...my reply on Light of Reason to the attacks on me. Scroll down a bit if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I'm writing this from work so I have to keep switching to something like Excel everytime a boss walks by...You know the deal so forgive any lack of continuity.  I also don't have a dictionary handy.

First, lets dispose of the practical.  In Vermont, N.H., and most other states (and therefore I presume N.Y.) anti-discrimination laws exempt very small businesses and owner occupied apartments of four or less units.

Now let's move to my objections to Arthur's arguments.  You build a house on your own property.  You absolutely do have the right to only invite in those you want, and feed only those you want.

But once you decide to turn that house (building) into a business, then you have become a public accommodation.  A public space.  And then, yes, society does have a right to tell you --not how you should feel-- but how you must behave.

So if you turn your building into a hotel or apartment building, the government does have the right to tell you you must have fire-sprinklers, indoor plumbing, smoke-detectors, etc.  And yes, they have the right to tell you that you must offer your hospitality to anyone who can pay.

If you open a hospital you must meet more regulations from the government appointed by the people to insure that the doctors and nurses you hire wash their hands, have lisences to practice medicine, etc.

If you open a restaurant there are other health codes you must meet.  You might own that restaurant and may feel that meat doesn't need to be refrigerated or that cooks need not wash their hands, but you are now a public accommodation and at least I personally believe government does have a right to regulate your business.

Businesses are subject to a whole host of regulations and adding one more that encourages civility and fairness does not strike me as a burden.

As for guns, again, if I am on my own property and not threatening anyone then I should be left alone.  But once I enter the public, there are laws about how I use or show that gun.  I can't just go waving it around in a crowd yelling, "I'm gonna shoot all of ya."  Which also goes to show that there are limits on free speach.  I can't keep calling someone up on the phone and telling them I am going to kill them.

Like your car.  It's your property and if you want to drive it in your back field while drunk as a skunk, fine.  But if you want to put it on the public roadways, then there are rules of behavior you must follow, whether you like it or not, even though it's your car.  You can't tailgate or run people off the road or drive drunk.

Once you open a business, be it an apartment building or a restaurant or Enron, then there are regulations pertaining to you to insure that society continues to operate smoothly.

It is easy to point to the climate in large cities today and say, well of course Texaco doesn't need a law telling them they should hire blacks.  Thirty years ago they did.  Twenty years ago I was fired from a job after the boss noticed my pick-up truck in the parking lot of a local gay bar.  I didn't like it and I didn't deserve it.  Now days he would have to come up with a better excuse.

And later, I posted the following (there was one jerk's post in-between):

Furthering my comments (I'll ignore the person in between, who's vocabulary and argument is limited to cursing)

People might say that a person can do anything they want with their company. The market will decide. OKay, Enron, Tyco, and Adelphia have cost people millions. Should the hapless stockholders just shrug their shoulders and say, oh well, I was screwed...

Of course, they could sue... but if society is a free-for-all, with no rules and regulations, then your lawsuit has no basis. Well, that guy's restaurant poisened me and it killed my child. I'm going to sue.

For what? If there are no regulations on a business then you haven't been wronged. Let the buyer beware. You got food poisening? Too bad, we don't regulate food safety. This is a free society with no expected standards of behavior. Even civil lawsuits depend on standards of behavior and regulations just in order to show that those regulations have been violated.

The wheels of your car fell off? Too bad. That's how we build our cars and there are no regulations requiring that the wheels on the cars we make stay on. Your family died? So don't buy cars from us anymore.

Anarchy is NOT libertarian. There have to be some rules of conduct or society ceases to function. Otherwise I could place a manure composting factory next to your home in a residential area and you couldn't do a thing about it and would have to live with the smell of cow-poop for the rest of your life (since no-one in their right mind would buy your house under those conditions.) That's why we have planning boards. Society must agree on certain rules to keep the peace and insure that everyone can enjoy prosperity and the right to liberty. But all those things cost. Not much, but a little. Don't like the smell of cow-poop? Too bad, I own the property next to you and I can do anything I like. Does any rational, thinking person really believe this?

I believe I am correct. Arthur believes he is correct. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. It doesn't affect my friendship with him or what I consider the kinship between our blogs. Lovers always fight, but then we kiss and make-up and...

...there's an op-ed piece by Debra Saunders in SFGate (of all places) criticizing the decision by Judge Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court regarding the right of individuals to bear arms. Here's a quote:

It's not logical to argue that the founding fathers recognized a state's right to defend itself, but not an individual's right to self-protection. Self- defense, after all, is fundamental to freedom. What's more, it's not as if the founding fathers were averse to guns.

And Saunders continues by stating that Reinhardt was appointing himself a lawmaker:

But while Reinhardt is arguing to restrict an individual's powers, he moved along on expanding his own. He turned himself into a lawmaker.

The plaintiffs in the case had argued that exemptions allowing off-duty and retired peace officers to possess assault weapons violated their 14th Amendment right to equal protection. Reinhardt found no "rational basis" for the law to exempt retired peace officers. Then he struck down the exemption he didn't like.

Judges routinely strike down unconstitutional laws. But as Eastman noted, in striking the exemption, Reinhardt essentially wrote a new law: "He's now making it criminal for retired peace officers to possess assault weapons, even though the legislation said it was legal."

The rest of the editorial is a pretty weak argument against the Judge but considering where it appeared, at least it's a start in the right direction. And no, I don't think just anyone should be allowed to own any type of weapon they want, but California used the most silly, flimsy criteria (such as cosmetics) to determine what they thought an "assault weapon" is.

There's a discussion going on over at my buddy Arthur Silber's Light of Reason where he takes exception to my celebrating the new protections for gays and lesbians in New York State. I'm running out of time right now (I'm due at work in an hour) but will try to add my comments there later today. All very interesting of course.

---

I am aware that my blogging has been light this week -- I'm battling some sort of cold and have mostly been hitting the sack when I get home from work. But be forwarned that I have several days off next week and will come back with a vengeance...

...that New York State included gays and lesbians in anti-discrimination laws. From AP writer Seanna Adcox, here's the story:

ALBANY, N.Y. - Republican Gov. George Pataki signed a bill into law that outlaws discrimination against homosexuals in New York state, 31 years after advocates began lobbying for it.

The law protects people from abuse, harassment and discrimination in employment, housing, education and public services based on their sexual orientation. It made New York the 13th state to prohibit anti-gay bias.

It's scary though that so many states still don't provide simple protections such as these. There were detractors. For instance:

"The bill itself is a step in the wrong direction," said Sen. Serphin Maltese. "We cannot legislate politeness ... the way people feel. That comes through mutual respect."

Well, no, you can't legislate the way people feel and you can't legislate respect. But you can pass legislation to insure that your feelings don't interfere with the way you conduct business. You might not like that someone is gay, but that should not be an excuse to fire that person. You might loath lesbians, but that is not an acceptable reason to harrass or threaten them or refuse them housing.

As for mutual respect, that can only begin when everyone starts on a level playing field.

...a new blogger to my permanent links on the sidebar, The Inscrutable American. Stop on by and say, "hi."

Time for the weekly tally, gang. For newcomers, Alphecca employs a huge staff of news gatherers and readers and statiticians to bring you totally useless vitally important information. Each week we take a look at the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page to see the bias exhibited by the selection of news stories and editorials featured. I read through the stories, feature articles and editorials and rate them as either pro gun control/anti-gun or not more gun control/pro second amendment. I don't delve into the archives, just the items listed on the front page of this catagory. So here we go:

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Articles
Sample Date	Pro More Gun Control Or Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment	Neutral Articles
12/18/02	13	4	3
12/11/02	13	6	4
12/04/02	15	2	3
11/26/02	17	2	1
11/20/02	18	2	2
11/13/02	14	2	3
11/07/02	17	4	-
10/26/02	21	4	-

The chart still reflects (from last week) that several articles from Canada -- criticizing the new gun registry fiasco there -- are in the "not more gun control" column. The only new pro-second amendment story was from the Washington Post (oddly enough!) about the D.C. Superior Court dismissing a liability suit against gun makers. Here's an excerpt:

A D.C. Superior Court judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the D.C. government and victims of gun violence against the nation's major firearms makers and distributors, dealing a blow to city officials and gun control advocates.

In the first case of its kind in the District, Judge Cheryl M. Long ruled that the lawsuit was so fundamentally flawed and unpersuasive that it failed to meet the standard for moving forward. The judge tossed out claims to hold the gun industry accountable as a "public nuisance" and rejected the D.C. government's argument that it was entitled to be reimbursed for police work, Medicaid costs and other expenses related to gun violence.

The judge granted a motion filed on behalf of 25 companies to toss out the suit, saying the case was "burdened with many layers of legal deficiencies." The city's lawyers, she said, failed to show how actions of gunmakers and distributors could be tied to specific acts of violence. Also, the city exceeded the reach of nuisance and other laws, she said.

Score one in the common sense column. The judge mentioned the same argument that I have before, that the suit would be akin to holding automakers liable for crimes committed using their cars.

On the other (anti-gun) side, The BBC chimed in with gushing approval of Michael Moore's "bowling for Columbine" being named best documentary of all time. Here's a quote:

Bowling for Columbine, the latest film by United States satirist Michael Moore, has been named the best documentary of all time by leading factual film-makers from around the world.

The International Documentary Association (IDA) chose Moore's controversial exploration of US gun culture, boosting the film's prospects for Oscars success in March.

You know, "of all time" is a heck of a lot of time... Since most documentary films are made by leftists, and since most of Hollywood is leftist and screamingly liberal, I expect Moore's pack of contrived falsehoods and fabrications probably will win an Oscar for best documentary. And that will, unfortunately, help convince folks on the fence about gun control to take the movie seriously.

I would love to see pro-gunners put together a documentary --in non-hysterical fashion-- showing the benefits of gun ownership and of all the lives saved by firearms. Of course you can bet that no matter how good it is, or how convincing it is, a film like that would never win an award...

Just visiting some of my friends...

My HTML mentor and buddy Aubrey Turner shows off his boombox from days gone past. I may love him now but back then I wanted to blast these things away. Like maybe, just maybe, I didn't want to hear your music. But then I got to thinking (and I'm older then him and so my days were earlier then his) we used to drive around the high-school with (brace yourselves...) our eight-track players in our cars blasting Black Sabbath and ZZ Top. Cars (in my day) didn't have much of a sound system so we had huge, loose speakers sitting on our back-decks. So in reality we were all the same. And like all high-school kids, we were obnoxious. Some things never change. A cool post, check it out.

---

Now that Al Gore won't be prattling to us to death for the next two years, my friend Diane at Everything Must Go is plugging Joe Lieberman:

Lieberman for President! Seriously. He's a centrist, and as a practising Jew, he's corruption and appeasement proof with respect to Islamist interests. The Bush administration has been fumbling too many opportunities lately, because the State Department is actively sabotaging the war on terror, and Bush doesn't seem serious about cleaning house, even though the Saudi-owned State Department is a greater threat to our national security than Al Qaeda. Why else are we coddling the mullahs in Iran and screwing around everywhere else?

My own thoughts are that --unfortunately-- this country is still not ready to accept a Jewish person for president. There are still a lot of "closet" Trent Lotts around. And the far-left (which claims to embrace tolerance) is so virulently anti-semitic --all the while they suck-up to Islamic extremists who would kill them in a second-- would never support a Jewish candidate. I might add that, in my opinion, Lieberman is not 2nd Amendment friendly and that is my bottom line, my primary issue when voting. But anyway, it's interesting reading so visit her as well.

---

My buddy Tim Wilson has a review of the new Star Trek movie and he's not impressed. Now I must confess that I only see movies during the Summer when they show up at the Fairlee Drive-in (months after they were released.) Nemisis should just be showing up there around May...

---

In other news, Tom Brennan at AgendaBender reports on a study at (local to me) Dartmouth College:

HANOVER, N.H. ­ Researchers at Dartmouth are getting closer to understanding how some melodies have a tendency to stick in your head or why hearing a particular song can bring back a high school dance. They have found and mapped the area in your brain that processes and tracks music. It's a place that's also active during reasoning and memory retrieval.

Visit him and read the whole thing but I must tell you this is one of my biggest problems. I can have dreamy nights and yet the same song will be running through my head the whole time. Why some of these tunes (and I don't actually like many of them) should lodge in my mind and bug me the whole day or night is Worthy, Worthy I tell you, of study.

---

On a much different note (*sorry*) my friend Arthur Silber at Light of Reason tackles the question of: Why can't we have a third party. He uses the Libertarian Party as an example and asks, "who should lead it?"

Good God. Okay, here's what I think. Short of impeaching the entire Republican Party (can that be done? -- it would be great if it could), maybe the time has arrived for a new party. Can the Libertarian Party be saved from some of the idiots that populate it? Is there anyone sensible -- and who actually understands what limited government, and national self-defense mean -- who could lead it? Perhaps a critical moment has arrived, and enough people are tired of the same old, same old Democrats and Republicans. I'm not suggesting that a new party could actually win in the next election (maybe some Congressional seats, but nothing more), but perhaps a new party, with new leadership, could begin to change the way the game is being played right now.

What do you think? And who could lead such a new party, either reshaping the Libertarian Party or starting a whole new one? Any candidates come to mind? Or can you think of any other strategies to begin some meaningful change? This whole charade has genuinely become sickening beyond belief.

I've mentioned this in my "about me" link and I've said many times that I'm not Democratic, or Republican, I am conservative but probably Libertarian. And I also said that the problem with the Libertarian Party is that they run such "shitty" candidates. All very interesting so go visit him now.

---

And this is scary to me but PlanetPuck is suggesting Mitch McConnell for the new Senate Republican leader... That could almost, almost make me vote Democratic!

---

I would like to mention again that if you are a blogger and have a permanent link to me on your blog, let me know! I'll gladly reciprocate and add one to yours. There are (as I write this) only about 11 blogs that link to me. My huge, inflated ego needs a much larger audience and we can all help each other get our voices out on the web.

I have some stuff to attend to so I probably won't be around on Tuesday. I'll see you all back here Wednesday, same Bat-Channel... Thanks for stopping by.

One of my favorite blogs is On The Third Hand and recently MommaBear linked to my post last week on the disaster of escalating costs of Canada's gun registration program. It generated some nasty comments by a (liberal) youth named Guy Cabot. Go there now and read it and then come back.

He declares that gun crimes costs the U.S. 100 billion dollars per year. Once again, I got out my mental calculator and did the math. I've posted my reply at On The Third Hand but I thought you all might be interested in what I came up with. So I'm posting my reply here as well, exactly as I posted it there:

Firstly I'd like to thank MommaBear for alerting me that there was a discussion taking place over her posting of a link to my blog Alphecca. Secondly, I'd like to thank Jeff Pikul for his comments but he should not be confused with me, Jeff Soyer, the originator and poster of the article in question over at Alphecca.com.

Now since complainant Cabot has apparently read my posting but (like most liberals) is too scared to comment to me directly at Alphecca, I suppose I'll have to address him here.

As usual he's wrong. And he must be very young since he starts his tirade with name-calling. He calls me a moron, which is typical of the juveniles on the left. I've been called worse but at least this sets the ground rules and allows me to respond in kind. But while he is a child, I am an adult and will stick to facts.

In his next post he uses the now discredited thesis that gun violence costs the U.S. 100 billion dollars per year.

He quotes two sources, Texans for Gun Safety, which is the local Texas branch of Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) which is the new name for the organization started by Monster.com millionaire Andrew McKelvey. The original organization was called Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) and was chaired by Sarah Brady. Hardly an objective source for any objective statistic.

He also quotes the book Gun Violence: The Real Costs, by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig. The source of the 100 billion dollar figure. The book was based on statistics compiled from 91 reporting hospitals. This book had several good points to make but unfortunately the authors cooked the books to come up with that cost analysis.

For a total refutation of those costs, you might visit the review of that book by Dave Kopel and Paul Blackman. They estimate the costs of gun violence in the 5-10 billion dollar range annually. But to help your sorry case along, let's stick with the 100 billion figure. Incidentally, child, Dr. Jens Ludwig and Dr. Philip Cook have since published a study in JAMA stating that gun control does NOT reduce gun crime. So much for that argument!

There are about 38 thousand gun related deaths per year. You could subtract more than half of those as suicides but again -- for the sake of argument and so no one can accuse me of minimizing statistics to make my point -- let's take a figure of 30K.

It has been estimated by Yale Professor John Lott -- who's book "More Guns, Less Crime" has never been disputed or proven inaccurate and which used a much larger sample (data on all 3,000-plus counties in the U.S. over an 18-year period) then the Cook and Ludwig book cited above -- that guns are used defensively, that is they are used to stop or deter crime, usually just by display, 3.6 million times a year. Other estimates vary widely but even the lowest estimates put the figure at about a million. Again, I'll go with the low figure. No child can accuse me of bias from the statistics I use.

The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics says that in 2000 there were 533,470 crimes committed using a firearm. Simple math would then reveal that actually, guns and gun ownership prevent 60+ thousand deaths. Saving (using the same statistics) 60 thousand lives. Saving the United States 200 billion dollars. Combine the figures and you have an annual savings to Americans of 100 billion dollars.

Any questions, little boy Cabot? If you want to hang with adults then you'd better grow up. Now go to bed, you have kindergarten tomorrow and God knows you have some learning to do.

Man that felt good! Now, I'll see you all tomorrow...

Today was the day the local newspaper, The Valley News published its local "Letters to Santa" insert. The letters are heartwarming, joyful, friendly, and also a lot of fun to read. Here are some (really!) verbatim excerpts:

Dear Santa,
How is it in the North Pole? Are you busy? How is Rudolph? I want a porcelain doll. How is Mis Claus? Is she good? I want some chocolate and anything else.
-North Haverhill, age 7

Dear Santa,
My name is Marley and I just got a lot of stuff for my 2nd birthday but now I'm ready for a lot more...
--Plainfield, age 2

Dear Santa,
I like to do spelling in school. I am in the third grade and I like to snow mobile. How do you do all the children in one night? How are all of the elves feeling? I wish for a four wheeler. I would also like a boy Golden Retreiver that is not fixed...
--North Haverhill, age 8

Dear Santa,
This is the first year of writing to you because last year I was still too little... ...One thing that I would like is a Play Kitchen and some pots and pans and food to go with it. This way I can be most like my Mommy & Daddy when they cook. I know that you have a lot of kids to bring toys to so if you need my Daddy to help you build it than just ask him and I'm sure he wouldn't mind.
--Claremont, age 7

Dear Santa,
I would trust you to get me a four wheeler please and an X box please. Santa, I would trust you again to get me a baby black lab and a 3 colored cat to go with that stuff...
--Thetford, age 9

Dear Santa,
I want a motorcycle for Christmas. I've been a really, really, really good boy... ...If a motorcycle doesn't fit in your sleigh, I'd like a kitty for a pet. Merry Christmas...
--Hartland, age 4 1/2

Dear Santa,
Why do you have reindeer? Why do you have elves?...
North Haverhill, age 6

Dear Santa,
Hi, it's me _____. You probably already know that. How are things going at the North Pole? Things are just great here. As you know already... ...Don't forget to look for the Coke and cookies that my sisters and I will leave for you. Hopefully my Dad won't find them first...
--White River Junction, age 10

Dear Santa,
For Christmas I would like a Leap Frog Thing with the pen. You can get them at Walmart...
--Canaan, age 3

All of these are very cute and sweet to read. But there are so many letters that didn't even make it into this year's supplement. Here are a few that arrived at Alphecca headquarters:

Dear Santa,
I've been a really good girl this year. Please make all the bad, evil Repubablicans go away. Am I still the most beeutifull womyn in the world?
--Barbra Streisand, age 56 none of your damn business!

Dear Santa,
I've been a really really really really good guy this year. I know that I have a tendency to go on and on and on and on and on and on and I am really really really really really boring. I would like to save the trees but they all fall asleep when I walk by and by and by and by and by. Could you please give me a personality for Christmas this year? Here is why I need one... I have always been.... bla bla bla bla ---six pages later--- and although I am not going to seek the presidency in 2004.... bla bla bla bla ---8 pages later--- and that is why I would like a personality.
--Al Gore, age too boring to tell.

Dear Santa,
For Christmas could you please bring me a staple-gun so I can shut my big fat fucking mouth?
--Trent Lott, age -- too old to learn...

Dear Santa,
We've all been very good this year. This year for Christmas could you please bring all of us heavy-duty staple-guns so we can corner Trent Lott and shut his big fat fucking mouth?
--The other 50 Republican Senators of Congress

Dear Santa,
I don't really care how you've been. I don't care how anyone is. I've been perfect. I am the embodiment of wit, wisdom, and journalistic brilliance. Although I certainly work no harder then most other bloggers
--what the heck, I get to lounge around Cape Cod with my beagle and boyfriend-- I feel I should be paid as if this is my full-time job. Didn't you always call me your Princess? Please let so much money roll-in that I don't have to have another Pledge-Week for at least six months.
--little Andy, age (if you have to ask, the lights in here are way too bright!)

That's me, always making new friends... See you tomorrow night...