hopes this doesn't happen.

In another sidelight, Dennis Overbye has a New York Times article that asks, "Where are the aliens?" Check that out too.

Carnival of the Vanities, the 60th Edition is up. Thanks to Dead Ends.

---

Lots of new stuff up over at the Shooters' Carnival.

I found this story via KABA but they missed the most interesting aspect of the story. Bushmaster Firearms has been approved by the local Planning Board of Windam, Maine, to expand their warehouse and assembly facilities. And I'm glad. It means that their business is good and hasn't been affected by the adverse publicity of the Washington D.C. "snipers' case" and the frivolous lawsuits filed against it by greedy victims and lawyers.

But what I found interesting was the attempt to interfere with a business's right to uh, well, conduct business and expand, by members of the "Million Mom March." All two of them. From Maine Today.com:

Members of the Southern Maine chapter of the Million Mom March attended the meeting, and two residents urged the Planning Board to reject the expansion.

"Bushmaster produces guns that can and do kill children," said Sally Breen, a Windham resident and Peace Action Maine board member.

"I ask that you deny permission for Bushmaster to expand their facilities and capabilities to produce more guns," she said.

See, this just proves that the goal of Brady Bunch types such as these have no interest in "gun safety" -- their new buzzword: What they want is gun elimination by putting these companies out of business by lawsuit or by preventing them from doing business. The objections raised by these groups have nothing to do with the question at hand -- should a legal business be allowed to expand their facilities -- before the Planning Board, it was all just politics as usual.

And the board rightly approved the expansion because Maine, like N.H. and Vermont, comprises Northern New England, a region that still recognizes the right to bear arms. And, politics and liberal "feel good" nonsense doesn't or shouldn't enter into zoning applications.

Furthermore, this expansion by Bushmaster no doubt means more jobs for the area. Something I think we can all agree are needed in any locale. Would these "Moms" have protested had an auto-maker tried to expand their facilities? After all, cars kill a lot of people too. But we don't blame the car manufacturer for some drunk killing someone on our highways.

It's not the gun. It's the mutant who uses a gun for evil. Bushmaster has done nothing wrong. They sold a gun to a legitimate -- at least according to the BATF at that time, since the Bull's Eye gun store in Washington had a valid FFL license at the time (which in my opinion should have been revoked a long time ago) -- and that gun was then (by Bull's Eye) lost or stolen. The rest of the tragic D.C. Sniper Story is history. But Bushmaster did nothing wrong. They made a legal product and sold it to a legal dealer.

Yet these "Moms" would deny them the right to conduct their business. Bravo to the Windham, Maine Planning Board for approving Bushmaster's application.

This just further underlines the need for Congress to finally pass the bill to protect gun makers and distributors from frivolous lawsuits. President Bush has said he'll sign it. Currently there are about 55 definite "yea" votes lined up. Mostly Republican, of course. Sen. Tom Daschle has signed on to it (after requiring a few confusing amendments) and now it's up to us, folks. We need to bombard the "nay"-sayers in the Senate with phone calls, emails, and blog-spotlights to get a few more of them to support the bill and make it filibuster-proof.

I don't like Rush Limbaugh (as regulars know) and normally I wouldn't listen to his show. But I do like Matt Drudge and I do like Camille Paglia. Matt is guest-hosting Rush's radio show today and his guest is Paglia.

If that doesn't make you want to tune in...

I just thought I'd point out a rather interesting site by David Kaspar titled Mediankritik which is Media Critic in German. The site is written in German with English translations included for each post following. David writes about bias in the media in Germany. Topics range far and wide and I heartily recommend it.

I don't know all the facts in this case so I can only offer some opinions here. From the AP:

Eric Griffin, 33, upset by the barking of a dog belonging to neighbor Richard Hammock, allegedly wounded the animal with a pellet gun Nov. 2. Hammock, 48, then went to Griffin's home carrying a 3-foot board, authorities said.

Griffin's girlfriend told police she heard breaking glass and a shotgun blast. Dominguez said the woman reported Griffin told her he fired when Hammock tried to enter the house.

Colorado has a "Make My Day" law (passed in 1985) which shield residents who use deadly force to protect themselves from inturders. In fact, not only can they not be charged with a crime, but they are protected from civil suits as well. Here's more from the Denver Post:

The district attorney decided that the shooter acted in self-defense because Hammock came after him with a 3-foot-long piece of 2-inch-by-2-inch lumber, used the wood to smash a window pane in Griffin's front door, would not leave and threatened to burn Griffin's home.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with this "Make My Day" law. But I do have a problem with the shooter Griffin.

A dog is -- besides in this case, someone's pet -- an animal. Animals do animal things. Like barking. That's not cause for shooting the dog with a pellet-gun. If the dog was an annoyance for continued barking then Griffin should have approached the owner of the dog and asked him to take control of and quiet his dog or put it inside. And if this was a daily occurance then Griffin should have filed a noise-orninance based complaint with the authorities.

To shoot a dog for being a dog is beyond the pale. It's what a low-life does. And frankly, if you're going to shoot my dog, I would come after you with more than a 2 X 3. In fact, I completely understand (the deceased) Hammond's actions.

It should be added that Griffin has not been charged with shooting at and injuring the dog even though police found a pellet-gun in his home. Griffin offered a lame apology saying:

I know what they're going through is very painful, and I wish the events of Nov. 2 hadn't had to have unfolded the way they did...

That's bullshit. They didn't have to unfold that way if Griffin had acted like an adult instead of a mutant by shooting the dog instead of taking up the barking issue with the dog's owner or authorities. I agree with the law itself but in my opinion Griffin caused this whole incident. I hope he falls into a very deep ditch.

There were quite a few good posts among other bloggers yesterday about Veteran's Day but one that I really liked was from my buddy Say Uncle who had this remembrance. I found it quite touching.

---

Several new folks have joined my "good friends" reciprocal blogroll including Nuclear Dann's Brain Damage. I kinda' like that name and wish I'd thought of it first. But there's nothing damaged about his writing. Check it out.

Ordinary Galoot is another that just came to my attention -- she's been saying nice things about my posts (that happens less often than you might think.) Give her fine blog a visit too.

Finally, another busy blogger who kindly blogrolled me is Renpro. Good stuff there as well.

Always remember and honor our fallen heros.

From Arlington National Cemetery:

Government issued headstones.


Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers, Amphitheater behind.


An aerial view of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers, showing the Mall and Fountain in front of.


On the sloping land to the left are the headstones that memorialize those whose remains could not be recovered.

This is not a day for joy. It is not a day for a "Sale." It is or should be a solemn day where we remember those who have or are at this very moment serving our country. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the freedoms we continue to enjoy. May God bless them and may He comfort their families. May we all give thanks to them and always remember them on Veteran's Day, and every other day as well. Regardless of what you think of the merits of a particular war, these brave men and women chose to serve and protect and defend all of us. There are many more young servicemen and women buried elsewhere in this great country of ours. There are also many still who are alive but living in poverty or lanquishing in our underfunded Veteran's Hospitals. Whatever your views on conflict, know that all who served in our Armed Forces deserve respect, honor, and a "thank you."

Photos from Arlington Cemetery.org

---

Because of the number of photos this week, Alphecca will load slowly for those (like myself) using dial-up modems. I apologize for that but hope you think it's worth it.

Always interesting, his blog Up With Beauty has moved to here. Adjust your dials accordingly. And he has a new mission statement, direction, and a vow to boot.

I have developed friendships with some of the bloggers on my blogroll on the left side of this blog. (That should move me up the "Google search ratings" under "blog...") One of them is Jay Solo. I haven't met him in person but we have emailed back-and-forth a lot and I am convinced that besides being a great blogger, he is one of the nicest guys in our weird little world called the blogosphere. He's always upbeat, and you can just see by his words that he has a big smile and is a really nice guy. Go visit his blog. If you need specifics, check out his Matrix review or a clever comment like this about deer hunting or his question of the week.

I dig Jay a lot and I love his blog. Just go there and enjoy it. Think of him as an only "slightly less known" monster than my blogfather Glenn Reynolds.

By the way, sharp readers of Jay will know that something is up. My lips are sealed. I know, but my big-fat-mouth is shut tight.
*mphfm...mfemphm...maphmmph...* Damn I hate the promises I've made...

---

Regular readers know that I live on the edge of poverty and often ask for help. But one of my brethren, Arthur Silber, at Light of Reason is having a very tough time too and could use your help. I'd like to see you all help Arthur out. So visit there and give him some help financially. And while you're at it, send him some kind words of encouragement. Arthur is another email-bloggo-friend of mine and I'd like you to give him some reader-love. His Light of Reason is one of the most interesting and intelligent sites in this "blogosphere" of ours and I'd hate to see him silenced. Or worse, I'd hate to see him struggle and thrown out of his apartment because of a "transit strike."

Arthur is a few steps from homelessness. Please throw a few bucks his way if you can afford it. Give up one six-pack for him. God remembers those who help others. It's a HUGE checkmark in your life-plus column. Arthur has always been a huge checkmark in my humble-human column.

---

I'll be back sometime tomorrow with more of my drivel. Please stop by. Thanks!

Time once again to examine the bias exhibited by the Yahoo Gun Debate Page in their selection of what stories, editorials, and op-eds they choose to link to in support or (much more usually) erosion of the Second Amendment. The news isn't much better this week than last.

Tomorrow is Veteran's Day. The day we (unfortunately a small minority of the general population these days) still remember and honor the brave men and women who have served and -- in many cases died -- fighting for our country and the freedoms it was founded on. How ironic that at this very moment there are over two hundred thousand soldiers stationed overseas attempting to protect us and who are trying to defend the very Bill of Rights that many back home here are working so hard to minimize or negate. The Second Amendment ("2-a") is a perfect example. For the origins of Veteran's Day, read this VFW page.

The worst news of the week came from Missouri, where a court has struck down the new law allowing folks in that state to conceal-carry. From the AP:

A Missouri law allowing concealed weapons and approved over the objection of the governor was struck down Friday by a judge who called it unconstitutional.

Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer said the law violates a clause in the state constitution that says the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

And:

Attorney General Jay Nixon, whose office argued in favor of the law, immediately appealed the ruling.

"We will be asking the Missouri Supreme Court to expedite this matter so we can have a full and final decision on this important public policy issue," Nixon said in a statement. He declined an interview request.

Rep. Larry Crawford, R-Centerton, the House sponsor of the bill, said supporters of the law expected the ruling and "knew that it was going to the Supreme Court either way."

I'm not sure that clause of the Missouri Constitution therefore prohibits concealed carry so I'm sure there'll be a slugfest before higher courts coming up. This action (against the law) was brought by several groups including the liberal Institute for Peace and Justice, and a coalition of religious leaders.

Concealed-carry has always been a tough sell in Missouri. A ballot measure to permit it was defeated (narrowly) in 1999. With a more conservative, Republican dominated state legislature this year, the bill to allow it was passed with a "Governor-veto-proof" majority. Stay tuned...

Last week I mentioned the two editorials that were urging the Democratic candidates to come out more strongly in favor of gun control. One, not surprisingly from the New York Times, said:

Instead of stalking each other for political advantage on the campaign trail, the candidates should be focusing on the Senate, which is on the verge of debating a truly retrogressive step on the nation's tortuous path toward workable gun controls. Final debate is expected this month on a measure that would provide almost total protection to the gun industry from civil damage suits by victims of gun crimes. The measure, already approved by the Republican-controlled House, would give gun manufacturers and dealers a courthouse shield that tobacco and asbestos companies never had in being forced to come to terms with some of the damage their products inflict. Dozens of suits in the courts would be thrown out, and the chance to sue would be denied to aggrieved survivors in gun tragedies like the Washington-area sniper case.

I'm not going to get into the foolish arguments about tobacco and asbestos because that would require a book-sized post. I'll just say that when used properly, according to instructions, guns do not harm their owners. Quite the opposite: They save their lives. The only thing this bill does is protect gun makers and distributors from frivolous lawsuits brought about by greedy trial lawyers. The law would say that a gun maker cannot be held liable for the mis-use of the product by someone (generally a criminal.)

Just as Ford cannot be held liable because a drunk driver kills someone with his Bronco, so too Colt cannot be found guilty because some thug used a weapon in the commission of a crime. Makes sense to me, folks! Not, apparently, to the New York Times.

And the Christian Science Monitor blathered thusly:

Many Democratic Party leaders blame Al Gore's tough stance on gun control for his loss of a few key states in the 2000 presidential race. To avoid a repeat in 2004, some candidates are avoiding the party's long-held view that non-hunting guns need more control.

Current front-runner Howard Dean even stooped to using an old stereotype of a gun owner when he said last week that he wants "to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." And John Kerry made a point of taking reporters on a quickly arranged pheasant hunt in Iowa. The two men are now vying for the votes of gun owners.

I had much more to say about this last week and you can find links to everything I've posted in defense of the Second Amendment here.

But let me just say a few words about these Democratic candidates. The "photo-op" with John Kerry was absolute nonsense and pandering. This is the second time he's used this ploy. This is a guy who has never met a gun control measure he didn't support. In fact, he supported the "Million Mom March." See this post of mine from a year ago! John Kerry is a phony who would take away everyone's right to defend themselves.

Howard Dean used to be a friend of gun owners when he was Governor of Vermont but now that he's running for national office he's mouthing all the right phrases for the unwashed masses in the Democratic Party by declaring that he will re-authorize the bogus "assault weapons" bill and close the non-existent "gun show loop-hole." On gun control, as talk-show host Bob Grant might say, he folded like a cheap camera. Don't trust him.

Sen. John Edwards -- who receives 51% of his campaign contributions from trial lawyers -- appeared on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday and flat-out stated that

1) He will vote against the bill granting immunity to gun makers.

2) That he will extend the "assault weapons" ban.

3) That he believes in "reasonable gun control."

4) ETC!

If you are a gun owner, if you believe in our Bill of Rights, if you believe you should be allowed to defend yourself and your family from mutant criminals, then John Edwards is your worst choice.

Both Gephardt and Leiberman have terrible records on the Second Amendment and cannot be seriously considered by anyone who defends the Bill of Rights. Sharpton tows the anti-gun "party line."

Gen. Wesley Clark is an unknown. He talks about his youth spent hunting, etc. but so far has refused to state what he would do regarding the various gun-control bills swirling around.

In the meantime, the disco group Sister Sledge -- known for their incisive political acumen -- headed off to Great Britain to support gun control there. From Reuters:

U.S. disco queens Sister Sledge visited Britain's parliament on Wednesday as part of a campaign to combat rising gun crime.

Joni and Debbie Sledge added their voices to the Disarm Trust campaign at the House of Commons on the day a parliamentary report into gun crime was published.

Joni Sledge said the increase in gun crime in Britain was frightening.

Gosh Joni, a lot of us have noticed the increase in violent crime in Britain. Most of us though, also noticed that it occurred after the country confiscated all the guns of law-abiding citizens and then, to add insult-to-injury, decided that criminals have more of a right to commit the crime than the victims do of defending themselves. As Jay Leno would say, "idiot!"

That was it for Yahoo. Here are a couple of other items:

John R. Lott, Jr. has an op-ed at Tech Central Station about the problems with gun-locks. He doesn't like them:

Even if one has young children, it does not make sense to lock up a gun if one lives in a high crime urban area. Exaggerating the risks involved in gun ownership will make people lock up their guns or cause them not to own a gun in the first place and will result in more deaths, not fewer deaths.

You should read the entire article and the statistics given before jumping to any conclusions about that controversial statement.

Now from MSNBC comes this COOL item:

An entire Kansas town will soon be armed after a new law has been passed in Geuda Springs. The city law mandates "every head of household" in Geuda Springs must own a gun.

GEUDA SPRINGS, KANSAS has one paved road, about 50 homes and a city ordinance requiring all of them to have a gun.

The ordinance will go into effect immediately after it's published in the local paper. It reads, "that in order to provide for emergency management of the city, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition."

Well. Well! My kinda' town. This is not the first time a small town somewhere has done this. Kennesaw GA., Virgin UT, and Bowerbank Maine all have similar ordinances (or is that ordnances?)

Needless to say, these towns all have extraordinaily low crime rates.

Anyway, that's a wrap for this edition. I'm out of time but will try to do a blog round-up of gun posts tonight or tomorrow. Thanks everyone for stopping by and remember that it's all right to tip the piano player if you like the tunes he's playing...