...Usually I just take Saturdays off but I thought I'd try for a couple days. But with all the exciting (even if bogus) news about...

Anyway, most of you know that huge news-gathering organizations such as Alphecca have -of course- time machines in their R&D departments and one of our multitude of reporting teams just returned from (probably Mexico) 12 years in the future where they captured this tender, moving dialog (and photo! -- time machines are so cool!) between a mother and her 12 year-old daughter.

Mom: So how are you, my little dumpling?

Daughter: Oh Mom, you big kidney pie, you know I love being with you. I feel such a kinship with you. I'm much closer to you then any of the other kids at school are to their parents...

Mom: I know that, my little apple crisp-who's-just-like-me... So you remember I told you that your daddy ran off with the aliens?

Daughter: Yes Mom, you large kumkwat, that was awful of him.

Mom: Well actually (*hah-hah*) you don't have a daddy. You are really a clone of me--

Daughter: Why Mom, I am a lot like you, if that's what you mean. I think it's so cool that we enjoy the same foods and music and clothing and books and that you think my boyfriends are really cute the way I do and--

Mom: Well listen, my little kugelhupf, what I mean is that you are me. You are a genetic duplicate -a clone- of me. There was no daddy, just a petri-dish of my DNA--

Daughter: Oh Mom, you big blanquette de veau, you're such a kidder...

Mom: No --really, my little crabmeat canape, you are me! You are and will be exactly like me.

Daughter: Now Mom, you big cauliflower, when you say exactly, just how exactly do you mean? You don't mean I'm really going to look just like you when I grow up, do you?

Mom: Well yes, my dear little leg of lamb, you will be an exact duplicate of me--

At this point in the futuristic recording, there was some static and the sound of a young girl retching, sort of like the girl in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds...

Daughter: Now look, you big anchovy, are you really telling me that I'm going to grow up to look like a big fucking tart like you? Didn't they have mirrors back then?

Mom: Well yes, my little--

And at this point there was the sound of a young girl screaming, a pause, and then the sound of two shot-gun blasts...

Sometimes -in some hands- technology is just too-cool, huh?

I'm going to take a couple of days off here to attend to some other pressing issues in my life but will return Sunday afternoon. Thanks for stopping by.

For those who don't know, I live about 22 miles north of White River Junction (VT) or if that's too small a reference; about 20 miles north of Hanover, N.H. (Think Dartmouth College.) Anyway, we are getting walloped by the largest single snow-fall that I've seen in about ten years. There are already about 17 inches on the ground (in the low spots where it hasn't drifted higher) and according to Weather.com there is still about a half-foot due through the course of the night. Here's the warning they gave us an hour ago:

Severe Weather Alert from the National Weather Service ...ORANGE VT-RUTLAND VT-WINDSOR VT- INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...BETHEL...BRANDON...DANBY...FAIR HAVEN... RANDOLPH...RUTLAND...SPRINGFIELD AND WHITE RIVER JUNCTION 920 PM EST WED DEC 25 2002

...WINTER STORM WARNING IS CONTINUED OVERNIGHT IN SOUTH CENTRAL VERMONT...

THIS SECTION OF SOUTH-CENTRAL VERMONT HAS BEEN HIT VERY HARD BY A NEARLY STATIONARY BAND OF EXTREMELY INTENSE SNOWFALL THIS CHRISTMAS EVENING....WITH 12 TO 18 INCHES HAVING FALLEN IN LESS THAN 6 HOURS. ALTHOUGH SNOWFALL RATES WILL DIMINISH SUBSTANTIALLY...LIGHTER SNOW WILL CONTINUE TO ACCUMULATE INTO THE EARLY MORNING HOURS UNTIL THE VERY POWERFUL STORM MOVES WELL OFF THE MASSACHUSETTS COAST. UP TO 6 INCHES OF ADDITIONAL SNOW IS EXPECTED OVERNIGHT IN THIS SECTION OF THE STATE...WHICH WOULD BRING STORM TOTALS TO AT LEAST 18 TO 24 INCHES. TRAVEL WILL BE VERY SLOW OR IMPOSSIBLE IN MANY AREAS UNTIL HIGHWAY CREWS ARE ABLE TO CLEAR ROADS THURSDAY. AS WINDS INCREASE OVERNIGHT TO 15 TO 25 MPH...LARGE DRIFTS WILL DEVELOP AND THE WINDS MAY BRING DOWN TREE LIMBS AND POWER LINES.

I'm in Orange County. And since I'm due to work the store by myself tomorrow... I'll carry signal-flares with me. You might not hear from me tomorrow but maybe I'll take some pictures.

Anyway, the real point of this post is that if you live in the Northeast, and you have off this weekend, get yourself up to Vermont because this might be the best skiing weekend you'll ever have. This is great, powdery snow with no thaw in sight. The ski resorts will be rockin'!

---

Just a quick update: We wound up with about 20 inches. Getting to work was slow but Vermont knows how to deal with snow and the ride home was at highway speed...

Well now that we've all got that "good will to all" stuff out of the way, I guess I can go back to talking about guns and violence... Just kidding.

I had thought I would stay off the computer today but how could I forget the weekly bias check at the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page:

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
12/25/02	15	4	1
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	-

Most of the new articles were about the New Jersey "smart gun" legislation that I discussed earlier this week. And scroll below that post for the original post about it.

But there was one interesting story profiling the lawyer Gary Gorski who had filed the challenge to California's "assault weapons" ban (which lost in the 9th Circuit.) It appeared --again amazingly-- in SF Gate. Written by Katherine Seligman, here's a quote:

Just before it became illegal to own military-style assault weapons in California about three years ago, Gary Gorski went shopping. The suburban Sacramento lawyer already had one high-powered rifle sitting in his home safe, but he rushed out to buy seven more. Just on principle.

He consulted gun advocates -- what were they going to do about this ban, what advice did they have? -- but no one pledged support. So, by himself, he hunkered down in his small office and cranked out a lawsuit to overturn the assault weapons ban.

"No one is backing me on this," Gorski said the other day, about a week after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against him.

But that didn't stop him. While many people assume this latest fight against gun control in California is being waged by the National Rifle Association or state gun owner groups, the real contestant is Gorski, a virtual unknown, who filed the challenge on behalf of nine plaintiffs -- most of them rugby buddies. Variously described as a "loose cannon" and a dogged worker "with the heart of a champion," Gorski, 40, is definitely one thing -- persistent.

Now Seligman does make a few references to Gorski being quirky and such but all in all a fair, balanced treatment. So this went into the "good" column. Other then that, not a whole lot to report this week.

Besides Glenn Reynolds and Tim Blair, the folks listed on the left-side column under "great links" are some of the nicest people in the world and have helped me get my strange messages out. I have (I hope) a good relationship with all of them and I really do thank them for being nice enough to blogroll me and occasionally mention me. Thanks to all of you for helping me get my weird, sometimes contradicting opinions out on the web. I wish I was a really smart college guy but all I can offer is a blue-collar outlook on what I think is important.

Hey look, let me be totally up-front and let you know some of the (what I consider) interesting statistics provided by my web-hosting site. And keep in mind that I am well aware that "hits" is a meaningless statistic, especially for a website with a lot of photos. Alphecca had a lot of photos during November and almost none during December so that really is a useless number. Average unique visitors per day is a much more meaningful statistic. And remember that December stats are only until about 10 minutes ago when I last checked. And all you high-powered, popular website folks can laugh all you want at my numbers but for a blog that has only been around for two months (I started October 21) I think I'm doing OK for an unkown nobody. Anyway, what really counts are you, my valued visitors, who are responsible for keeping me going.

Alphecca Web Stats
Month	Total Hits per month	Total Visitors per month	Average Unique Visitors each day
December	23371	5820	242
November	32682	4783	159
October	7627	1675	54

Anyway, I will work very hard for your valuable time and attention. Please come back and visit again. And I am well aware that I don't have a direct, "click" link for email. I had been told this cuts down on spam and such, so I only tell you the address to email me. But I want you to use it and talk to me. Send your comments to me. Blast me. Call me a stupid idiot. But still, please email me and let me know what you think. Your comments will appear in the side column.

Lastly, Let me again thank all of you. Alphecca is an outlet for me to rant and rave and once-in-a-while make you smile. Thanks for stopping by and hey, all of you have my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I'll see you later this week, same Bat-Channel...

Merry Christmas everyone!

And thanks for stopping by and making my first few months a success. I wish you all well and wellness.

They're predicting up to 18 inches of snow tomorrow, here in the Upper Valley, so I'm glad I finally put my snow-tires on... But it's nice to have the day off and not have to go anywhere. I can just watch the snow fall and count my blessings. My Christmas wish is that you also be blessed.

Hey, I take these small victories where I find them. I guess my real beef with Bill Gates, who makes almost as much money as Andrew Sullivan, is that he had to be shamed into giving away some of his money to charity. Oh sure, now he donates millions of dollars and Microsoft products. But it took the uproar several years ago over his stinginess to make that happen.

I am nearly weaned away from MS products these days. I am Macintosh based now and while I do still use MS Word on occasion, the only MS program I regularly use is Internet Explorer. (But I use Eudora for email.) Incidentally, see my review below about Netscape and the new pop-up windows controls. Netscape might win me over yet.

Anyway, since my Mac doesn't use Windows, the ability of Java to remain viable becomes very important to me. From a story yesterday by AP writer Foster Klug:

BALTIMORE - Microsoft must include rival Sun Microsystems' Java programming language in its Windows operating system, a federal judge ruled Monday.

The injunction is in force while Sun pursues its antitrust case against Microsoft, one of four private lawsuits that followed a federal judge's ruling in the government's case against the software giant.

Sun had argued during a three-day hearing earlier this month that Microsoft has gained an unfair advantage by shipping Windows ‹ used by more than 90 percent of the world's personal computers ‹ with an outdated version of Java that's inconsistent for its users.

And for background:

Java is designed to let programmers write software to run on all types of computers, whether they use Windows, Apple's Mac OS or some other operating system. Users may run into Java without knowing it when they visit Web sites that feature games or other applications.

Software developers are turning to Microsoft's .NET platform instead of gambling on Microsoft's spotty distribution of Java, Sun attorneys told Motz during the hearing.

Because if Microsoft were to win this one, it would mean that most Mac users would be forced to use whatever programs MS wants us to use. And just as -in the political arena- it would be nice if we had more then two viable political parties, so too it would be nice if -in the computer arena- we had more then one choice for software suppliers. As I've argued elsewhere on Alphecca, TV became a lot more interesting when alternates such as cable came along. Now you have a choice of fifty different infomercials to watch late at night...

This is not something I wish had come true. Two weeks ago I said:

North Korea scares me because not only is it now clear that they do have some sort of nuclear weapons program, but also (probably) are on their way to having inter-continental ballistic missiles. Further, by being an arms merchant to other "loose-cannon" states, they are an enabler for others to create mayhem all over the world.

You might want to zip over there (to my archive) to read the whole thing. Okay, now that you're back... From today's Guardian:

The UN has confirmed that North Korea has carried out its threat to remove UN seals and dismantle monitoring cameras at a laboratory used to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said: "There is not any legitimate purpose for the facility other than separating plutonium from spent fuel."

There's more to that link too. This will teach you to take my dreams more seriously! This is bad news indeed and it will be interesting to see if the United Nations continues it's ineffectual ways or will it finally show some back-bone. Donald Rumsfield's comments that the U.S. is capable of fighting and winning two regional conflicts at once show that the current administration does have a spine. But is it true that we have that capability? I hope we don't have to find out. These are scary developments that will require adopting the right strategy and tone. There is no room to wobble.

...on why "smart guns" might not be that smart. Look, we're all for safety. But for a gun to do it's job correctly, it really can't be made safe. But here's another thing; this smart technology could add as much as $300.00 to the price of a gun, putting home and personal protection out of reach of many people. And remember that crime is highest in poor neighborhoods, making the new guns too expensive for the very folks who need it most.

And if the gun can only be used by one person, does that mean a husband and wife must now buy two guns (his and hers) to protect themselves and home?

I'm afraid I must fall back on what most people already know: Gun safety begins and ends with the gun owner. As it should. As it must.

The principle behind smart guns is that only the registered owner can actually use the weapon. Various proposals have surfaced, such as voice-recognition technology, where, as you are being attacked by a thug, you speak into a microphone on your pistol, it recognizes your voice-print, and if you are not already dead yet, allows you to defend yourself.

The more promising science is that you (the owner of the gun) will wear a magic ring that matches up to the firearm and its computer then allows you to defend yourself, family, and home. Well, all of this high-tech stuff is still several years away but that didn't stop the liberal gun-controllers of New Jersey from enacting legislation that -- in the words of Captain Picard -- said, "make it so."

From A.P. writer Peter Saharko, here's the story:

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey on Monday became the first state to enact "smart gun" legislation that would eventually require new handguns to contain a mechanism that allows only their owners to fire them.

Gov. James E. McGreevey signed the bill into law requiring the "smart guns," but the rule will not go into effect immediately because the technology is still under development. It could be years before it becomes a reality.

"This is common-sense legislation. There are safety regulations on cars, on toys. It's clearly time we have safety regulations on handguns," McGreevey said at Monday's signing ceremony.

Under the New Jersey law, smart-gun technology will be required in all new handguns sold three years after the state attorney general determines a smart gun prototype is safe and commercially available.

On a purely academic level, New Jersey will soon require that guns be sold using a technology that doesn't yet exist. But the reality is that at some point in the future, the state AG will arbitrarily require all guns sold in the state to possess this "safe-guard."

There is a difference between a car and a gun. And a toy and a gun. Cars and toys have various functions but none of them involve self-defense. Now a gun can be used for hunting, or sport, or by a mutant criminal for aggression and evil deeds, but the primary reason a gun exists is for self-defense. That is serious business and it is (unlike a toy) life-and-death business.

By it's very nature, a gun is not "safe" except by virtue of the training of the user. A gun has only one purpose -- to protect a person by shooting a bullet. And the very nature of the circumstances that would bring that firearm into play suggest that anything that slows or inhibits the use of that weapon goes against its very nature and defeats its purpose.

We all hope that we never have to use a gun for self-defense. Really! But if we do, it is probably needed right now, without delay. Without having to fumble with a ring, or a very tense, whispered voice. This isn't Agent 86 using his shoe-phone. The whole reason for that gun's being is for instant protection. Next week I will be posting my articles in the gun-stuff section about carry and other self-defense guns. For now, all that needs to be said is that that gun must be readily available and ready to rock. It must work, the first time called on, without delay. Your life, your family's life, depend on it.

Guns are not safe. And you know what? They shouldn't be made to be safe. Because if they are, then they stop being effective. They lose their meaning and purpose. Owning a gun is a full-time responsibility to be taken very seriously but the function of that gun cannot be compromised by legislation or liberal consumer groups. That is something we have to live with. Freedom is not cheap and self-defense cannot be delegated to the whims of lawmakers and computer chips.

The gun employed in self-defense and protection must work the first time, every time, and nothing must be left to chance or circuitry or legislation. Our lives depend on it. And the ability to own a gun and use it to protect ourselves is a fundamental rule written into the Bill Of Rights. Nothing must ever come between the people and their rights, especially the right of self-preservation.

Unlike some egos who rake in $80,000 dollars with a quick fund-raiser, there are some great bloggers out there who are hurting for funds right now. This is Christmas and I urge all of you to visit Kathy Kinsley at On The Third Hand and chip in a few dollars to help her pay her bills and bandwidth. She, along with MommaBear, have a great blog but Kathy is having a hard time of it so give her some help. I can't think of a better way to donate your (would be) beer money.

And while I'm on the subject, please visit my industrious friend Arthur Silber at Light of Reason and do the same. His intelligent blog could use some support as well.

So I'll see all of you back here tomorrow night, same Bat-Channel...
Thanks for stopping by!

And, of course, there are all sorts of excuses. Warning: This is my rant for the day. For light-hearted fare just scroll down past this. Anyway, here's the story from Theodore Dalrymple (actually Anthony Daniels) in todays Wall Street Journal:

LONDON--Britain is now the world leader in very little, with the single possible exception of crime.

Recent figures published by the U.N. show that Britain is now among the most crime-ridden countries in the world. Its citizens are much more likely to be attacked or robbed on the street, or have their houses burgled, than their counterparts in, say, Russia or South Africa, let alone the U.S. Everyday experience in Britain is quite sufficient to establish that we now live in a deeply criminalized society.

And further more:

Less than half a century later, many people no more venture out after dark than Transylvanian peasants would go wandering while Dracula was at large, and once the sun has gone down, there is not an old person to be seen in public in Britain. Taxi drivers carry ground chilies to squirt in the eyes of their passengers in case they turn nasty, and martial-arts instructors offer their services to hospital staff to protect them from the aggression of patients and their relatives. In short, the British have gone from being civil to savage in less than a single lifetime.

The author tries to make it a class issue. Let me suggest that it is a fundamental rights issue. And this is something that could be reversed. Here's how I would do it:

1) Return the people's right to own guns. You've (Britain has) taken everyones' guns away so that, as usual, only the mutant criminals have firearms.

2) Allow people to defend themselves. Right now, in England, it is a worse crime to defend yourself and fight back against a robber, thief, rapist, home break-in attacker, then it is to be a mutant criminal. If one of these thugs breaks into your home, and you try to defend yourself, the liberal government of "Great" Britain says that you have committed a worse crime and should be subject to worse penalties then the mutant that attacked you.

3) End "thought-crimes." Hate crime legislation is the biggest, most bogus farce perpetrated upon civilization by leftists and liberals and Democrats here in America. In England, if you utter the slightest word, that is, you voice any critique of any minority group, you are subject to arrest. Liberals here in the U.S. are trying to accomplish the same. Freedom of speach is a fundamental right and freedom of thought is an absolute right. And if no one in England is allowed to criticize the mutants, then that in itself gives them the license to commit their criminal acts. It's hard to believe that England was once considered a post-cradle of Western civilization. Now, it's just a crime-filled slum of the world.

Here in the U.S., liberals in our colleges are trying to accomplish the same thing. They violently protest any dissenting voice unless it is against Jews and conservatives. What total hypocrisy. And it's rife in England. And now, Britains are paying the price. The ordinary people need to revolt and --shall we say-- eliminate the oppressive government of England. By what ever means necessary. That needs to be done here in the U.S. as well. Not that I would ever encourage violence. I support the ballot to effect change. The last election here proved we could.

Windows users have -for some time- had a choice of programs that eliminate "pop-up" windows. Until now, us Mac users have had to suffer. I've always been IE based (and that is what I code my pages to) but with the announcement that Netscape 7.01 (not 7.0) had pop-up window suppression built into it... I had to download it and check it out.

Now I would never use pop-up window suppression on Daily Pundit of course, but I can tell you it works! Hallelujah, it works! I tried it on Bill Quick's site the Drudge Report and Yahoo! and NRO and folks, it works mighty-fine. All you hear, if you want, is a chime telling you that one of those pesky windows was suppressed.

Of course, the real test is on a site that throws a ton of pop-up windows at you all at once. So I visited one of my favorite gay-porno websites and -- Oh! Ha-ha! Did I just say that? What I meant was that I had heard through a friend of a friend of a friend --and rather obliquely at that-- that some websites that cater to prurient interests have a tendency to open a lot of new windows in your browser while you visit them for purely research-like motives. So I've heard. And the new version of Netscape continued (I've been told) to work like a champ. So now, I can sociologists who occasionally visit these websites in order to collect data for their dissertations can continue their studies without the distraction caused by pop-up windows.

I would almost switch to Netscape if it weren't for the fact it is so dreadfully slow to start-up and slow to operate. But this new feature might win me over.

I enjoy cruising around the net checking out new blogs on a wide range of subjects. It's interesting to see the different designs people come up with. Now as I have already mentioned, I have been teaching myself HTML and basically wrote my site on my own. One basic tenet of the book I'm using is to assume that the average visitor is using a modem connected at about 32kBPS and to design my site accordingly. That is, make it load fast. I myself am modem connected (DSL is not yet available where I live.) Inspite of using photos on my pages, I always try to keep the whole page below about 150K to adhere to this principle. I recommend it to everyone out there. And there are a lot of commercial sites that should learn that lesson as well.

---

Regular readers know that I do most of my blogging early mornings or late evenings. I can't blog from work during the day. Last week was a strange week for my postings but this week I have several days off and since I have no life of my own, I plan on a lot of drinking postings. As always, I thank you for stopping by.