Here's a quote from the AP:

The 2-1 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to death and wounded five people at a Jewish day care center in a 1999 Los Angeles-area rampage.

And:

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy. In addition, they claimed the industry knowingly participated and facilitated an underground illegal gun market.

Eugene Volokh has a lot on this and his thinking is certainly clearer than mine. But I was just thinking, what industry doesn't make sure they produce enough product to ensure sufficient supplies? How many automobiles are lying around car-dealer lots? How many groceries go unsold? How many newspapers get returned each day by dealers?

The suit makes it sound as if Glock and company leave boxes of guns lying around in allys and bus stops. They don't. They sell to legal, FFL distributors and dealers. And I can tell you that they don't ship "on approval" either. They only ship what is requested by the dealer. That's how the industry works. This suit is bullshit, as is (as usual) the 9th Circuit Court.

We need Congress to pass the legislation that would protect gun makers RIGHT NOW. And you know what? So what if this is the first industry to receive such protections (although I think the HMO-Managed Care industry beat them to it), maybe this precedent will spur protections for other industries that are now or will be targeted for frivolous lawsuits. Maybe we can put some trial lawyers out of business. That would be a very good thing and would reduce the price we pay for many items as insurance costs are reduced.

Jay Solo is organizing a coalition of New England bloggers. Now we just need a good name for it...

Sorry for the light posting. I'll try to do more tonight or tomorrow...

I'm off from my real job today and I have a lot of work to do. Like finishing Dean's questions. And updating a couple of websites that I maintain for two local charitable organizations (yes, I donate my spare time for others.) And working on my fiction site. And I'm stalling. I'm not in a serious mood right now for work.

I learned today that a couple of what I thought were stray cats I was feeding nightly outside my door actually belong to a nice family down the street. So I don't have to worry about them shivering through the night or taking them to the vet for care. I couldn't take them in because I'm already one over the limit (Rainbow just keeps on going...) of how many cats my landlord will allow me to keep and I was worried about these two. But I guess I'm just one stop on their daily tour of "soft-touches" in the neighborhood...

I have real work to do today but I just don't feel like it right now. So I guess I'll just put it all off and continue to surf...

Unfortunately it's not all fun and games out there in the real world as David Kaspar reports that the German press and the Palistinian press share the same grotesque anti-Americanism in their political "cartoons." *Sigh.*

And Kathy Kinsley reports on a gruesome anniversary. Her comments are well taken.

Roger Simon has the bad news that anti-Semitism is alive and well in America.

And Craig at Lead and Gold is, as I am, disappointed with the History Channel's decision to air a conspiracy-filled documentary about the murder of JFK.

Oh well, the glow is gone from my mood...

---

Update, received this comment:

-You posted: "And Craig at Lead and Gold is, as I am, disappointed with the History Channel's decision to air a conspiracy-filled documentary about the murder of JFK."

-I didn't watch/will not watch all of the drivel, but I think that even some serious historians are starting to pick through the smelly residue left behind by the Oliver Stones & Jim Garrisons of the world. My first inkling that there was a problem with the assination information being passed out came on Nov 22, 1963, when I watched an FBI firearms expert identify a Carcano as a Mauser 98 on TV. How do I know he was an FBI firearms expert? He said so. How do I know it was a Carcano? I could see it & it looked identical to the one sitting in my closet and it didn't look like the Mauser 98 sitting in my closet.

-The Warren Commission meant nothing to me. I wasn't even in the US most of the time. One, two or three gunmen never even interested me until some years later, perhaps the tenth anniversary, and a magazine illustrated the shots Oswald was supposed to have made and gave the time line. My shooting buddy and I just howled with laughter. You see, we both had Carcano carbines. I suspect we were both better shots than Oswald and we both knew that we could never make those shots. In fact, I don't believe that Oswald's feat has ever been duplicated, even by professional snipers.

-Other folks have come up with other, seemingly reasonable, objections to the methodology or the conclusions of the Warren Commission. Add to that continuing revelations about the veracity of the FBI in general and Mr. Hoover's FBI in particular and one may not need a conspiracy; it may be simple incompetence.

-Whatever the reason, I do not believe the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, has been told.

--Michael S.

-An addenda: I may be in error about replicating Oswald's shooting skills. There was a program on Discovery last night that made some references to replicating the scene and even showed a Carcano with the same narrow tube scope on an offset mount. I didn't watch enough to see if they were successful.

--M.S.

Thanks Michael, interesting...

I suppose some of you are wondering what I think about the whole "gay marriage" thing. Sorry, but you'll just have to wait. I'm finishing up a round of interview questions for Dean Esmay today and it goes into that subject quite a bit. And I believe in letting Dean have that "exclusive." [Jeff, your ego knows no bounds -- nobody gives a hoot what you think... --ed. Replying in a Jack Benny voice, "*Well!*"--js]

I really like William Safire's op-ed today. But there isn't enough honesty from any side of the Iraq issues to make his op-ed come true...

I'm glad that Arthur Silber is back to blogging and his financial problems are eased for the moment. Now about mine...

OverLawyered is reporting that Sylvester Stallone is being sued by the original "Rocky." And who is that? Well you might ask...

And speaking of movie stars -- Heh!

---

Update on Gay Marriage: Read Glenn Reynolds and Bill Quick and the comments on Quick's post.

As long as I'm conservative-bashing this morning, I'd like to point out just HOW STUPID THIS IS! From the AP, here's a quote:

Conservative religious groups began a petition drive Monday to demand that Congress legislate to protect displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

The group's leaders mounted the drive in response to last week's ouster of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for his refusal to obey a federal judge's order to remove a 2 1/2-ton monument to the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court. An ethics panel of Alabama judges removed him from office.

And:

The petition contends the Ten Commandments constitute the foundation of American law, and expressions of faith are under assault by the judicial branch. It asks Congress to pass legislation to protect public displays of the Ten Commandments and to allow nondenominational prayer in public schools.

Can we pick our battles, please? I've always accused liberals of knee-jerk legislation in reaction to various incidents and I also defended Justice Moore on these pages. I think leftists are way too sensitive and irrational in their hatred for displays and mentions of religion (unless it's Islamic of course, then our schools and colleges fall all over themselves promoting it in the classroom.)

Mention of God and such doesn't bother me on our money or speeches or on a plaque in a government building. But passing a law to protect such displays will only launch an idealogical battle in this country that will polarize people and could quite possibly lead to religious wars.

And who gets to decide what displays are permissible? How will it be determined what is a simple, allowable mention and what is veering into proselytization?

I don't think the Ten Commandments is denominational or promoting a specific religion and should have stayed in the courthouse, but a federal judge did and made his ruling. Moore refused to obey that ruling. Now he's out of work. That's how the rule of law goes.

If a law is actually passed protecting the mixing of religion and government, will that law protect Wicca? Paganism? Is that what Christian conservatives want? Or do they just want the law to protect their religious displays?

This misguided petition will create a mess for America and it should be nipped in the bud. There are much more important issues facing this country and it would be nice if the far-right would avoid trying to force a fight on The People. Most Americans would prefer that this country remain rigidly secular and legislation such as this would cause much grief -- much more than it's worth.

*Ugh.*

---

Update: Justin at Elephant Rants is reporting that there's still some common sense in Knox County, Tennessee.

Well, not really. It's 18 degrees outside. Anyway, Eric Scheie has a response to those who criticize the blogosphere as being too "cliquish." I agree with him. I try to read as many blogs as I can and some weeks I get very "linkish" and others not. It goes with my flow of thoughts. I tend to be a news-item commenter or pointer-of-bias. In that sense I'm not very "linky." I do mention other blogs' posts when time allows but I link to stuff I want you to read. I don't just do it to do it unless I'm having back-and-forth fun with someone. I do appreciate (although it happens very rarely -- maybe only a couple times a month) when a blogger emails me about a post of his since otherwise I might not see it. And I tend to link to those especially.

Most of the bloggers on my sidebar are much better writers and thinkers than I am so I enjoy pointing folks in their direction. And, to be honest, I tend to read and link to bloggers who read and link to me. That's human nature. And I have email relationships with many of them as well.

We all have our comfort zone. As for the various conflicts between bloggers -- I enjoy it. I grew up reading science fiction fanzines where interzine-wars ruled! But I don't feel cozy. If I don't post for a couple of days, my traffic drops to almost nothing. I'm not big enough to have people stopping by out of reflex. And I do have an ego...

Speaking of criticism of the blogosphere, Discount Blogger Michael has plenty of it, but this time deserved, towards many of the conservative ones jumping on Ted Kennedy's asinine -- but not racist -- "neanderthal" remark. Like Michael, I really doubt that Kennedy is a racist. I didn't like his remark but I won't play the race card over it. That would be falling into the same mindless rhetoric that liberals play. Then we all look silly and petty.

---

Update: Glenn at Hi. I'm Black REALLY doesn't like blog cliques!

...who doesn't have a cell phone. Greg at The Hobbesian Conservative doesn't either. He explains why and I have to say I agree with him. There's also another reason I don't have one and that's that coverage is very spotty here in Northern New England. All of the terrain is hilly or mountainy and there are many large areas where you just can't get a signal. But his point about incoming telemarketers consuming those "free" minutes is on target.

For the past two months I've had Alphecca at a screen width of 800 pts. Does this bother a lot of you using older monitors with lower resolutions? Would you all prefer that I reduce Alphecca's width back to 700 pts.? Let me know...

As sure as fish gotta' swim and birds gotta' fly, as sure as the Sun rises (solar flares and all), as sure as Rosie O'Donnell is a pig that should just go away... So too, with startling regularity, it's the Alphecca weekly check on the media's bias against guns. Primarily a check on what newspaper stories and editorials are linked to on the Yahoo Gun Debate Page, I also try to mention a few other interesting things in order to pad make the report more meaningful.

For this week's photo, I chose a couple of beauties from the Smith & Wesson Engraving Service.

Not a lot of change so let's get to it.

First up is an editorial from the Atlanta Journal Constitution so filled with mis-information that we have to assume that the author is employed under some mental-disability quota system. Here's a quote:

In urging that gunmakers be made immune from civil lawsuits that can be filed against every other type of manufacturer, U.S. Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) posed a question: "Does anyone think we should hold carmakers responsible for the crimes of drunk drivers?"

Most people would say "no." But the answer would be different if Miller asked a slightly different question: "Should car dealers be responsible if they sell a car to a visibly drunk customer who drives off and runs over a child?"

That's a better analogy for the sweeping protections that Miller and his Senate colleagues will extend to gunmakers and dealers if they pass a gun immunity bill later this month.

Since I've used the drunk-driver/automaker analogy quite a bit here in the past, I have hopes that Zell Miller is a regular reader. Right. Anyway, this editorial is flat-out wrong in it's assumption that a gun dealer would be immune to lawsuits if it does something wrong. If the gun dealer knows that the person buying the gun is not who he says he is or is making a "straw" purchase, or if the gun dealer sells the gun to someone failing the NICS instant background check, or if he does almost anything against the guidelines spelled out by the BATF, then he CAN be held liable in a civil suit.

So then this foolish editorial further says:

Alleged Beltway sniper Lee Boyd Malvo says he shoplifted the 3-foot-long Bushmaster assault rifle he used in his deadly spree from the Bulls Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Wash. That same gun shop somehow "lost" 230 other guns between 2000 and last year.

I've stated here before that it was the fault of the BATF for not closing this gun store due to previous violations (the lost inventory) (and by the way, the store has finally lost it's FFL license) and that because of this negligence, it can be sued if the greedy plaintiffs can convince a judge that the store did something wrong that allowed Malvo to steal this gun.

But we go back to the purpose of the bill, to protect someone like Bushmaster. This manufacturer had no way of knowing that the Bull's Eye shop had past violations. There are thousands of gun dealers in the U.S. If the BATF doesn't take action, doesn't suspend an FFL dealer's license, doesn't notify gun makers (and they didn't!) that this store is a problem, then how could Bushmaster NOT sell to Bull's Eye? I can't believe the good folks of Georgia put up with and support this newspaper.

Remember in last week's report where I warned you about all the phony "gun-friendly" blatherings by the various Democratic candidates that was just wolf-in-sheep's-clothing? The Washington Times agrees. (They must read me too.) Here's a quote:

Gun-control organizations have claimed that many Democratic presidential candidates are simply putting their views in more politically acceptable terms without changing their substance. Possibly, they are merely putting the best spin on things, but Mr. Dean's frequent references to the Second Amendment certainly take the edge off a little noticed fact: According to gun-control organizations -- from Americans for Guns Safety to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence -- all the Democratic candidates support the same new gun-control laws.

Remember that. Every single one of the Democratic contenders would vote against the bill to shield gun makers. Every one of them support extending the phony "assault weapons" ban. Every one of them wants to close the non-existent "gun-show loop hole" that would make private transactions between friends illegal. Our problem, of course, is that President Bush also supports the latter two items.

Right now, of everyone running for president in 2004, not one is a true friend to folks like us who support the Second Amendment. I think that sucks. For us, it will come down to voting for the person we think will do the least damage.

Last week I had a post about a coward who shoots a barking dog, and when the enraged dog's owner comes by with a two-by-three, the coward shoots him too. The coward is protected by Colorado's 19-year-old "Make my day" law protecting homeowners from liability for shooting home invaders. I didn't fault the law, just the mutant who took advantage of it. Yahoo linked to the story even though it really has nothing to do with gun control per se. Anyway, here was MY comment:

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.

This is a curious case where the law is correct and proper but Griffin should have acted like an adult and complained to the dog's owner rather than shooting the dog. This is a sorry, no-win situation and frankly, no law, or lack of one, would have prevented it given Griffin's (in my opinion!) temper instability. But the story doesn't belong in a debate about gun control. A debate about liability, possibly.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel doesn't think much of the new bill allowing concealed carry in Wisconsin:

In general, according to poll data, Americans seem either satisfied with existing gun regulations or in favor of somewhat tighter restrictions. For example, considerable majorities favor the licensing of handgun owners and background checks on buyers of firearms at gun shows.

Really? And what "poll data" would that be? What is the random, nationwide poll, sponsored by an independent -- not-funded by a gun control advocate -- polling firm, that shows that Americans want tighter restrictions on firearms? Produce it. Give a name, a date, a link!

The last time I looked, there was almost universal agreement by both Al Gore and all of the current Democratic candidates and their liberal allies, that pushing for national handgun licensing was a losing issue among voters. In fact, it probably made the difference in the presidential election of 2000. And if the majority of Americans favor increased gun control, then why is Kerry and Dean and Clark et al, tripping all over themselves trying to impress all of us with how "gun friendly" they are? What total, unmitigated bullshit. Would one of you in the Wisconsin area please find an editorial from some other newspaper that counter-balances this? That presents the other side? Just so I know there's some modicum of reason in that part of the country's media?

Lastly, the Washington Post actually had a "not entirely anti-gun" article about the efforts to increase the ranks of hunting enthusiasts. It doesn't really have anything to do with gun control but it is interesting. Of course, they had to find some quotes from Brady Bunch types and animal-rights groups to spoil it all...

---

That was it over at Yahoo. Now onto a few other items.

First an update: A couple of weeks ago I mentioned the plight of an 80-year-old man who used a revolver (inherited from his deceased mother) to ward off an attack by a thug attempting to steal his social-security money. The story was also reported by my blogbrother Kevin at the Smallest Minority. My friend Dave at Pervasive Light set up a defense/help fund. I mentioned it and then Jay Solo picked-up on it and then Glenn Reynolds gave it an Instalanche. I'm pleased to say that over $1265 dollars was raised for this victim of New York's oppressive gun laws. Thanks to all of you for helping out.

Via Keep And Bear Arms, here's the story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of the chief of police of East Cleveland attempting to stop a gun store from opening:

Opening a gun shop in East Cleveland would be like tossing a lighted match into a box of explosives, as far as Police Chief Patricia Lane is concerned.

Lane wants City Council to ban firearms sales in East Cleveland as a pre-emptive strike against a man who recently asked about operating a gun shop at Euclid Avenue and Noble Road.

"The last thing we need in this city is another gun dealer - legal or illegal," Lane told council members Wednesday.

Gun stores have operated in East Cleveland before, but they have closed.

Lane said a gun shop would bring added worry for an undermanned Police Department kept scrambling by violence.

Two things. First of all, Lane (the police chief) admits her Police Department can't keep up with all the crime in East Cleveland. As a resident of that city, I would probably be nervous about that and want to do something such as -- oh, gosh, maybe take steps to protect myself since the police don't seem able to. But she would take away that option by lobbying to prevent a gun store from opening in the city where law-abiding citizens could purchase that protection.

Obviously (in my opinion) Lane has some issues about control and power and her own inadequacy because she appears to think that only she and other cops should be allowed to own a firearm for self-defense. What is she afraid of? That someone might live through the night? Survive a mugging or other assault? Personally, I think everyone should own and carry a firearm. As the great Robert A. Heinlein once said, "An armed society is a polite society."

Secondly, Lane is interfering with the ability of a business to "do business." If someone wants to open a gun store and there are no laws or zoning preventing that, then they should be able to. For thoughts on a similar theme, see my post about a similar protest regarding zoning and Bushmaster from last week.

Ya' know folks, if you would just stop by more often you'd get to read all of my gems... (Ghod, I'm insufferable!)

From Washington State, via The Olympian, comes this story of a concerned -- and armed -- citizen helping the police capture a group of mutants:

Josh Lenoue had stepped onto his front porch when he heard noises coming from the woods near his neighbor's property.

It was after sunset, and he could see lights that flickered off from the trees when he walked by to investigate.

Lenoue hurried back to his house, grabbed a flashlight and a .22-caliber handgun, summoned his German shepherd and went back outside.

As he crept closer to the area at 5:55 p.m. Wednesday, three men appeared out of the darkness, approaching him.

The 29-year-old commercial truck driver pointed his gun and ordered them to the ground.

It turned out that Lenoue had observed car headlights. He had interrupted three men who, according to police, were taking parts from a stolen car.

And further into the story:

The sheriff's office doesn't encourage citizens to take matters into their own hands, sheriff's Capt. Dan Kimball said. But, without Lenoue's intervention, deputies probably would have had little success in tracking the thieves, he said.

Contrast that with the sorry attitude shown by the Chief of Police of East Cleveland in the story I related just before this one. It astounds me that any cop would not support the right of people to arm and protect themselves, their families, and yes, their neighbors too. They should be considered an asset, not something to be feared.

---

Meanwhile, around the blogosphere...

Glenn Reynolds reported on a 9th Circuit opinion that you can too own a home-made machine gun. Eugene Volokh concurs. Can I hear a big HEH?

James R. Rummel at Hell In A Handbasket has the fat and the skinny on rifle ammo.

From Publicola comes this disturbing story of a woman in Indiana doing what any of us would have done -- shot intruders. But the intruders were cops who waited only five seconds before knocking and then breaking the door down. By the way, five seconds is more than most cops wait. Read it. Publicola is right-on-target.

Kevin at The Smallest Minority reports on a home invasion and what happens when folks don't have the right to properly fight back.

Matt at Stop The Bleating has the scoop on a husband who's wife committed suicide with his gun. And he's being blamed!

Les Jones gives his review of the Ruger P95C. I owned an early version many years ago and loved it. It shot anything I could stuff in the magazine.

Say Uncle is reporting that folks in Ohio are carrying -- not concealed -- to protest their inability to carry concealed.

And since I can't cover it all (unless you folks want to give me the salery that Andrew Sullivan gets,) you can find many more examples of defensive uses of guns (not reported by the liberal media) over at Clayton Cramer's Civilian's Gun Self-Defense Blog.

Oh, and Bitter Bitch is looking for a pro-gun editorial cartoonist. Hmmm... Chris Muir comes to mind.

---

Okay, I think four hours is enough to spend on a post so I'll wrap it up here. It's actually about an hour before Monday but I'll throw it up now for you early birds. Thanks to all of you for your support -- both moral and financial, emails, and links. I'll be back soon. Thanks for stopping by!

---

Update, a comment on the Bull's Eye shop:

I'm not exactly sure where Bulls Eye was in the process of getting their FFL revoked, but what happened is that the store sold, and the new owners were granted and FFL (or might have had one already, I have no information either way on that point.) Hopefully the new owners will run a tighter ship than the old ones!

-- Kirk P.

Thanks Kirk.

A couple of weeks ago I gave my views about the CBS cancellation of The Reagans. You might do well to give it a brief read as a prelude to this post.

Anyway, in this weekend's edition of USA TODAY, there's an article about the large losses of viewers by the major television networks. Especially missing in action are the "prized" young males that advertisers have come to focus on. Here's a quote:

Ad buyers have their own theories. They say networks chased away viewers by switching the time slots of 20 returning shows and scheduled too many series against others with similar appeal (Lyon's Den vs. The Practice, Karen Sisco vs. Law & Order), and diverted the public's focus on new and returning series with a barrage of summer reality.

But there's another explanation: Turns out that much of the output is downright dull.

"Some of the programs just sucked," NBC Entertainment president Jeff Zucker told an industry breakfast last week in a widely quoted mea culpa.

Other networks were quick to take umbrage and defended the quality of their shows. But Zucker captured a common if more muted sentiment among advertisers, critics and producers that even "successful" new series, at least by today's more modest standards, just aren't that inspiring.

TV execs also blame the Neilson Ratings as not accurate. Or maybe it's Cable's fault. Or maybe anything other than themselves.

Now, I wouldn't presume to speak for other TV viewers -- oh who am I kidding, of course I would... This is a blog! My TV viewing has shrunk to about ten hours a week, most of it being the first hour of NBC's The Today Show each morning. And when I get home from work I might catch Wheel of Fortune while "unwinding" and occasionally something like Mystery on PBS. And that's about it.

I only receive two TV stations (I can't afford a dish and cable isn't available.) But when I look at the TV guide in my newspaper, I don't really seem to be missing anything.

I'd rather surf the net or blog or listen to Old Time Radio on the Internet or even stream C-SPAN. The major TV networks are not putting anything on television that I want to watch.

Let's take NBC: Most of the programming is endless versions of Law and Order, a show I find so repellent and moralizing, featuring cops who deserve to be shot and prosecutors so busy reciting liberal rhetoric, that I can't bring myself to sit through a single episode. Or they have Dateline on for six hours a week spewing the Democratic Party line. Or shows like Fear Factor featuring grotesque challenges resulting in lots of people vomiting on the screen. Since when did barfing become entertainment?

There are a couple of sitcoms I sometimes catch; Friends and Frasier have decent ensemble casts and are mildly amusing. The others are hopelessly boring or worse, preachy, such as the recent episode of Whoopie which spent 25 minutes denigrating President Bush and Republicans in general.

Needless to say, on all of these shows the conservative or libertarian viewpoint is only presented as a target for Hollywood Liberals to make fun of. A positive or even neutral portrayal of someone with a religious or pro-life viewpoint is impossible.

Then there's PBS: Vermont Public Television has one half-hour show each week called Outdoor Journal that I try to watch. I mentioned this show a couple months ago. And they occasionally show an old movie late at night worth staying up for. And that's about it. I never get home in time to catch The NewsHour With Jim Jehrer and unfortunately they don't repeat it later in the evening.

The rest of the Public Television schedule is taken up with liberal blather such as Now With Bill Moyers, Independent Lense, etc. Presented of course without any conservative opinion being heard as a counterbalance.

The big networks simply don't speak to me. I suspect there are a lot of folks in the middle of this country that aren't hearing them either. The TV executives have decided that the only group that matters to them anymore are the supposedly young, hip urbanites located mostly in coastal cities. Fine. They deserve each other but please don't bore me then with whining about how "nobody is watching us anymore" or how as one bigwig in this article put it:

"We live in such a peculiarly politically correct climate, where it's OK to be lascivious but you can't be provocative; you can't really be thought-provoking," says veteran TV producer Barry Kemp (A Minute With Stan Hooper). "We want to push the envelope and be edgy, but we don't want to offend anybody."

Here's a thought, Barry: You already are offensive. I'm tired of endless sex jokes and innuendo. I think back to the great sitcoms of years past which managed to get along just fine without all the lewdness. The Jackie Gleason Show comes to mind as does the first few years of MASH before it became Alan Alda's personal soapbox. How about The Mary Tyler Moore Show or for that matter the Dick Van Dyke Show? How about The Carol Burnett Show? My point isn't that I wish I could hop into a time machine and journey back to the "good-old-days" but rather that these were all successful, long-running shows that relied on great casts and terrific writing. None of these shows needed sex or liberal-bashing or intense moral sermons to succeed. Friends and Frasier mostly do a good job of avoiding those pitfalls.

For Dramas I think of shows such as Hill Street Blues and Columbo and others. I kind of miss The Avengers too. Again, it came down to the cast and the script. And a bit of originality!

Maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy whom time has passed on by. But maybe not since the prized demographic audience seems to be watching less and less as well, according to this article. If the TV Networks want me back, they'll have to do better than offering endless sex, Bush bashing, and vomiting.

---

See you all tomorrow with the "Weekly Check on the Media's gun bias. Thanks for stopping by!