In a bizarre accident, blogroll survivor claims the host. I hope this doesn't mean I have to take on Dawn Olsen all by myself. She scares me.

I cannot help but be giddy over the news that nobody is watching MSNBC any more. IMDb reports that the cable channel's ratings have hit an all time low.

[The founding president of CNN, Reese] Schonfeld observed that the market share among the four primary news channels in primetime last week stacked up this way: FoxNews: 54.2 percent; CNN: 29.2 percent; CNN Headline News: 8.5 percent; MSNBC: 8.1 percent. "Never before has MSNBC [placed] fourth."

More people are watching the half hour headline news loops over and over again than the mind numbingly liberal MSNBC. What is most amazing about the ratings, is that Fox News isn't even available to nearly as many viewers as CNN is. Plus, on many cable dials, you have hunt for it.

Meanwhile, CNN fans like Jack Cluth get notoriously defensive when it comes to Fox News and the ratings war.

Boo hoo.

Marc at Quit That takes on people that don't like sushi. I don't understand sushi-haters either. The only thing that keeps me from eating Nigiri and Maki every day is the freakin' price.

Justene at Calblog inadvertently murdered one of her unhatched baby chicks during an impromptu experiment. ACS, I say, ACS anyone?

CD Harris over at Ipse Dixit points out that Martha Burk thinks is ok for the all-female LPGA to remain all-female. She even had the nerve to say they are free to decide when and if to change their rules. Where have we heard that argument before?

Robert Bauer of HokiePundit has been caught coveting his neighbor's broadband connection. Shame shame.

Geoffrey Allen gives everyone a really good reason not to take a road trip with him.

In other bathroom related news, Ruston Eastman at Conservatives has been checking out toilet paper roll art. I just hope he doesn't want to give them a National Endowment grant.

The computer geeks at The Register are not a fan of weblogs or their authors. Most galling, I think, is that these people who make their living off of posting internet news for computer geeks and the tech savvy, have the nerve to demean my social skills. Andrew Orlowski notes:

Interesting people run interesting blogs, but it's remarkable how few of them there are. [...]

...the field is largely populated by adolescents - of all ages.

Maybe we're all safer this way - thanks to weblogs. Maybe blogs are a way of keeping the truly antisocial out of harm's way. So if you know a middle-aged sociopath, for heaven's sake, point him to a computer and show him how to start a weblog.

At least it will keep him off the streets

I guess my adventures cannot compare to the swash-buckling done by network administrators and computer programmers.

Socialist Democrats, Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton are blaming the VRWC for trying to take over Hispanic media. A proposed merger between HBC and Univision has the pair in an uproar, according to Fox News. The major issue is that Univision's owner, Jerry Perenchio, is a registered Republican.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton have complained that combining the two will give conservatives control over the Hispanic media.

First Daschle filibusters two minority judicial nominees, in order to block a Senate vote on their confirmation, and now he's trying to block a business merger of a minority businessman. For a minority leader, I think Tom Daschle stinks.

The Register has some disturbing news to report on the hideous Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (DMCA) Apparently, now the RIAA and MPAA need only to accuse you, in order to shut down your web site.

A U.S. court has extended the power of the DMCA even further with a ruling this week that backs up copyright holders' ability to shut down a Web site on "good faith."

InternetMovies.com had asked the District Court for the District of Hawaii to require that copyright holders investigate infringing Web sites before shutting them down. This rational request was rejected by the court, as its granted the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and any other DMCA zealot the right to put the clamp on Web sites at will.

"This decision rules that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not require a copyright holder to conduct an investigation to establish actual infringement prior to sending notice to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) requiring them to shut-down an allegedly infringing web site, or stopping service all together to an alleged violator," InternetMovies.com said in a statement.

The next step is to issue fines to customers up front, and then if they can prove their innocence, they get their money back.

Jack Cluth notes that NASA is continuing to hire astronauts, even though they are grounded.

Hey, you didn't think a big government agency was going to let the mere lack of work stand in the way of their hiring, did you?

This poor pathetic soul, needs help with Movable Type.

Today, most Americans will agree that the poll tax was a hideous government tool used to deny basic freedoms to an entire segment of society. Many states used the tax as a way of regulating who would be permitted to vote. Today, there is still a "poll tax" of sorts, that some states use to infringe on people's Constitutional freedoms. It is the tax on firearm's ownership.

Crime ridden Liberal Utopias (or is it Utopei) like New York, Washington D.C. and Chicago severely restrict a person's right to keep and bear arms. In D.C. there is a blanket ban, which will hopefully be defeated as an outright Second Amendment violation. Places like New York City, on the other hand, use more covert methods to limit people's freedoms.

As I stated earlier this week, possessing a firearm within New York City requires a permit. While the New York Post rightly notes that the process is so arduous, people seldom bother, the "tax" on owning a firearm is largely ignored. Packing.org reports that the cost of a gun permit in New York City is a whopping $244, which is more than a lot of guns cost. Even if you are willing to wait 6 months, sit through an interview, and can justify your 'reason' for 'needing' a gun, you still have to pony up a month's worth of groceries before the city grants you 'permission' to own it.

Fellow gun nut, Kim DuToit notes that getting a permit to own a firearm in New York City is so difficult, that the "law-abiding are scared away from getting a gun in the first place," which is "precisely the purpose of New York's gun laws." Just like the poll tax, the restrictive laws are purposely set up to be a barrier to the Second Amendment. They have been purposely constructed to prevent firearm's ownership by law abiding citizens. New York City has repealed the Second Amendment, not openly and callously like Washington D.C. has, but discretely so that they do not attract too much attention. Of course, the grand irony is that criminals ignore the law, and walk around freely with guns, while law abiders are left to cower in fear.

A Liberal Utopia indeed.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XXIV, which prohibits States from collecting a "poll tax" for federal elections. Twenty-Four states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Amendment 24, which was 100 years overdue, was passed largely because of the Civil Right's movement of the 1960s. The general premise is that the government should not regulate the basic rights of American citizens. As with any government regulation, taxation or otherwise, comes the infringement of freedom. For those of you who don't know, many states implemented poll taxes after the Civil War. It was a useful tool to keep poor blacks from voting. Upon the Amendment's ratification in 1964, there was a great number of people that were able to vote for the very first time in their lives.

Home schoolers are getting the shaft in Tennessee. The state legislature has made it more difficult for home schooled children to get scholarships, by requiring them to have a 23 on the ACT college entrance exam. All other children only need a 19 out of a possible 36.

The AFP reports that the Bush Administration tried to bury a report that we are headed for a $44-Trillion* (with a T) deficit. They cite the report as "the most comprehensive assessment of how the US government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the 'baby boom' generation's future healthcare and retirement costs." They also note that the reason for burying the report, is so that he could push his tax cut through for the greedy** rich folks.

At first I thought this was a joke. A $44 TRILLION deficit? Nobody could believe that. As I noted in yesterday's largely ignored essay, our current budget is only $2.3 Trillion. Granted that is a buttload of cash, it is no where close to $44 Trillion. According to the CBO, Social Security taxes collected for 2002 were only $700 Billion. So, just how does this so-called "report" get us up to $44 Trillion?

The London Financial Times cites economist Ken Smetters as their source, and notes that he is "a former Treasury consultant and economist now on leave from the Cleveland Federal Reserve." In an interview, Smetters claims that $7 Trillion of the deficit is from Social Security, and the rest is from Medicare. Smetters says, "Our Medicare number of over $36,000bn is calculated under very conservative health-care growth assumptions."

My guess is that his liberal estimates were into the "Gazillions" of dollars.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, there are currently just over 35 Million Americans ages 65 and older. Dividing 35 Million people into $44 Trillion gets you over $1.2 Million spent PER PERSON. Since deficits are annual, that figure would be EACH YEAR.

It should be noted that while the baby boom is sure to increase the number of Americans over 65, it certainly will not be a tenfold or hundredfold increase. It should also be noted that the entire U.S. GDP is only $10 Trillion. We'd have to be taxed at 440% just to cover a $44 Trillion deficit. Even Michael Bloomberg isn't taxing people that much. It sounds to me like Bush filed this report in the trash can, where it belongs.

*For those of you that cannot comprehend just how much money $44 Trillion is, it is $44,000,000,000,000. That is 12 zeros. That would be enough money to purchase a Dodge Neon for half of the 6 Billion people on the planet.

**Neal notes that it is interesting that people who "want the government to take money away from someone who earned it, and give it to you, [are] NOT greedy. But ... if you want to keep the money you worked for and earned then you ARE greedy.

Well, I feel much safer now that I know that people cannot build model rockets without going through the BATFags. The Washington Times reports that rocketeering hobbyists are now required to get a special license, and pay the obligatory government fee, to buy rocket motors to make their models blast off. Naturally, the new restriction is being heralded in the name of "security".

Model-rocket hobbyists must be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives before buying motors that are now considered explosives under a homeland security law...

The permits cost $25 the first year and $12 for additional years, and can take 90 days to process.

Of course, since registration often leads to confiscation, we'll see if authorities start going house to house to take little Johnny's toys away. Lets all hope that they don't get any new LEGOtm restrictions passed.

"She puts me in that state where I don't know ... but now I really do want to rape her and her (expletive) mama." -- "Iron" Mike Tyson, claiming that the women he was convicted of raping makes him so mad, he wants to rape her again.

This gives me another opportunity to point out that Memphis, Tennessee, the town that wants to strip the names from Confederate Park, Jefferson Davis Park, and Forrest Park lest they offend anyone, openly wooed the convicted rapist, to stage the Lewis-Tyson fight there. This was during a time when not even Las Vegas or New York would issue Tyson a boxing license, because even they recognized him for the monster that he is.

Kim knows exactly why women's tennis is more popular than men's.

Animal "rights" wackos are resorting to threats and intimidation to get their message across. CNSNews reports that animal wackos have been stalking and vandalizing the homes of people "with even tenuous ties" to animal testing labs.

You've been marked. We've been watching you and (your husband), following your trip overseas last April 19th. We've been in your house while in San Francisco. We've "bumped" into you at Costco (retail store). You've given us the time while in line at Bank of America. We've been watching your house. We've been watching you and your family...

In consideration of (your husband) being out of town so often, think of your family's security as your windows could be put through tomorrow night.

This is all part of their "Let Freedom Ring the Doorbell" campaign, where they post the names and addresses of company executives, and invite people to harass them. It all, it seems pretty damned cowardly to me.

If have an issue with someone, say it to their face, and don't cower behind anonymity. If someone has an issue with anything I've done, I invite them to knock on my door and give it to me straight.

Kudos to the Great Satan Quarterly for picking up my Bloomberg story and noting that even pregnant women aren't immune to police harrassment.

In the latest ticket blitz story, the Daily News reports that a pregnant woman was given a 50 dollar ticket for resting on the subway steps in Brooklyn.

Eighteen-year-old Crystal Rivera says she was ticketed last Tuesday by a female officer at the 86th Street station in Bay Ridge. The News says the pregnant teen told the officer she was tired and resting. It will cost her $50.

That'll teach her. We can't have these lawless pregnant women just plopping their big ol' butts down where ever they want.

"I think since people are living much longer ... the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime." -- Bill "Monica" Clinton, pining for the Oval Office.

I guess he just isn't getting as much booty in the private sector. Personally, I'd love to see Bill Clinton run again. I think it would be very humbling for him.

This week's Carnival has been posted at Dean's World. This is the second week in a row I was able to get my entry in on time.

Lets say you're living every blogger's dream. You start up a site, and whamo, you've gone from 0 to 5000 hits in less than a week. You're link whoring, you're posting like mad, and you build up a huge reader base. You make it to the A-list of bloggers in record time. You are the Bobby Fischer of blogging. So, what is your next challenge?

You see if you can drive your readers away just as quickly. Beat them off with a stick, if you have to.

For anyone who likes to travel with their pistol or rifle, I'd recommend picking up this book. I keep mine in my car. The "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States" is written by an attorney, that studies the firearms laws, and rates each state by their firearms "friendliness".

Each state has its own page where it is rated, and the carry laws are explained in simple English. It also lists states with concealed carry reciprocity agreements, and lets you know if you should carry in the glove box, on the seat, or locked in a case. While it isn't legal advice, it is an invaluable resource for anyone who travels with their firearm.

At $12.95, it doesn't put too much of a dent in your pocketbook either.

Tazteck notes that the Bush tax cut will definitely help his bottom line. Still, he seems to have some reservations about the deficit. I cannot say that I blame him.

The fact is, that the tax cut will put more money into the hands of most Americans. Still, we do have the looming deficit out there to think about. So, just what is the real cause of the deficit? If you said the tax cut, you'd be wrong.

There are actually several factors involved in creating the budget deficit.

1. Lower tax receipts -- This is the single biggest cause of the deficit. The economic slow down meant that less revenue was being collected. With job losses, and stagnating salaries, tax receipts from individuals declined. With consumer spending stagnating, and the dot-bomb bubble bursting, receipts from corporate income taxes also declined. A look at the Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the government received $2.025 Trillion in tax receipts for the year 2000. In 2001, the receipts had declined to $1.991 Trillion, and in 2002 they declined even more to $1.853 Trillion.

2. Increased government spending -- While government revenue was declining, lawmakers kept on spending. Naturally, the 9/11 attack necessitated the need to increase defense spending, but there were plenty of other pork programs in there too. Did we really need, TWO farm subsidy bills? Those steel tariffs seemed a bit unnecessary as well. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been doling out cash to 9/11 victims, commercial airlines, state and local governments, and many other special interests. With a thin margin in the Senate, and as Republicans and Democrats struggle for political power, spending isn't likely to be kept in check. Partisan politics are largely to blame for the spendthrift Congress.

In addition to new projects, not one single existing government program had their budget held in check, much less suffered from an actual reduction in funding. In fact, every single government program received an increase in funding. Again, we turn to the CBO figures. For the year 2000, lawmakers spent $1.788 Trillion. In 2001, spending increased to $1.863 Trillion, and in 2002 spending increased even more to $2.011 Trillion. Since Congress deceitfully labels a tax cut as an "expense" I'll note that only about $50 Billion ($0.050 Trillion) of this spending was from the 2001 Bush Tax Cut.

So what about the budget surplus?

Well, there never really was much of a surplus. The budget surplus was a projection based on growth figures that never materialized. A look at the CBO figures shows that the largest surplus that ever really materialized was $236.4 Billion in the year 2000. That figure includes a $151.8 Billion surplus from Social Security. Taking out Social Security and the Postal Service, means there was an actual "on-budget" surplus of only $86.6 Billion at it's peak. In 2001, the last year of the Clinton budget, the budget surplus was gone, and we had an on-budget deficit of $33.4 Billion. The $120 Billion swing is too big to be accounted for by the Bush tax cut alone. After all, in 2001, we only received those $300 checks.

The Big Lie

Democrats would have you believe that giving out those $300 rebate checks is what recessed the economy. They keep blaming the deficit on the Bush Tax Cut of 2001; a tax cut that largely hasn't even been implemented yet. Somehow, taking money out of Washington, and putting it back into taxpayer hands, created a massive deficit. Never mind that Congress has passed ever increasing budgets, punctuated by a $2.3 Trillion budget this year.

The second "Big Lie" is that all the money went to "the rich". In fact, the $300 rebate was figured by lowering the bottom tax bracket from 15% to 10%. The 5% cut on the lowest bracket (the first $6000 of income) means that it actually went to everyone that earns at least $6000 a year. Crunching the numbers means that anyone making minimum wage and working at least 23 hours per week got a full rebate check. (23hrs/wk x 52wks x $5.15/hr = $6159) That's not exactly "the rich", in my book.

In addition to the rebate checks, the tax brackets have been resized, with the larger brackets decreasing later on in the process. In the year 2000, the 15% tax bracket for singles included incomes up to $26,250, with income from $26,251 to $63,550 being taxed at 28%. In 2002, the 15% bracket included income from $6,001 to $27,950. The first $6000 was taxed at 10% (as stated before). The next bracket was reduced to 27%, and included incomes from $27,951 to $67,700. That means that income that was taxed at 28% is now taxed at 15%; a substantial cut.

As 2010 approaches, the 15% bracket will be expanded to include incomes as high as $43,850, and the upper part of the original 28% bracket will eventually drop to 25%. The 31% bracket will be lowered to 28%, the 36% bracket lowered to 33%, and the 39.6% bracket lowered to 35%. Of course, all this changes with the 2003 Bush Tax Cut.

So who pays taxes?

If you look at historical data, it's not hard to see who pays the most taxes. By the IRS' own data, you'll see that over the years, the bottom 75% has been paying a decreasing percentage of total taxes. (<--click for graph) They've also been paying a decreasing percentage of their overall income. (<--click for graph) It only stands to reason then, that when taxes are cut, those people that pay more taxes will get a bigger cut.

Conclusion

It's no mystery that consumer spending has kept our economy afloat for the past few years. That indicates that getting more money into individuals hands will speed up economic recovery. Given that the vast majority of Americans work to provide a good or a service to consumers, people spending money on those goods and services is what keeps most of us employed. As incomes rise and people start going back to work, tax receipts will increase. It is that increase in tax receipts that will turn our deficit into a surplus once again. Then we can start paying down some of the national debt*. Of course, it'd help if Congress would keep spending in check.

*Given that interest rates and bond prices are at all time lows, the debt shouldn't be much of an immediate concern.

Q: Two thugs walk into a New York City mini-mart and attempt to rob the clerk at gun point. What is the police reaction?

A: Arrest the mini-mart employees for having the nerve to defend themselves with (GASP) an unregistered gun.

ABC News reports that a 69-year old employee of the mini-mart used an unlicensed .22 caliber handgun to fend off the two bandits. One of the robbers, a 19 year old man, was killed.

The local ABC affiliate doesn't give many details, but they do interview a local Harlem resident, whose reaction probably mirrors typical liberal New York views. The store clerk should have used a registered gun. That is all fine and dandy, if New York City actually allowed people to register their guns.

Packing.org notes that New York City doesn't even recognize permits from New York State residents. That means if you live outside the city, you may have trouble getting a city permit. They also note that the process is long, difficult, and expensive, with an exorbitant application fee of $244. Plus you are only granted a license if they choose to give you one. After your application is evaluated, and your need is justified, you may be granted a permit. Maybe, if all your paperwork is in order, the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, you'll be granted a permit.

No, George W. Bush isn't going to conquer Europe. Instead, it looks like the European Union is taking the next step toward becoming a holistic nation. The Evening Standard reports that a Constitution is in the works, and that they hope to set up a democratically elected and legally binding EU President and Foreign Minister.

The draft unveiled in Brussels would, if approved, also commit member states to "unreservedly" backing a European Union common foreign policy.

It says the EU shall in future have "legal personality" and incorporates a legally-binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, including labour and social policies.

What kind of havoc will this wreak on the non-EU conformists? Considering the all-knowing, all-powerful EU has already set to improving European life through the abolishment of swing sets, what will be next? Will all nations be limited to a 35 hour work week like France? Not if England has her way. Their government has already vowed that Brussels will not dictate "workers' rights" in the UK. I cannot say as I blame them. I shudder the thought to subverting the U.S. Constitution to the likes of Canada or Mexico. What is it about Europeans that makes them collectivists? What makes them want to give up their national identity for a continental one?

The European Constitution will ultimately deliver some sort of "Bill of Rights". Neal expects the Europeans to follow the socialist agenda, however, and hold the position that a citizen's rights are "granted" by the government. This flies in the face of what our own founders believe, that government should "protect" basic human rights that every person is endowed with by our Creator. Rights that no man or government should be allowed to take away.

"I was all too aware that on the night of the Academy Awards, 15 Marines had been killed - kids my son's age. And their families, I'm sure, did not have the Academy Awards turned on that night. I am not comfortable with adding to their misery, and so I prefer to keep my liberal-a**, left-wing limousine-liberal mouth shut until these lives are no longer being spent." -- Dustin Hoffman, on why he kept his mouth shut at the Academy Awards this year.

What? No cries of censorship, or McCarthyism?

From CNN's Department of 'No Shit Sherlock':
Poll: Most believe drivers, not roads or cars, are biggest danger

Just once, I'd like to see them make the similar conclusion that Criminals, not guns or weapons, are biggest danger.

Since taking office, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has not been winning any popularity contests. Not satisfied with raising taxes on literally everything, banning smoking, and offering up numerous other unwelcome gifts to the citizens on New York, Mayor Bloomberg is now telling officers to ticket citizens for anything and everything they can. Bloomberg has unleashed zero tolerance on New Yorkers, apparently as part of a city wide grab for cash.

The New York Daily News reports that last week's ticketing of a person for illegally sitting on a milk crate are not uncommon in Bloomberg's New York.

That black license plate frame that came with your car? Illegal. $55 fine.

Taking up two seats on a train? $50.

Feeding pigeons in the park? Another $50...

So, who is to blame? Well the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association alleges that Bloomberg and city officials are holding officers to a strict quota of tickets.

Cops in Brooklyn South, for instance, have been told to write summonses to wayward bicyclists for infractions such as coasting with their feet off the pedals or for riding bicycles without bells....

Alexander Ortiz was ticketed for improperly bundling newspapers to be recycled...

Ahh, what a wonderful little utopia Bloomberg has created. A place where citizens are likely to be fined for walking with their shirts untucked. Despite the outcry, Bloomberg remains defiant. He claims, that the police are simply doing their jobs, and that New Yorkers should start obeying the laws, and 'suck it up' if they get a ticket. Naturally, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Drunkenness Rating: 16 beers

Memorial weekend started out to be just an average weekend. I hadn't made any plans, so who knew what it laid in store for me.

It had been raining off and on for quite a while, and I could not remember the last time I saw the sun. On Friday night, I went over to visit Jenn with two 'n's, and have a few beers with some friends. We sat around drinking for a few hours, and took in the last half of some crappy movie on television. During the evening, however, Jenn received a call from our friend Laurin. Jenn and Laurin were both friends from high school, but I had graduated a year earlier than both of them.

Laurin wanted to know if anyone was interested in driving to Baltimore with her to see the NCAA Men's Lacrosse Final Four. Johns Hopkins University had made it to the Final Four, and it was Laurin's alma matter, so she was very interested in seeing them play once again. I did not really want to go, but I could not think of an excuse quickly enough. After a few minutes of haggling with Jenn and looking for a way out, it became obvious that I was committed. I guess I wouldn't have minded too much, except that it meant getting up early the next morning. I also had this fear that lacrosse was akin to soccer, the dreaded low scoring sport of socialism and baby boomers. Jenn said the game was being played at Raven's stadium, and that there would be beer, so I figured it couldn't be too bad.

The next morning, we arrived at Laurin's place in Arlington around 9:30. She spent a few more minutes getting ready, and then we hit the road. Baltimore is about an hour away, but somehow Laurin managed to warp time and get us there in 35 minutes. I'm not exactly sure how she did it, but it has something to do with Einstein's theory of relativity, and approaching the speed of light with her little Mazda. I was quite impressed.

When we arrived at the stadium, much to our chagrin, we discovered that the NCAA has some sort of archaic blue law against selling beer. Apparently beer, while good enough to be the staple diet of ancient Egyptians, was taboo for collegiate athletics. Even though there were kegs and taps tempting us at every concession stand, they were off limits, and we were committed to watching the game dry.

Having never been to a Lacrosse match, I was surprised to find the game to be very exciting. Hopkins looked awful at first, but ended up going into the locker room at half-time trailing by only a point. In the second half, however, Hopkins dominated their opponent, a quality Syracuse team who had beaten them earlier in the year. The game put us all in a good mood, but we were still lacking that amber goodness in our daily routine.

After the Hopkins-Syracuse match, Virginia was going to play Maryland in the other semi-final. We had a 40 minute intermission, so we decided to make a beer run to a nearby bar. We got our hand stamped so that we could return, but somehow I didn't think that we would.

We walked over toward Camden Yards, and ventured into a sports bar called Pickles. It was 2 PM when Laurin purchased the first round of the day. After a few minutes, a table opened up, so we seated ourselves and watched the start of the next Lacrosse game on television. We gave up on going back to the stadium, and pretty soon our interest in the second game melted away into idle conversation. Three pitchers of beer and a lot of laughs later, we were starting to get hungry for dinner.

We left Pickles and walked around Baltimore's inner harbor. After a few minutes, we strolled into Little Italy, and found a good Italian place to eat dinner. We had a few more rounds of drinks, and enjoyed our meal, when things started to get pretty strange. Somehow we got onto the topic of bets and dares. I tried to get Jennifer to spread soft butter packets all over her chest. She was drunk enough that she would have done it for $300, but not drunk enough that she would have done it for the $5 that I was offering. After a few moments of haggling, we were unable to come to an agreement on price. Still, it's nice to know that she has a price, and doesn't let her scruples, or the thought of public humiliation spoil a good time.

Laurin, meanwhile, dared me to eat one of the flowers out of the vase at our table. I looked for an excuse not too, but couldn't come up with one. It was a real flower, and not silk, so chances are it wouldn't harm me. I told her it might be Oleander or something poisonous, but she doubted that they would stick anything very deadly at a table where a child might get at it. She plucked the flower from its stem, set it down in front of me, and double-dog-dared me to eat it. The flower had fallen apart, so I picked up one of the pink petals and stuck it into my mouth. It tasted bitter, but it was palatable. It was a bit like limp radicchio. I got through my third petal, when surprisingly, Jenn offered to help me out. She grabbed a petal, sniffed it curiously, and put it in her mouth. Laurin did the same, and the three of us sat there eating flower petals. It was probably a good sign that we'd had enough to drink, but the night was still young.

We left the restaurant, and stepped into a cab. I'm not exactly sure where it took us, but the fare was only $6 so it couldn't have been very far. We walked by a small hole in the wall that I'll call Joe's bar. Even though the bar was empty, the drink prices on the board out front were very appealing, so we made ourselves at home. Joe, the proprietor, told us that his bartender had called in, and he was stuck working behind the bar. Laurin decided to help him out, so she invited herself behind the bar. Jennifer and I played a few rounds of pool, and put some tunes on the juke box. A few customers started to file in, and Laurin did a pretty good job of serving them. I'm still not sure why she volunteered to work behind the bar. I'm even less sure why Joe let her stay. He certainly didn't need the help, but it freed him up to join us in a game of pool.

We stayed at Joe's until well after dark. As the rounds of drinks came and went, Laurin warned us that it wasn't looking good for her to be able to drive us home. I agreed, so I called the Marriott reservations desk to check some prices. After a quick consensus we decided to stay the night in Baltimore, so I booked a room in a nearby hotel. With the threat of driving out of the way, I told Laurin to go ahead and tie one on. At best count, we had about 6 more rounds of drinks. Joe was generous, and because Laurin had worked the bar for him our tab was only $15. We left at shortly after midnight.

A $5 cab ride later, and we were standing in front of the Claddough Pub in Canton. The bar was packed. After picking up a round of drinks, we climbed the stairs to the second level. We danced a few songs, and had a few more rounds. After a while, I found myself holding onto a railing just to remain vertical. Jenn noticed Laurin was starting to sway and zone out, so we figured it was time to get going. It was after 1 AM, and we had been drinking for more than 11 hours. We figured that was enough for most people.

When we got to the hotel, I passed out right away. It was a pretty restless night for everyone, and we were all awake by 8 AM the next morning. Although Laurin did get sick the next morning, she didn't seem to suffer any long term effects. The three of us all felt like shit, and having to do the "Walk of Shame" the next morning, certainly didn't help. I had purchased tooth brushes in the gift shop for everyone, but we were wearing the same clothes from the night before, so we couldn't have looked too pretty.

Since no one was arrested, and only one person threw up, I'd call it a successful evening of partying. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't change a thing.

Wishing everyone a happy Memorial Day!

I don't know if anyone else has been experiencing a windfall in the value of their Blog Shares, but the share price of this web site has gone through the roof.

The Mars Global Surveyer space craft is already paying off. After six and a half years and millions of dollars, the spacecraft that has been orbiting the red planet has produced a blurry photo of the Earth.

(click on the photo)

The continents shown in the photo are North and South America. While it doesn't compare with photos from our own orbit, or from the moon, the view from Mars is interesting and unique. I'm just not sure if it is worth all those tax dollars.

UPDATE: It should be noted that NASA didn't even splurge for a color camera. The photo above was apparently sent over the the colorization labs at TBS, so that the blue color could be added to the Earth. To view the originial black and white photo, click here. (very large photo 800+ kb, not at all worth it. It was mostly just empty space. As a public service, I cropped out the empty space and put the resulting photo here.)

Kudos to reader and fellow blogger Steve Gigl for pointing this one out. Apparently De Pere Wisconsin is planning on disarming their veterans for this year's Memorial Day Parade. Ceremonial rifles that the veterans usually carry in the parade are going to be banned, get this, "for the children". Gigl notes this passage from the article.

"The committee felt that kids have been watching war and killing people for the first half of this year and we didn't need that in a happy event like our parade, which is essentially a kids show," said Jason Paul, chairman of the De Pere Kiwanis Memorial Day Parade.

So their parade is not in honor of our veterans, rather than entertainment for the kiddies. I wonder if our veterans appreciate being likened to circus clowns.

I also wonder if this explains how we get those panty waste SOBs that join the Marine Corps and then are shocked and awed when they are expected to pick up a rifle and shoot it at someone. The idea that our veterans were good enough to carry rifles across Europe, but not through the town of De Pere makes me sick. Is it just me, or does 'De Pere' sound French?

Here is this week's Friday Five.

1. What brand of toothpaste do you use?
Colgate. Just the white pasty kind, nothing blue or red, or swirly.

2. What brand of toilet paper do you prefer?
Cottonelle, or cotton something.. I know it has something to do with cotton and softness.

3. What brand(s) of shoes do you wear?
I only wear Rockports. I have a white 'tennis-shoe' like pair, a brown business casual pair, and a black formal pair.

4. What brand of soda do you drink?
Diet Coke. I used to drink Classic Coke, until I worked on a contract at Coca-Cola in Atlanta. All the free coke was giving me a sugar high, which was drowning out the joy of my caffeine high. I switched to Diet, and now I like the taste of it better than the regular.

5. What brand of gum do you chew?
I don't chew gum. My mother never permitted me to have gum as a kid, because the sugary stuff rotted your teeth, and the sugar-free stuff gave you cancer. Besides, all the masticating gives me a headache. (And for all you smart asses out there, that's mastiCating.)

Regular readers, or people that know me personally, may remember that gum was on my list.

Neal notes that "Atlanta city schools spend $13,000 per year per student."

The House of Representatives sent a message to the jobless today. There is no need to rush out and find a job just yet. You can keep riding the federal gravy train for another three months. Yes, they have passed yet another 13 week extension of unemployment benefits, that the Senate and President are just chomping at the bit to sign.

"We must ... give displaced workers the peace of mind in knowing they have a little time in finding a job," said Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., the bill's sponsor.

Adding a second slap in the face are the freakin' Democrats, who are whining that it doesn't do enough to help the "long term unemployed".

"You did absolutely the minimum you could do and keep a straight face and put out your press release that you did something for unemployment," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.

The bill would extend the federal program to Dec. 31 at a cost of $6.5 billion.

You can bet that in December, the Christmas spirit will kick in again, and there will be yet another cry for an extension.

It is absolutely shameless that Congress will not pass a tax cut for those of us who do work, without having a gun put to their head, but when it comes to simply doling out dollars to those that sit around on their couch watching Oprah, it passes the House by a 409-19 vote.

When I lost my job in early December of last year, I was doing contracting work the very next week. It was only a temporary job, but the few weeks of pay were just enough to buy the computer I needed (to replace the one that work took away), and enough to allow me to still buy Christmas gifts for my family. In January, my job became finding a job, and by the end of March, I had two pretty good offers on the table. I never even considered filing for unemployment benefits.

I hate to sound heartless and mean spirited, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the difference between the "long term unemployed" and me, is one of motivation and effort. Where did I get such values? From my parents.

When my father retired from the Navy, he found a new job and purchased a house. Shortly thereafter, he was laid off. With two children and wife to feed, and a new mortgage that he'd just spent most of his savings to assume, he didn't run down to the unemployment office and get in line. Instead he hit the pavement, and found another job.

When I took a spring semester off from college, I laid around my parent's house for a few weeks. During summers I had worked as a landscaper, but it was January and we were still on hiatus because of the seasons. At 7 AM, my mom busted down my bedroom door, ripped off the covers and kicked me in the ass. She told me to get the hell out and not come back until I had a job. I took the first job I was offered, and was back in bed by 7:45. It is all a question of motivation.

What federal legislators are doing is called coddling. Rather than kick these deadbeats in the pants, they are telling them that it is ok for them to lay around the house for another 3 months. Meanwhile, the message being sent to working stiffs who actually get out of bed and go to work everyday is that we don't "deserve" a tax cut.

If your congressman voted in favor of extending unemployment, and against a tax cut, you need to ask him where his priorities are!

UPDATE: As expected, the bill breezed through the Senate today, without so much as a roll call. Bush has already said he'll sign it into law.

For those of you that are cutting out early on Friday, have a safe and Happy Memorial Day. It'll be business as usual here on Friday, however blogging will be light over the holiday weekend.

This is a Public Service Announcement.

John Hawkins has been gracious enough to post the weblogs he visits every day. If you are one of the 48 weblogs listed, you should continue posting on a daily basis, so that Mr. Hawkins will always have something fresh and new to read on your site.

Soon, John will publish the list of "every other day" blogs, and "once a week" blogs. Once that has been posted, you should adjust your posting habits accordingly to fit John's schedule.

Those of you that don't make the cut on any of the lists, should cease posting immediately, and covert your site over to an American Idol fan site, like Michele.

Just kidding Hawk. You can't post a list like that and not expect a little ribbing from the little guys.

Less leg room. American Airlines, who received $360 Million in taxpayer dollars, is using some of the money to add seats to their aircraft. Leg room will be reduced by about 2 to 3 inches. These are the planes that American had previously reduced capacity on, as part of their "More Room in Coach" ad campaign. The Seattle PI notes that while the increased leg room was a big hit with business travelers, it failed to woo vacation travelers who typically choose an airline based on ticket price.

This is yet another nail in the coffin for big name airlines. As I've said on numerous occasions, air travel is becoming more like a comodity, and airlines are doing less to differentiate themselves. When my favorite airlines started taking away perks and increasing the restrictions on frequent flier loyalty programs, I switched from being a loyal customer to being a price sensative customer. From a business perspective, you would think they would try to move people in the other direction. In this case, American tried, and apparently, they failed.

Over the years, it was widely believed that business customers were the bread and butter for airlines. I guess after the dot-bomb, airlines are more interesting in wooing vacation travelers than regular business customers. This leads me to ask, what's a 6-foot 3-inch frequent flier to do? I guess I'll try Hooters Air.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment IX. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Since I have been taking some expected abuse over at the Command Post for my criticism of the Allied gun grab in Iraq, I'm reviving this category, to pay homage to this often overlooked member of our Bill of Rights. I am not surprised that pundits have resorted to name calling and abuse, calling my views "extremist", and suggesting I have a "militia" like attitude. I can only assume that this is just short of playing the "race card", and likening me to the "Militias" formed by 1980s white supremacists. Still, I shrug all that off.

Most notable though, is the common feeling that Iraqis are living in a war zone, and thus have no right to bear arms. The feeling is that the safety of our troops is paramount, and that taking guns away from Iraqi citizens is just good "common sense." I've also been criticized for holding the belief that all humans, not just Americans, have a right to defend themselves. The feeling is that Americans have the right to liberty and self-defense, because our Constitution gives us that right. Since Iraqis are not bound, nor protected, by the U.S. Constitution, they have no such rights.

While I have the utmost concern for our men and women in harms way, it is still my firm belief, that the right to defend yourself is not something that is granted, or written down. It is inherent and absolute. A law of nature, or if you will, a right granted by God.

If you look at nature, creatures all over the planet exercise their defensive instinct. If you go to pick up a snake or a rat or anything else, and it bites you, do you blame the thing for biting you? Do you say that it had no right to defend itself? Do you ask what government or societal entity granted that creature the right to defend itself? Why should humans be any different?

A person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While that may be a right that we "protect" here in the United States, it is NOT a right granted by government. The founders of this nation recognized that those rights were inherent to all men. So much so, that the Amendment IX was included in the Bill of Rights to say that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Samuel Adams noted that:

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can--Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature--

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule.--

And that, my friends, is why I contend that every being has a natural right to self defense and liberty. They have and should defend those rights the best way that they can. That is also why I feel that no governmental body can take away those rights, nor should they try.

While the hideous PATRIOT act was supposed to give law enforcement and investigative agencies the tools they needed to prevent another 9/11 attack, a review shows that it has many more uses. As pundits had predicted, PATRIOT is being used to spy on pretty much anyone suspected of anything, from drug crimes to thievery.

One particularly versatile provision of the Act allows the FBI to use Carnivore-like tools to determine what Web sites an Internet user visits and with whom they correspond via e-mail. Agents can conduct such surveillance without a wiretap order or search warrant, as long as they certify that the intercepted information would be useful to a criminal investigation -- regardless of whether the surveillance target is suspected of wrongdoing himself.

That means they could be watching you right now. And they probably know about that porn you were looking at last night while your wife was out shopping.

I want to thank CatholicSamurai for pointing out that Gunny Sgt. R. Lee Ermy has a website. I haven't had time to explore the entire site yet, but the flash intro was hilarious. It made me want to stand up and salute.

For those of you who don't know who R.Lee Ermy is, you may recognize him as having portrayed the Senior Drill Instructor in Full Metal Jacket, and the host of Mail Call.

"Criminals carry guns, and they don't give a hoot what goes on in these chambers. Those law-abiding citizens deserve the right to arm themselves." -- Deputy Police Chief Larry Rinehart of Gahanna, OH. Rinehart was testifying before the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice in favor of Ohioans right to carry concealed firearms. Rinehart added, "I cannot guarantee the safety of any citizens of Gahanna. Safety is a right and responsibility of the individual. Conceal-and-carry is a tool to be used in an emergency."

He also makes an excellent point that people carrying guns in their vehicles should not make police officers feel any less safe. They are (or should be) trained to assume that any person may be armed, and act with appropriate caution, until they can prove otherwise.

Just when I thought things were starting to go well in Iraq, I hear that Iraqis are going to be subject to dictatorial-style gun grabs by U.S. and Allied forces. The New York Times reports that Allies will begin seizing guns from Iraqis, and those that refuse to comply will risk being arrested.

"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon," Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. "We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."

So much for the God given right to self defense. I agree that criminals shouldn't be permitted to run around with guns, but the Allies aren't targeting the criminals. They are targeting anyone and everyone who is not a member of the police force or military. The mass of Iraqi civilians are being treated like criminals for the misdeeds of a few miscreants and looters.

The sad fact is that criminals will undoubtedly evade having their firearms confiscated, leaving the average law-abiding Iraqi at their mercy. Not too mention that any government that is set up in Iraq will have an easy time oppressing the populace, given that the U.S. has already disarmed them. As soon as our troops leave, they are a lot more likely to return to being an Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorship.

When I think back to the founding of our own nation, I don't recall reading anywhere in the history books that guns were rounded up for the safety of our fledgling government. In fact, firearms ownership was encouraged, and protected with the drafting of the Second Amendment. Where is George Mason when you need him?

Maripat over at Right We Are notes the 'controversy' that Nicole Kidman caused by having the nerve to smoke in public. They also note that this isn't the first Kidman faux pas, as she was first 'spotted' smoking back in 1994. GASP! (Just who is it that is following people around keeping track of who smokes and when?) She also notes that Legislators hope to mandate warning labels for movies that depict smoking.

What's next? People who smoke will be required to wear a shirt with the Surgeon General's Warning on their chest. That may be coming soon, if the WHO has their way.

In related news, a judge threw out a $145 billion anti-tobacco judgement in Florida.

While the People's Republic of California and other western U.S. states have a long history of disarming law abiding citizens, now a message is being sent to criminals they are not necessarily considered 'armed' just because they have a gun. Reuters reports that the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, the most overturned Federal Appeals Court in the nation, has struck down the sentence of Deshon Rene Odom, who was convicted of armed robbery. While he had a gun when he robbed a Los Angeles area bank, "he did not mean to show his gun to a teller while demanding money."

The Court ruled that Odom should have been convicted and sentenced in "unarmed" robbery, because he did not brandish the gun, nor inform the teller that he was armed. The case has been returned to the lower court for resentencing.

Since major media seems to be ignoring it, Neal has offered to publish the tax brackets for the proposed tax cut plan. As you can see, cuts are being made across the board. There are also cuts for dividends and capital gains, which should lessen the penalty for investing.

2002 Tax Rate	Current Tax Rate	Proposed Tax Rate
15%	10%	10%
28%	27%	25%
31%	30%	28%
35%	33%	33%
39.6%	38.6%	35%

Unless you make less than $6000 a year and don't do any investing (401k, stocks, mutual funds, etc.) you WILL get a tax cut.

Now this is really interesting. And a bit scary, since my sister just moved there.

This weeks Carnival has been posted early. Despite the blowing the load early, I was still able to get my entry in on time. There are a lot of great entries over at Cut on the Bias.

Is this considered blogroll extortion? Acidman may be doing his blogroll survivor, but I've managed to turn myself into the Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson of blogrolling.

Now, give me tribute or prepare to be de-linked.

So, Los Angeles thinks they may finally get NFL football to come back to town. Over the past eight years, "political heavyweights, business visionaries, entertainers such as Tom Cruise and Garth Brooks" have been fighting for the return of Major League Football. While the L.A. Times is upbeat about their chances, our staff writers remain skeptical. Here is why it won't happen any time soon.

1. Lack of public stadium funding.
2. Lack of fan base.
3. NFL blackout rule.

First, Los Angeles is notoriously fickle when it comes to spending public money on a stadium. They simply will not tolerate it, and both L.A. stadiums are too old and too outdated for the NFL. While they could possibly be modified, it would take a lot of private cash to bring football back to the City of Angels.

Second, Los Angeles seems notoriously apathetic when it comes to football. If you stick a mediocre team in there that is going to flounder for a few years, don't count on selling out too many games. Even with a good team, L.A. fans don't seem very supportive. This isn't Chicago or Green Bay.

Third, the NFL's archaic blackout rule makes profitability in L.A. even less likely. During home games, the NFL has specific rules for what can be shown on television in the home market. If the fans don't show up to the home games, that means no TV revenue for L.A. Los Angeles being the #2 TV market in the country means that the entire NFL would suffer, not just an L.A. team. The NFL would have to be willing to relax the blackout rule in L.A. to mitigate the risk.

What it comes down to, is that the NFL needs L.A. more than L.A. needs football. Right now, showing three games a weekend in L.A. is more profitable than showing two and having one blacked out. Or depending on the weekend, only showing one game. Will L.A. ever get football back? Perhaps. But not anytime soon.

His Missouri constituents might be asking just that. The Hill reports that the Missouri congressman has missed 162 House votes this year, which amounts to a whopping 85%. It would appear that representing the people who duly elected him is taking a back seat to his Presidential aspirations.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has seized on the absenteeism to point out that several of Gephardt's missed votes have been on legislative and policy matters that are centerpieces to his campaign.

In his closing statement at the South Carolina debate earlier this month, for example, Gephardt listed the creation of "an Apollo II program to make us independent of foreign oil in 10 years" as one of his top legislative priorities.

Gephardt has missed every vote on energy-related issues this session.

Well, that only stands to reason. After all, he doesn't want to risk having our 'energy crisis' solved too soon. Certainly not before next November.

The San Francisco Chronicle headline reads "Hooters at the Wharf -- there goes the neighborhood? Politically incorrect restaurant inspires debate over area's character" I guess they are worried about soiling their image of bums, beggars, and vagrants.

Actually, I shouldn't be too hard on San Francisco. Fisherman's Wharf can be quite nice in spots. Some of the street performers are quite interesting and do add character to the town. The silver people that make machine noises when they move and perform are quite interesting to watch. My favorite is the hilarious 'Bush Man' who hides out on a short bridge down by the Wharf, disguised behind two tree branches. Believe it or not, people don't think that the 'bush' sitting on the side walk is at all out of place, until he leaps out and scares the dickens out of them. (I actually got him to scare the shit out of Kenny, who lives in San Francisco and had never heard of him.) You would think that with all of the people standing around staring, and holding back their snickers while they wait for the 'Bush Man' to strike would be a dead giveaway.

Still, Fisherman's Wharf, like the rest of the world, also plays host to a seedier crowd; from the man with the brutally honest "Budweiser Fund" sign, to the pathetic high school freaks, complete with colored mohawks and studded leather garb. For a dollar, you could have your photo taken with someone who you hoped to never see again.

I don't think a Hooters Restaurant is going to set them back too far. Hopefully the gays and lesbians won't be offended by the prospect either.

"Marky" Mark Wahlberg has a new movie coming out called the Italian Job. It's about a heist, and some sort of traffic jam. From looking at the trailer, it appears to be another 'Flash and Trash' movie with lots of eye candy but very little plot. Still, it got me to wondering about Wahlberg and gun control. I've actually thought of this before, but never bothered to post it here.

Just how is it that Mark Wahlberg is permitted to handle and use guns in his movies? Wahlberg has several felony convictions, which IMDb describes as "minor" in one biography, and itemizes as a robbery and assault conviction, coupled with a history of stealing, scamming, and "working on the odd drug deal", in another biography.

To the best of my knowledge, even mock and disabled firearms are not permitted to be possessed by convicted felons. So, has Wahlberg used his celebrity status to get an exemption for the possession of a firearm? I would find that interesting, since good guys like Thomas Bean are denied their gun rights, while the government and gun grabbers look the other way when it comes to Hollywood movie stars.

Where is the outrage from AGS and Sarah Brady?

If you've ever listened to Rush, you've probably heard him say that the press is so hell bent on demonizing the SUV, they write as though the cars have a mind of their own. When I read this, I think he has a point.

A sports utility vehicle rammed through a block wall and dived partially into a backyard swimming pool during a chain-collision crash Thursday near a Glendale high school.

While the fact that the SUV actually had a driver was finally mentioned, it was in the 10th paragraph. It should also be noted that the driver of the SUV was actually the victim of another driver that had caused the accident. Of course, reading the headline and the synopsis, you'd never know that.

"Don't worry kids, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep.....in a giant blender." -- Homer Simpson.

Danish Museum Director Acquitted of Animal Cruelty for 'Fish Blender' Display -- Judge Preben Bagger ruled Monday that Meyer did not have to pay the fine because the fish were killed "instantly" and "humanely"... During the two-day trial, a zoologist and a representative of blender manufacturer Moulinex said the fish likely died within a second after the blender started. -- Associated Press.

It should come as no surprise that the San Francisco Chronicle also favors a gun ban. What is amusing is that they think criminals and thugs actually obey the law, and buy guns at reputable dealers. In a recent editorial, they claim that letting the Assault Weapons Ban expire is "great news for street gangs and grudge killers. High-powered semi- automatics could soon be back on sale in gun shops and car trunks nationwide."

The Guardian (UK) is reporting that the Matrix is killing more than Keanu Reeve's career. They report on several deranged individuals who thought they were living inside the Matrix. In one of the cases they cite, a teenager went out and bought a gun and murdered his parents, just like Neo did in the movie.

Josh Cooke, a 19-year-old in Oakton, Virginia, owned a trenchcoat like the one worn by Neo, the character played by Keanu Reeves in the movie, and kept a poster of his hero on his bedroom wall. Then he bought a gun similar to the one used by Neo to fight evil.

In February, he shot his father and mother in the basement of their home and then called the police. His lawyers say he believed that he was living inside the Matrix.

I wonder just what gun Mr. Cooke allegedly used to shoot his parents. Neo used several pistols, and small submachine guns, neither of which is available to teenagers in Virginia. But then, according to some folks, a gun is a gun is a gun.

I also find it interesting that the teen shot his folks in February, but was supposedly inspired by a movie that debuted in May. Unless of course, he was inspired by the original Matrix movie that came out in 1999. Perhaps he'd just gotten around to renting it.

BTW, I thought that thing Neo wore in 'Reloaded' looked more like a dress than a trench coat.

For the residents of Taxachusetts, "T" is for telephone, as well as taxes, as well as trouble. The Boston Globe thinks that taxing telecoms is a good way to solve their state's fiscal crisis. They see all those un-taxed telecommunications poles and wires as their golden goose, and point out that pending legislation would mean that tax collectors in "attentive cities and towns could capture an estimated $60 million". I like that word, capture.

What the Boston Globe fails to realize, or simply chooses not to mention, is that the resulting taxes are simply passed on to the people of Massachusetts. (Unless they think the money is going to magically fall out of the sky.) The increased tax burden will be born by either the employees in the form of lower wages and lay offs, the customers in the form of higher tax bills, or the shareholders of the company. Since they appear to want to levy the fees on public utilities such as telephone and cable companies, citizens should look for that extra "Vague Commonwealth Tax" line item on their phone bills in the coming months. As with most public utilities, the taxes are most likely to be passed on to the end user.

I'm not sure if she's having self doubt, or is just curious, but Michele is having a little battle of the sexes poll about webloggers. She wants to collect opinions on whether or not people think men or women make better webloggers. Personally, I think such a comparison is pointless, but I'll play along.

Do men make better political/war bloggers than women?
-Yes. With the exception of cooking, cleaning, and Survivor, men are better at almost everything. Ok, well maybe not. Men do tend to be a bit more rational, whereas women are a bit more emotional. But those are just generalizations. When you look at quality webloggers, I think the playing field is pretty even.

Do you prefer blogs by males, females or you don't care?
-I don't really care.

Do you find that males and females write differently about the same subjects?
-Yes.

Do you have double standards? That is, do you think it's okay when a man makes sexual innuendos and curses in his posts but you are turned off by a female blogger who does the same?
-Why would I mind if a woman makes sexual innuendo?? As for cursing, it has never bothered me. I don't think that words, by themselves, are inherently bad. It's how you put them together that counts.

Do you find that males or females tend to be more opinionated in their writing?
-Opinions are like assholes. They're everywhere, and they all stink.

Do you find there is a lack of quality female bloggers who write about politics, current news and world events?
-I find that there is a lack of shebloggers period. As for quality, I think most of the shebloggers out there are excellent.

Do you find you enjoy male or female blogs in general (on any subject) more than the other?
-Male or female more than the other? I don't really understand that one. I assume she is asking which I prefer, which as I already stated, I don't care.

Who is your favorite read for political/war/news commentary for male and female bloggers?
-Hahaha.. no thanks. I'm not throwing any names of any 'favorites' out there. That'll just get me into trouble.

The LA Times, a member of the largely distrusted American media, jumps aboard the ignorance bandwagon, by helping to propagate the myth that if the Assault Weapons Ban is not renewed, our streets will suddenly be filled with fully automatic firearms. They must be guilty of one of the following: They do not know that the Assault Weapons Ban does not regulate fully automatic firearms; they have no comprehension of the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic firearms; they know the truth, but are deliberately putting out false information as part of a larger left wing conspiracy to further their anti-gun agenda. You decide which you think is correct. As for my evidence, take a look at this quote from their op-ed: (emphasis mine)

This month, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) began a hard fight to get Congress to reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban she courageously championed 10 years ago. Unless Congress acts, the ban will expire in September and manufacturers will once again be able to legally sell these mass-murder machines.

There is no legitimate use for the Uzis and AK-47s and the dozens of other assault guns that can spray 30 bullets in five seconds.

It's no wonder that Americans rank journalists as bottom feeders when it comes to ethics.

The LA Times offers some interesting insight to the victims of Jayson Blair's shoddy New York Times reporting. They note that it really isn't surprising that many of the people that had been misquoted, or had stories fabricated about them were not all that outraged or even surprised by the media antics. For instance, they report that LCpl. James Klingel and his family never even approached the NYT for a correction, because they didn't think it was a big deal. They pretty much just ranked the Times up there with the Enquirer and went on with their lives.

What is really telling about the LA Times story, however, is the general perception of the media by the American public. Apparently the media is finally starting to realize that people just don't trust them any more.

Except for a surge of support for reporters after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, "positive evaluations of news organizations on issues like trust, credibility and arrogance have all been declining steadily" for more than a decade, said Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press.

Just 21% of Americans believe all or most of what they read in their local papers, according to a poll last year by the Pew Center. In another survey, the center found that 45% believe news stories are "often inaccurate."

That seemed pretty obvious to me. I take just about everything I read with a grain of salt. But then again, I'm pretty skeptical of almost everything. The best quote of the whole article has to be this one: (emphasis mine)

Asked to rate the ethical standards of various professions, Americans place journalists side by side with members of Congress - near the bottom of the list. Only lawyers, advertising practitioners and car salesmen ranked lower, a 2000 Gallup poll found.

The public perception is that the media is on par with politicians as far as ethics go. What a hoot. And they both rank just above lawyers, advertising execs, and car salesmen. Too funny. Perhaps the American public is more perceptive than I give them credit for.

Ananova reports that Herminio DeJesus lost his temper with Ontario County (NY) Court Judge Craig Doran during his sentencing hearing. DeJesus, who was convicted for stealing jewellery from his girlfriend's parents, risked a contempt of court charge by yelling: "Are you gonna sentence me to the max? Is that what you're getting at? Go ahead! You're going to give it to me anyway!"

Not surprisingly, the Judge was happy to oblige, and DeJesus was given the maximum sentence of 7 years.

WZZM in Grand Rapids (MI) reports that Robin Trumbull, the woman who organizes Michigan's Amber Alert system was attacked in her home on Tuesday. A man set her SUV on fire, and struck her several times with an axe handle. Fortunately, she was able to get to her handgun and scare the man away. Unfortunately, she wasn't able to give this guy an eternal dirt nap, and he's still running around on the loose.

"I took it out of my holster, took a step back, took aim...and fired. I aimed where I thought he would be."

Robin shot and missed the attacker who then disappeared.

Gun grabbers at AGS and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership would rather have seen this woman raped or murdered than defend herself with a handgun. The scenario is very likely, if Ms. Trumbull was left fumbling with a mandatory trigger lock or some other "safe storage" device that anti-gunners want to legislate. Even worse, they would rather have her call 911 while she hides under the kitchen table sitting in a pool of her own urine, waiting for police to arrive.

No thanks gun grabbers. Your agenda will get honest folks killed.

Kevin Baker points out some media bias and shoddy reporting on the Assault Weapons Ban. After watching the video that CNN aired, I can only conclude that their reporters are either lying or stupid.

Baker transcribed the video and offers commentary on his web site, under "The Lying News Media Part I" and "Part II"

I've been getting a lot of hits from KooQoo in the referral log. I did a search for my site, and it looks like they are indexing my entire page from the syndication feed. Even though the tool hasn't launched yet, they seem to have indexed about two weeks worth of my weblog entries. I searched for a few other webloggers, and couldn't find too many. I found that they are indexing A Small Victory, but not Instapudit or Amish Tech Support. It leads me to ask: "Why me."

Interesting.

Weekends are usually not for serious blogging. No matter how much traffic you get, you can expect to lose most of it on the weekend. Therefore, I usually reserve the weekend for the fun stuff. In fact, I should have probably held my last post until Monday. I haven't posted much fun stuff this weekend, so I figured I'd spread some linky love to those who have.

Acidman continues his Blogroll Survivor over at Gut Rumbles. Check it out to see who the Wheel of Destiny landed on this week.

Over at A Small Victory, Michele confesses to listening to 80s hair bands during a drunken stupor.

Dave is desperately trying to expand the Axis of Greeblie, and invites anyone who doesn't have much to say. I guess that rules out France, and most of the boneheaded celebrities out there.

Tazteck takes a look at some halfwit anti-war protesters.

Hawk offers up his review of the Matrix Reloaded movie over at Right Wing News.

Jim at JimSpot has a mental breakdown.

That's all I have time for right now. Happy hour is approaching, and I've got a dinner date, so I'll see you all tomorrow.

With all the talk about the "Assault Weapons Ban" being up for renewal next year, I wanted to take a look at the other side of the argument. The web site for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership has an FAQ, where they attempt to answer questions concerning the gun ban. Not surprisingly, the FAQ is filled with half truths and outright lies, meant to bolster their position in favor of the ban.

The wording of the ban tries to create a category of firearms known as "assault weapons", and gun banners try very hard to create a perception that they are some how more lethal than a standard hunting rifle. At one point, the Brady Campaign bolsters that premise by trying to answer the question: "What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?"

Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

This is an outright lie. So called "Assault Weapons" are all semi-automatic. Just like a hunting rifle, you fire one shot with one trigger pull. ALL semi-automatic rifles can only be fired as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

Do you notice how they try to prey on people's fear? First of all, the military rarely uses firearms with folding stocks. They could make a greater argument by saying the folding stocks allowed the rifle to be easily concealed, rather than trying to convey the firearm with some sort of "evil" military characteristic. The military also doesn't fire "from the hip", like in some John Wayne showdown at high noon.

Second, I don't know that the military even uses suppressors (there is no such thing as a 'silencer'), except for during covert operations. For private collectors, suppressors are already heavily regulated by the BATF as a class III device. Someone wanting to buy a 'silencer' must go through the same process used for buying a machine gun, and submit registration paperwork to the BATF. Suppressors also cost about $800 bucks, and typically only suppress subsonic rounds. The alleged "high powered weapons" are unable to be 'silenced', because the rounds are supersonic and create a small sonic boom.

Third, what is so scary about bayonet lugs, or even bayonets? If a person points a gun at you, are you going to be more frightened because there is a bayonet on the front? Bayonets went out with World War II. As for the high capacity magazines, they are still only one shot per trigger pull. The idea that making people reload every 10 rounds is going to save lives is a straw argument at best.

They go on to say that "assault weapons" commonly feature a mix of the following "combat features".

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

Again with the 'continuous fire'. It's no wonder the average person has no concept of the difference between fully and semi-automatic. One shot, one pull dammit.

A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.

I knew they'd get around to concealability. I do agree that a folding stock does make a person more mobile and a gun easier to conceal. (Although I wouldn't think that combat infantrymen are in the habit of hiding their guns under their fatigues.) So what? Those characteristics don't necessitate a crime anymore than owning a Ferarri necessitates speeding.

A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.

[Waiting for the laughter to subside]
Again with the 'spray-fire' and 'rapid fire'. They are beating a dead horse with that one.

And who shoots a "high powered" rifle one handed?? They've been watching too many Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. You'd be hard pressed to not drop the damn thing, much less be able to actually control where the rounds are going. These people obviously know nothing about firearms.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

[Trying to keep a straight face]
What happened to the one handed shooting? They make a heat shield sound like an oven mit. For Christ sakes, why would anyone grab hold of the barrel, when you've got a perfectly good forend right there. (Forend = the front grippy part of the stock)

Even with a heat shield, the barrel is going to get a little too warm for comfort. And as a target shooter, I can see there being a perfectly good reason for wanting to keep your barrel cool. When you are paying for lane time at the range, you don't want to have to wait 10 minutes between volleys for your guns to cool down.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.

This is an outright lie. Flash suppressors will not conceal a muzzle flash for shooting at night, and add very little to the stability and accuracy of a firearm. These people should be in marketing at Springfield Arms.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.

Suppressors are not illegal. They are regulated by the BATF, and 'pre-ban' class III suppressors are widely available and legal to own.

A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.

I would argue that a bayonet serves more of a sporting purpose than an 'assault' purpose. After all, you could corner a racoon or squirrel and stab the little bastard, while screaming "DIE, DIE, DIE"

Seriously though, bayonets are pretty much obsolete. They rank just above a knife and hand to hand combat as a last resort for soldiers in combat. Is there really a lot of "bayonet crime" out there? You hardly ever hear of a convenience store being robbed with a bayonet, and I cannot imagine gangs fighting epic battles with them in the streets of Compton.

In summary, it should be no surprise that an extremist anti-freedom organization like the Brady Campaign would resort to lies and misinformation to further their agenda. Fisking their material almost seems pointless, especially when you read their blatantly biased definition of semi-automatic firearms. "Semi-automatic firearms fire as rapidly as you can twitch your finger. This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly." [Rolling my eyes] I could devote my entire life to correcting their lies and half truths.

Still, I sometimes feel it is necessary to do what I can, to try to dispel the myths flying around out there. If just one person learns something, I think it's worth it.

What's a government to do when they are facing a severe budget crunch? Raise taxes? Cut programs? Well in Los Angeles County, they may have resorted to rigging red light cameras to issue extra tickets.

Did LA County intentionally rig their cameras to issue tickets while the light was still yellow, or was it the vendor? Let the finger pointing begin. No matter who is at fault, it is a perfect illustration of the conflict of interest red light cameras cause. They are a cash cow for both the local government, and the vendors, who routinely get a percentage of every ticket issued. I originally pointed out this conflict of interest back in August.

Back in October, it was reported that the American Automobile Association (AAA) pulled their support for red light cameras out of concern over increased rear end collisions. Data suggests that rear end collisions may actually create a more dangerous intersection, due to drivers slamming on their brakes at the sight of a yellow light.

It was also discovered that in San Diego, cameras were placed too close to intersections, and the length of the yellow light was actually shortened to maximize the profitability of the cameras. The easiest way to make an intersection safer is to increase the length of the yellow light. But that doesn't bring in any money.

UPDATE: San Diego had turned the cameras off to let the heat die down. Now, Deb reports that they are turning them back on.

SI reports that the ACC is considering expansion. They are wooing this year's NCAA basketball champion, Syracuse, and last year's football champion (and this year's runner up) Miami, who are both members of the Big East. To further damage the conference, Miami is insisting that Boston College be invited to tag along. That would essentially gut the Big East conference, and leave my beloved Virginia Tech behind. Sports Illustrated columnist Stuart Mandel envisions what the resulting picture would look like.

The battle for who gets admitted, if there is an expansion, is heating up the political scene as well, with Virginia Governor Mark Warner entering the fray.

"I believe very strongly that any realignment of the Big East or the ACC needs to include Virginia Tech in a major conference," Warner told a small group of reporters outside the Executive Mansion.

"If the ACC chooses to expand -- particularly if they choose to expand [by] three members -- it should include Virginia Tech. I'm doing all I can to make that happen," he said.

I wonder if Virginia Senator and UVA alumnus George Allen can enter the fracas as well? John Casteen, the President of UVA supports the addition of Virginia Tech to the ACC. Since Duke and UNC both voted against expansion, Virginia may hold the crucial third veto vote to stave off expansion altogether if VT is left behind.

So, would VT become the next great independent? A Notre Dame of sorts? Probably not. Stewart Mandel notes:

Imagine the potential plight of Virginia Tech, which could conceivably play in the BCS title game this season, then get kicked out of the BCS the next. In that scenario, the Hokies might become the East Coast equivalent of BYU, nationally respected but essentially ostracized from the national championship picture.

This doesn't sound encouraging.

UPDATE: It looks like the ACC will destroy the Big East. ESPN reports that today the ACC voted to invite Syracuse, BC, and Miami, leaving VT "on the outside, looking in." BC's untapped TV market was just too much to pass up. I guess it's time for VT to start shopping around.

Scientists have tried again, and failed, to prove that second hand smoke is linked to cancer. Naturally, the anti-smokers are up in arms over the research, and the American press is largely ignoring the findings. CNSNews reports:

A study about to be published in this week's British Medical Journal indicates that second-hand smoke doesn't increase the risk of heart disease or lung cancer, but the publication and the study's authors have come under attack by anti-smoking groups...

"the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke (second-hand smoke) and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect."

Anti-smokers immediately tried to discredit the research. They claimed that the researchers are nothing more than a lobbying front for "Big Tobacco", and they discounted the findings as factually incorrect. (emphasis mine)

"There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks," said Vivienne Nathanson, BMA's head of science and ethics.

There you have it. If you are subjected to second hand smoke, you will get cancer. You will get heart disease. You will suffer asthma attacks. You will die. The evidence is "overwhelming". (It is so "overwhelming" that they still cannot prove it.)

Naturally, the staff writers at Ravenwood's Universe are skeptical whenever anyone tries to prove a causal relationship between any two things. I've personally been subjected to second hand smoke, and I don't suffer from any of those effects. The only thing that I am sure of is that I will die. I just don't know when.

Here is this week's Friday Five.

1. What drinking water do you prefer -- tap, bottle, purifier, etc.?
I prefer bottled water. I'm not one of those perrier snobs, I just move around so much it is hard to acclimate to the local taste. I usually buy whatever is cheap. Deer Park, Dasani, or the super market brand.

2. What are your favourite flavor of chips?
Jones' Salt and Vinegar.

3. Of all the things you can cook, what dish do you like the most?
Home-made tacos and burritos. The ones with the home fried tortillas, none of that boxed crap.

4. How do you have your eggs?
As an appetizer, I like them deviled. Mmm.. However for breakfast, it is usually over-easy. I prefer a runny yolk but I don't like it cold, so I sometimes order over-medium.

5. Who was the last person who cooked you a meal? How did it turn out?
Well, Jenn with two 'n's husband long time boyfriend recently cooked me a steak. Before that, I'd have to say it was my cousin and his wife.

The nation's second oldest university, the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia has agreed to change their name. William and Mary has faced growing criticism that the name is offensive, and an "in your face" reminder of Western colonialism. In recent years, they have been under a lot of pressure to change the name in the face of growing political correctness. The university, which bears the name of the husband and wife founders King William III and Queen Mary II of England, was founded in 1693 and was the second college in the American colonies. Proponents of the change say that bearing the name of two English royals who sponsored colonialism is offensive to some.

"English colonialism is morally offensive," claims Donna Colgan, leader of the "Change the Name" movement to change the name. "It brought slavery to North America. It brought with it the persecution of the indigenous Native American people." Colgan went on to say that colonialism "was the cornerstone of British imperialism and conquest, under which so many have suffered."

Although the pressure to change the name started quite a few years ago, it picked up steam when the William and Mary women's basketball team made it to the "Sweet 16" in the NCAA tournament this year. Proponents from "Change the Name" used the bright lights of the basketball tournament as a backdrop for their protests. It ultimately helped to advance their cause.

There still hasn't been any decision made on what the new name will be, but some are pushing for "Virginia W&M". They say that the "W&M" will be a subtle reminder of who founded the college, which could help bridge the gap between proponents and opponents of the name change. The University hasn't ruled out corporate sponsorships. Virginia is home to big corporations such as AOL and Norfolk Southern who may be interested in naming rights.

Some students say that the problem is that all of the good 'Virginia' names are taken, with the existence of Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth, and the University of Virginia. "Virginia is technically a Commonwealth, so calling it Virginia State would just sound stupid," said William and Mary student Arthur Vandelay, who is majoring in Architecture. Apparently Mr. Vandelay had never heard of Virginia State University, just down the road in Petersburg.

Ironically, the movement to change the name of the university has completely eclipsed a similar movement to change the William and Mary mascot. Some say that the current mascot, "The Tribe" is offensive to Native American-Americans. The logo even has two 'Indian' feathers. Proponents of the "Change the Mascot" movement are hoping that they can capitalize on the University's willingness to change their name.

Those favoring the name change feel that this will help make up for 300 years of oppression and the stealing of Native American lands.

After reading this repost, I feel compelled to dispel yet another common myth about firearms. There is no blanket federal law that prevents the private ownership of machine guns. In fact, machine guns can be a wise and lucrative investment.

In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owner's Protection Act. (Sounds like a good thing, right?) Wrong. It banned the manufacture, import, and sale of new machine guns to civilians. Any guns manufactured after the ban cannot be sold or possessed by regular folks. There are, however, thousands upon thousands of existing "pre-ban" machine guns that it is perfectly legal to purchase. (Assuming you aren't prevented from doing so by your state or local laws.) The transfer of "pre-ban" machine guns has been regulated by the Treasury Department since 1934. Paperwork must be filed with the BATF, and there is a one-time $200 tax stamp added to the purchase of every gun. You are also registered in a national database.

When you purchase a machine gun, you need to fill out your paperwork for the BATF, and send it in with your tax payment. Once it comes back approved (ie, you aren't someone who has been stripped of their ownership rights), you can take your gun home. The process usually takes several months, but the dealer should help you out. Some dealers even allow you to come in and shoot your gun at their range while you are waiting for your paperwork to clear. You just cannot take it home yet.

"Post-ban" machine guns are manufactured exclusively for sale to LEOs or the military, or export. They usually sell for several hundred to a few thousand dollars, depending on the firearm, but they are illegal for the public to own. The bottom line is that you cannot have one of those without breaking the law. Period.

Now, if you are willing to spend a few thousand dollars, you can get a fully transferable pre-ban machine gun. The "pre-ban" guns that regular folks can buy are considered Class III Transferable firearms, and include machine guns, short barrelled shotguns, supressors (there is no such thing as a 'silencer'), and other 'destructive devices'. Since the firearms are pre-ban, that means they aren't making any more of them and are limited in number. That is what gives them their value.

So, how can machine guns be an investment. Well, since there are only so many of them out there, the price is almost always increasing. It is sort of like real estate. For instance, this fully transferable MP-5 submachine gun is selling for $12,500. I know it's a lot of money. I never said they were cheap, I merely said they were legal. While this gun costs $12,500 this year, it may be worth $14,000 or perhaps even more next year. Then again, if the demand decreases, it could also be worth less.

Do you have to spend more than $10,000? No, of course not. There are plenty of good automatic firearms out there for a few thousand dollars. If you plan on shooting any of them, you are probably better off getting the cheaper ones any way. Still, it is possible to buy a machine gun for about $2500, shoot it at your leisure, hold it for a few years, and then sell it off for a tidy profit. In fact, your biggest risk would be a change in the federal laws. For instance if Congress decided to let the ban sunset (that means expire), you could lose your investment entirely. But what are the odds of that?

Aren't these guns dangerous? Well, like any firearm, they can be misused. Guncite notes that as of 1995, there were over 240,000 machine guns registered by the BATF nation wide.

About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies... Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian).

What that means is that most machine gun crime is committed by illegal machine guns. Yet another illustration that gun control has no effect on criminal behavior.

Please note that the ban on the manufacture and sale of machine guns has nothing to do with the '1994 Assault Weapons Ban' that comes up for renewal next year. That ban has no bearing on fully automatic firearms.

Ananova reports on the dangers that chickens pose to Chileans farmers. Apparently they are attracting vampires or aliens.

Farmers in a Chilean village are reportedly blaming vampires or aliens for the deaths of 40 chickens.

According to El Diario Austral newspaper, the chickens were found dead with their insides scattered all over their owner's backyard in Perquenco.

Yet another reason that American's for Chicken Safety is lobbying for tougher chicken laws.

Perhaps I'm getting bogged down in semantics, but with all this talk about the renewal of the 'assault weapons' ban, I'm hearing a lot of misused terminology. Anyone that refers to a rifle or pistol magazine as a 'clip' has been watching too many action movies. A clip is what feeds the magazine, and a magazine is what feeds the firearm. Some magazines are detachable, while others are fixed. A clip is a device that holds rounds together to make loading a magazine easier.

For those of you that have trouble picturing the difference, allow me to illustrate. This is a clip. This is a magazine. This is a clip feeding a magazine. Get the picture?

(photos courtesy of here and here)

I took this typing skills test just to see how my typing was holding up. I successfully typed 283 correct keys/minute which equates to 56 words/minute. Not too shabby considering I was typing on my tiny laptop keyboard. For the record, the average is 228 keys/minute, so at least I beat that. I want to know who those guys are that are scoring 90 correct wpm. My biggest handicap was correctness. I think that I may still have mild dyslexia (which I had as a child), because I often transpose letters when I type.

UPDATE: Taking it over, I was able to get my WPM up to 60 (301kpm), on a regular keyboard. Personally, I don't like the test, because the sentences you type lack proper structure and punctuation. It is almost like they are throwing hurdles at you. If the sentences made any sense and didn't not have no good grammars, it'd be a lot easier.

How did you score?

Donald Wilkes, a University of Georgia Law Professor is giving Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas the business. Wilkes is not too happy about the invitation for Justice Thomas to speak at the UGA graduation ceremony. So much so that he is boycotting the ceremony, and attending a protest rally to oppose him.

Inviting Thomas to be the graduation speaker bestows an honor that he does not deserve. Inviting Thomas (or anyone else) simply to speak at the law school is one thing, and I would never object to inviting any speaker of any point of view.

But inviting someone to be the graduation speaker is different; being invited to address the graduating class is an honor and implicitly gives the law school's approval to the invitee.

Even though he is on the Supreme Court, Thomas' deplorable, relentless anti-human rights voting record on the court makes him unworthy of being honored.

So basically, it comes down to politics. Wilkes doesn't like a few SCOTUS decisions, so he refers to Justice Thomas as having an "anti-human rights voting record". I wonder if Wilkes holds the same contempt for Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro?

Of course, we have to simply accept Wilkes at face value, because he doesn't even bother to offer any examples to bolster his point. A quick search of Ontheissues shows that Thomas measures up as a true centrist. That may explain why he has so few allies. Still, there is no mention of any gassings, beheadings, convictions without a fair trial, or any other human rights violations that Thomas has committed. In fact, I cannot find one single shred of evidence where Thomas has voted to deny someone human rights. Therefore, I must conclude that either Wilkes knows something that the rest of the world doesn't, or that Wilkes is an idiot.

Here's some evidence to support the case that Wilkes is an idiot.

Student attendance at the graduation is in effect mandatory. Students must listen to Thomas' speech unless they want to miss their own graduation. If Thomas were merely invited to speak at the law school, students would be free to attend or not attend. Objecting to Thomas' invitation therefore in no way impinges upon freedom of speech.

Just who is it that is playing to a captive audience? I tried searching for a UGA requirement that students MUST attend graduation to get their diploma, but I couldn't find one. I will assume then, that every UGA student that objects to Justice Thomas has the option of skipping his speech, and still graduating.

Given that Wilkes is on the faculty, and presuming that he teaches some students, I wonder if students have the freedom "to attend or not attend" his lectures. I mean, if they are enrolled in his class, aren't they forced to sit through his bone-headed lectures in order to pass the class? I would think that is much more of a violation of student's rights than having Clarence Thomas speak for a single hour on a single day of their college careers.

Joanie. There's drama in blogdom, and poor Joanie is caught in the middle of it.

For the record, I had Zander in the blogroll for a while, but removed him because I completely lost interest in his site. The doom and gloom stories never really interested me, and I like to stay up beat. From what I've read recently, and especially given Mr. Tony's comments, I'm inclined to stick with Joanie on this one. Tony sounds a bit too much like a kiddie to be real.

As for Tony's alleged threat ("it will not be good"), it read like one to me. Just so you know, Tony. That shit doesn't fly here.

Charles Hill recently used this Soulmate Calculator to figure his odds of meeting that perfect soulmate. It told him that he had to meet 1238 women to find 'the one'.

Well I took the test, and I am WAY behind schedule. my probability coefficient is: 8.14158485456398 E-06. That means I need to meet 122,826 heterosexual females to find my perfect mate. That means I'd have to fill an average football stadium TWICE with single women, just to meet 'the one'. How encouraging.

Is it Wednesday already? Well, I missed Ye Olde Carnival yet again. After actually remembering to get my entry in for two straight weeks, I'm back to forgetting again. That brings my record down to 2 for 6 over the past 8 weeks.

I guess my recent employment is taking up too much of my time. If Congressional Republicans let up and decide to extend unemployment benefits, perhaps I'll go back to being one of the jobless.

Who am I kidding? I never bothered to file for unemployment to begin with.

The Montgomery County (Md.) Council is living up to their promise to try to nullify the rights of business and property owners. As they promised, they are moving forward with a restrictive smoking ban that will cover all restaurants, bars, and private clubs; including those that have a patio or outdoor areas. The Washington Times notes that, "yesterday, five of the Montgomery County Council's nine members introduced the ban, ensuring its passage when it comes to a vote by the full panel in July." To make the ban veto-proof, they still need one more vote. The Democratic County Executive Douglas Duncan has promised to veto the measure. Again.

Earlier this month, the original ban plan literally went up in smoke, because the council willingly violated the law to override the County Executive's veto. Rather than garner enough votes to override the veto, the Council had simply declared themselves to be the Board of Health, whose regulations are not subject to veto. That was struck down as a violation of the law by Maryland's Court of Appeals, their highest court.

The nullification of property rights is supposed to protect people from the 'dangers' of second hand smoke, although both the WHO and EPA have been thus far unable to prove that second hand smoke is hazardous.

Only in a gun-free society could an angry badger terrorize a small town for 48 hours and injure five people. You'd never hear about something like this happening in West Virginia or Kentucky. Instead, the headline would read "Angry badger feeds family of five."

I haven't heard of anything so preposterous since a small British town was 'terrorized' by a fuzzy little squirrel. Taking our advice, a local hero was able to subdue the beast with an air rifle.

For some reason that headline doesn't seem too preposterous. Especially when I read that Democrats are blaming Bush for the attack in Saudi Arabia. It always seems to be about blame and finger pointing, and never about solutions. First it was America's fault for living too good of a lifestyle prior to September 11th. Then it was Bush's fault for not doing enough before September 11th. Then it was Bush's fault for being distracted during the war on terror. Then it was Bush's fault for the economy, Bush's fault for judicial nominations not being voted on, Bush's fault for the Space Shuttle disaster, Bush's fault for destabilizing Australian democrats, Bush's fault that 1000 people died in an Indian heat wave, Bush's fault for the Enron accounting scandal, Bush's fault for the floods in Mozambique, Bush's fault for gas prices, Bush's fault for arsenic in the water, and of course it is Bush's fault for stubbing my toe.

I think it might be easier to look for things that aren't Bush's fault.

Just over 60 days ago, Venomous Kate burst onto the weblogging scene. I added her to my blogroll almost immediately, because I liked her.. um... assets. At first, I seemed to be sending a lot of hits her way. Now I've got them coming back at me, and she's ranked 9th on my referral log.

What is really astonishing, is that Kate has been weblogging at breakneck speed. In the 63 days she's been posting, she's racked up nearly 1900 posts. To put it into perspective, this is post 1473 for me, since I stopped doing manual updates over a year ago.

This website is under new management.

Excuse me while I dust off my "Will blog for food" sign.

You know, I often poke fun at people that put tip jars and wishlists on their website. Judging by the gift that Usrbingeek recently received, perhaps they should be poking fun at me.

Imagine this scenario. Your old college buddy, Ken, is moving to your city and needs to find a place to live. You offer to let him stay at your place until he can find a decent apartment. Ken promptly moves in and starts living on your couch. After six months, he still hasn't found a place to live. You raise the issue with him, but he pleads for more time. He says he's been looking at places, but he just cannot find a place that meets his needs. Right before you go to throw him out, your wife intervenes. She tells you that you should be charitable, and give him six more months.

You explain to Ken that you are going to give him six more months to find a place to live. You even tell him that if he finds a place within three months, you'll pay his first three months rent as a bonus. You shake on it, and he assures you he's doing the best he can.

Six more months pass, and Ken is still a permanent fixture on your couch. He's now been there for a year, and you are at your wits end. You are ready to kick him to the curb, when he starts pleading for just three more months. He says the market is really soft, and there just aren't any good places out there. The holidays are coming up, it is cold outside, and your wife is tugging at your arm. She tells you that you should let him stay just a little while longer.

You decide to give him three more months. You tell Ken that he must find a place to live within three months, or he's going out with the Tuesday trash. You've been generous and charitable, and a year should be long enough for anyone to find a decent place to live.

Three months go by, and Ken is still there. It has now been 15 months since Ken first moved in. You are damned ready to kick his narrow ass out of your house, when he has the nerve to ask for more support. Ken says that you owe it to him. He calls you mean spirited and heartless for wanting to kick him out. He tells you that you don't know how rough it is out there. He vilifies you, while portraying himself as a victim in the situation. What would you do? Would you kick him out, or let him stay?

Well, not surprisingly, the LA Times thinks that you should have to let him stay. They are calling for yet another extension to unemployment 'benefits', and accusing 'the rich' of "making the jobless pay".

QUICK QUIZ: A drunken teenager is walking down the street. He spots a uniformed police officer out on foot patrol, and yells "Hey fatty!" Does the police officer:

(A) Drag him into an alley and pistol whip him to within an inch of his life.
(B) Lecture him on showing respect for the men in blue, and the evils of drinking to excess.
(C) Arrest him for being a drunken teenager.
(D) Charge him with causing 'mental anguish'.

Well, in America, particularly Chicago or New York, it would definitely be (A). In the UK, however, he gets a $160 fine.

LONDON (Reuters) - Judges ordered a British teenager to pay $160 to a policeman for "mental anguish" after calling him "fat," the Daily Telegraph reported Tuesday...

The 5-foot, 8-inch officer weighs 196 pounds, the paper said.

"Sure, I enjoy the odd curry and a pint or two, but I am not fat at all. That's unfair," [the policeman] said. "I play cricket for my local club and coach junior football, so if anything, I think I am quite sporty."

This is just a bizarre story. Disgruntled Democrats didn't show up to work, as a way of obstructing government business in the Texas House of Representatives. Fox News reports that the absences of 58 of the 62 Democratic lawmakers meant that the House did not have enough members to hold a session.

The absence of the 58 Democrats denied the House its required 100-member quorum. The boycott capped months of tension between Democrats and the newly-in-control Republicans over a bill to limit lawsuits and a GOP budget that would make deep spending cuts without raising taxes.

State police were called, but no arrests have been made, yet. House rules allow for the arrest of any House members that intentionally try to thwart a quorum.

State police found many of the legislators hiding in a hotel in Oklahoma, and asked them to return to Austin.

[Republican House Speaker Tom] Craddick said he made a plane available to Democrats who choose to come back. The troopers have no legal authority to arrest them since they are outside Texas; the Democrats declined to return...

House Republicans spent hours of idle time locked in the chamber constructing signs and gimmicks ridiculing their Democratic colleagues. A pair of milk cartons circulated around the chamber, plastered with the faces of missing Democrats.

From the national level, on down to local levels, Democrats are quickly becoming the obstructionist party. If they don't win, they sue. When they lose lawsuits, they pout. When it comes time to do any business, they simply refuse to cooperate or do any work. Dems wouldn't give Judicial hearings, and still will not allow votes. Now, on the local level, they aren't showing up to work.

Does the House have any rules about "job abandonment"? In the private sector, when someone doesn't show up for work for three days, we terminate them and hire someone else.

UPDATES:
Kim DuToit asks: "I'm no lawyer, but isn't crossing state lines to avoid arrest a felony?"

Jack Cluth says: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going- to Oklahoma."

Owen Courreges asks: "Does it get more pathetic than this?"

James Taranto says: "'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,' FDR said in 1933. Hard to believe he belonged to the same party as these guys who deal with legislative adversity by making a beeline for the state line."

Who is this guy in the flight suit, standing next to the F-16? Neal says it must be a Republican. After all, if it were Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, that would really make the Dems look foolish for complaining about Bush's visit to the Lincoln?

I've converted the permalinks over to individual archives to make the pages load a bit quicker. The old permalinks should still work.

Actually, I'll probably be playing around with he permalinks to get them where I like them. It would appear that the individual archive pages doubled the size of my site, so I may not be keeping them. For now, all the 'link me' tags were reset back to the Monthly Archive pages.

I've also implemented the 'Extended Entry' feature so that long posts can be opened and closed.

If I'm ever hard up for an Amishlanche, I'm going to consider publicly delinking Amish Tech Support. I noticed that last time Laurence featured me on a post, I got a good 150 visits out of it. Laurence's rant about recently being publicly de-linked is sure to net the offender 300 or more hits. Is he simply link-whoring? I'm not sure, but he trackbacked both the originial post, and Laurence's reaction.

Perhaps I could try a daily de-linking, and see how long it takes the law of diminishing returns to kick in. One of these days, I'll take the initiative to try that with Instapundit. Assuming Glenn would notice, I might get an Instalanche worth thousands of visits. Of course, the resulting hate mail might be a bit annoying, but there is no such thing as bad publicity, right?

Mayor Bloomberg's smoking crusade is costing business owners big bucks in New York City. Back in October, we noted that Bloomberg brushed off the economic impact of his anti-smoking measures as "a minor economic issue". Last month, we noted that a bouncer who was tasked with enforcing the law, was viciously murdered by an angry drunken smoker. Earlier this month, we noted that CNN and Reuters had a good laugh over people stepping out for a smoke and not coming back to pay the tab. Today, the New York Post notes that restaurants, bars, and their employees (whom the smoking ban was supposed to benefit) are paying a very heavy price.

Business at New York bars and restaurants has plummeted by as much as 50 percent in the wake of the smoking ban - and the drop has already sparked layoffs and left some establishments on the brink of shutting their doors...

A half-dozen of those surveyed either laid off staff last month or are cutting back hours for bartenders and waiters because of slow business.

It should be of no surprise that people aren't hanging around bars and restaurants and socializing, when they cannot enjoy a good smoke any more. In fact, staff writers at Ravenwood's Universe cited declining sales and shuttered businesses as a primary reason against smoking bans, back in September. Given that the result of New York's "minor economic issue" is going to be lower tax revenues and higher unemployment, you would think that New York liberals would at least pretend to be concerned. I wonder if those laid off workers are happy that the anti-smokers are looking out for their health?

Webloggers like Michele and Kim have been talking about the wussification of our nation's school children. (On a side note, Michele raves about the word 'wussification', even though it is an obvious rip off of Dr. Williams' coinage, 'sissification'.) They have pretty much covered the flap about the onslaught of political correctness in our nation's text books. Words and phrases like apartment, busybody, the elderly, huts, jungle, lumberjack, and regatta, have been deemed offensive, and are banned.

Another form of sissification of our school children is the idea that whenever anyone dies, the school must provide 'grief councilors' or 'crisis councilors', to tell kids that it is okay to cry. Recently some teenager thought it'd be neat to slide down the staircase railing at a museum. She met with a tragic and untimely demise after falling from the railing. Naturally, "museum officials called in crisis counselors to work with the other members of the youth group," so that they would not be 'traumatized'. Personally, if I had a child in one of these schools, I would be very concerned about them providing or mandating therapy for my kid without my permission.

As for other examples, I noted last year, much to the chagrin of several parents, that their kids are being sissified by the heavy backpack crusade. Schools have been mandating less homework and issuing books on CD-ROM to combat the growing problem of whining kids back strain. It is my personal prediction that government subsidized computers are the next step. After all, those CD-ROMs, won't play themselves. Of course, there will also be a double digit increase in the number of kids suffering from myopia, caused by staring at those computer screens all day.

Is my prediction way off base? Well, it seems like the obvious socialist answer to a problem that could be easily solved by rolling backpacks, or by teaching kids to use both backpack straps instead of worrying about looking cool. My picture of the future doesn't seem too unrealistic when you throw in the latest anti-war craze, and the teaching of our kids to ask "why do they hate us?".

All of this pampering and nannyism is making me worry about the future of this nation. Could we have liberated Europe in WWII with people that had grown up whining about every little thing?

"Sarge, my rifle is too heavy. Do I have to carry all these bullets around with me?"

UPDATE: In a usual bout of schadenfreude, Laurence Simon offers this suggestion:

Besides, what do they need crisis counselors for when museum instructors ought to take advantage of the situation and teach a lesson in Natural Selection:

Walk up and down the stairs: survive.
Slide down the railing like an idiot: die.

"In time of war, to aid and give comfort to the enemy on foreign soil, on stage and in a public forum is perfect fodder for anybody's press overseas that has a slightly different agenda, and I think it's reprehensible. And just because you're cute and have D-cups doesn't mean it's any less reprehensible." -- Gene Simmons, of KISS, speaking about Dixie Chick, Natalie Maines.

(link via Neal)

It is no secret that in the U.K., homeowners have no right to self defense. Last year, Barry-Lee Hastings faced murder charges and was convicted and sentenced to five years for manslaughter for the stabbing death of an armed home intruder.

Last week, CNS News reported on Tony Martin, who was convicted in April 2000 for the shooting death of a home invader using an unregistered shotgun. During Martin's parole hearing, a concern for "burglars' rights" became a major issue.

They [Martin's lawyers] also criticized the parole board for raising the issue of "burglars' rights" by asking if Martin was likely to use similar force against criminals in the future.

Martin's lawyer, Bitu Bhalla, said that the board shouldn't have submitted "arguments on the strategy for burglars generally.

"The burglar, if he decides to attack a householder, ought to be aware that if reasonable force is used against him, he will not get any protection," he said.

The parole board was not swayed, however, and addressed concern for the well being of home invaders. Lawyer Pushpinder Saini argued, (emphasis added)

"Even if only those who came onto his property were the group at risk of the use of lethal force at the hands of Mr. Martin, it was not irrational for the board to consider such a group was entitled to protection."

What the parole board is saying, is that a burglar or home invader has a reasonable expectation of safety when they break into your home. Apparently, concern for that safety is paramount to the homeowner's expectation of safety, because Tony Martin's parole was rejected, as he was considered to be a danger to home invaders.

This sends a strong message to citizens in the United Kingdom: Defend yourself, and go to jail. Show penitence, or stay there.

Kudos to Kim for spotting this dumb criminal, who committed 'suicide by cop'. Kim notes that the Brits were more than happy to classify the incident as a suicide to keep the gun crime out of their crime statistics.

That's how Britain keeps its homicide rates down -- they just reclassify them as "suicides". Kim writes:

A guy beat up his wife for having an affair, then when the police came to arrest him, he locked himself in his room, claiming to have a Glock 9mm, which is, and I quote: "...a very powerful gun used by the police."

[pauses for sniggers and guffaws to die down]

Hehehe.. I'm still laughing over that one.

The contrast in statistics keeping is pretty interesting. Since the banning of firearms, the Brits seem to want to do anything to sweep gun crime under the rug. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., gun grabbers resort to counting 24 year old gang bangers as "children murdered by gun violence".

Greeblie wonders how they get horse semen. I can tell, by the way he says "I don't even want to know". Well, I once saw a show on the Discovery Channel on how they mate bulls, and let me tell you... if you think you're job is bad, you aint seen nothin' yet.

Apparently bulls are very aggressive maters, so they use artificial insemination so that the cows don't get hurt. This, naturally, requires getting the bull into the mood. At first, I thought it was almost comical how they pull this cow sized cart behind a pickup. It's not really even shaped much like a cow, but they throw some cow hide on it, and the bull doesn't seem to know the difference.

What was most shocking was that there is a guy that actually rides down inside that thing. The narrator explained that when the bull mounts that contraption, this guy has about three fucking seconds to get this 'cup' into place before the bull shoots his... is done. Now, this cup is not really a cup. It's more like a thermos. A BIG, LONG thermos.

Now, they never really mentioned this, but I started thinking... everyone has a bad day on the job eventually, right? I mean, when this poor guy has a bad day, he really has a bad day. If he fumbles around with that 'cup' too much, or drops it by accident... ugh. Lets just say I had a Ghostbusters flashback and could picture him saying, "He slimed me".

So, next time you're having a bad day, and you think your job really stinks, think of that guy riding down there waiting for that bull. Your job doesn't seem too tough, now does it.

Last September, I started reading Dawn Olsen's website. When she started begging for dollars, I even threw a few her way. About a week later, she banned me from her site, for what she said were unprovoked personal attacks on her character.

Please, allow me to quote what Ms. Olsen said about me just yesterday:

"you are a liar or a hypocrite. In your case probably both."
"that swine Ravenwood"

Frankly, I'm shocked at the lack of imagination. Dawn is the same person that described Ann Coulter as a woman who is a racist member of the KKK, a bigot, and someone who runs over kittens. She said that she would deport all foreigners and bathe in the blood of newborns. Dawn and her readers even lamented that they had wanted her to have gone down in a blaze of glory sitting next to Barbara Olsen on the plane that smashed into the Pentagon.

Me? All I get is 'swine'. For some reason I feel disappointed.

Ravenwood's Universe is the #5 search result for "Unregistered sexual offenders in Hillsborough County, Florida"

I don't really understand why Michele hates Ted Rall so much. I've read a few of his op-eds, and figure that fisking Ted Rall would be a huge waste of time. Any sane person the read's Rall isn't going to get two sentences without rolling their eyes. Anyone that actually believes Rall probably doesn't have the capacity for rational thinking any way. Trying to refute the Tedrallians with logic and thought is a bit like trying to teach nuclear physics to an orangutan. You can use charts, graphs, and logic, but they just aren't listening. Those that would listen, just don't get it. Perhaps it's more like arguing with your refrigerator.

As for Ted's columns, I've found that they all seem to follow the same formula.

• Stolen 2000 election.


• Bush is an idiot.


• Bush is a draft dodger.


• Count all the votes.


• Corporate money.


• Corporate legislation.


• Halliburton.


• Gore is great.


• Poor economy.


• Dead Iraqis.


• Dead Afghanis.


• President Gore.


• Re-count all the votes.

Now just fill in the rest with mindless drivel, more bitching about the 2000 election, and you've got your own Ted Rall op-ed.

UPDATE: I missed this earlier, but Fox News already covered Ted Rall. "Typing Monkeys Don't Quite Write 'Hamlet': Monkeys given computer to type on, but end up using keyboard mainly as toilet"

Tazteck comments on a daring police raid. What were they after? Drugs? Illegal guns? Terrorists?

Nope, it was MP3s.

"Any obstacles for individuals of proper reputation -- in other words, nonfelons -- to ever need any kind of permit for the right to keep and bear arms is an indication of a cultural deprivation at the hands of an apathetic sheeplike society that embarrasses me, angers me. To think that some man can tell this man if, where or when I may be able to defend myself is absolutely repugnant to me. ... I find that spiritually, intellectually and constitutionally offensive. And I'm fighting with all my might to rectify that." -- Ted Nugent, speaking out in favor of a person's right to keep and bear arms for their defense and liberty.

That is one of my favorite quotes by the great, Thomas Jefferson. In spite of Jefferson's wisdom, in 1994, Socialist Democrats like Feinstein and Clinton successfully lobbied to pass a bill that banned so called "assault weapons" nation wide. These are not to be confused with "assault rifles" that feature fully automatic capability, and are already banned and regulated by the BATFags. Actually, there is no true definition for 'assault weapons', except that they are 'scary looking'. They are merely rifles, shotguns, and handguns that have a 'military style' appearance, but no more functionality than regular hunting guns.

When asked how effective the bill was at reducing crime, statisticians were hard pressed to come up with any real data. Initially the reply was something like "Uh.. It's hard to tell, because criminals hardly ever use those guns any way." In fact, Gunowners.org notes that "over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called 'assault weapon.'" Gun grabbers ignored the facts, and put restrictions on honest law abiding citizens any way.

What is really aggravating now-a-days, is that the useless ban is coming up for renewal in 2004. Probably since it is an election year, Bush seems to not only be wholeheartedly in favor of extending the ban, but making it permanent. Fox News reports that while Bush is awaiting an administrative study on how effective the law has been, he "backs the bill regardless of the study's findings because he thinks the assault weapons ban is 'reasonable'". So why even bother with the study, if you are just going to ignore the findings? I don't like studies any way, as the results are usually pre-determined, but why bother spending the money?

What is most disturbing is this passage:

[Sen. Diane] Feinstein addressed gun-control supporters who complained that her bill is too weak and should instead be modeled on California's assault weapons ban. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., are taking that approach in a House bill they authored.

"We'd like it to be better, but we know if we push it too far, we'll have no bill," Feinstein said.

Feinstein, and other big name gun grabbers, would model the existing nation-wide ban after California's hideous pick and choose weapons ban. California, whose constitution has no provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms, has the most confusing gun laws in the nation. Their laws are so disorganized and random, that even the police and district attorneys have trouble deciphering them.

Initially, California tried banning 'assault weapons' by name, which had the expected results. Next they tried banning them by feature. They came up with rules like, if a rifle had a detachable magazine, AND a pistol grip it was banned. The problem is, it only takes the turn of a screwdriver to make an illegal rifle legal again. Back in 1999, World Net Daily quoted Steve Helsley of the NRA as saying, "All the parts in this bill are parts you put on with a wrench or a screwdriver. For most of them, it would take about a minute to switch your gun to make it legal." Helsley likened it to banning all Corvettes with CD players, even though the CD player has nothing to do with the functionality of the vehicle. The resulting mess is that the line between legal and illegal becomes so fuzzy, it isn't hard for a gun enthusiast to make an honest mistake and end up spending years in jail.

What Feinstein means when she says she knows she cannot push too far, is that she doesn't want to over play her hand. Firearm's Freedom enthusiasts know full well that her intention is to pass a complete and total ban of firearms. She's already admitted on national television that she'd propose a total gun ban if she thought the votes were there. No, this is only a part of a bigger picture. It is the baby steps approach; the gentle step by step erosion of individual liberty and freedom. It is because of that erosion that civil libertarian groups like the NRA stand in the way; and if we don't stop them soon, it may be too late.

I've always had a soft spot for Fastback Mustangs. Perhaps it was the first time I saw Steve McQueen racing through the San Francisco streets in Bullitt. It is that fascination that draws me to the raw power and rarity of the 1969 Boss 429 Mustang. While this is not the 1968 Fastback GT that McQueen drove, the BOSS 429 holds a place of it's own in history, with only 859 units produced in 1969, and 500 units produced in 1970 (including the Cougars and Quarter-Horse). The Boss 429 World Registry notes that the cars featured "the stock NASCAR version 429 engine," and that each car was assembled by hand. In fact, the Boss 429 Mustang's very reason for existing, was to homologate the 429 hemi engine so that it could be used on the NASCAR racing circuit.

click to supersize

click to supersize

The Autochannel notes that the power plant is a large 429 hemi V8 that makes 375HP, and it has a 4-speed manual tranny which gives it a top speed of around 119 mph. The factory Mustang had to be heavily modified just to fit the large 429 engine. Although the appearance is described as 'understated' compared to a Mach 1 or Boss 302, I find the car to be endearing.

In case you are interested, a pony like this will set you back between $80-$90,000 today. (and it doesn't even come with an FM radio.)

Photos courtesy of Musclecarcalendar.com.

The AJC offers an interesting look at how a bill gets 'hijacked'. It is the tale of an anti-smoking bill that ended up being a pro-bottled water bill. The original bill was a hideous nanny law that told parents they couldn't smoke around their infant children. It dictated that smoking would be banned in cars which contain children in a car seat, and would have been a stepping stone toward a total smoking prohibition, even in private vehicles and homes.

However, while the bill bounced back and forth between the Georgia House and Senate, the smoking legislation was gutted, and pro-bottled water legislation was added. Currently, food and beverages are banned on public transportation. Language was added to the anti-smoking bill to allow the consumption of bottled water on public trains and buses. The pro-water legislation started out as a separate bill, but had been passed over during the Georgia flag flap. It was attached to the anti-smoking bill as a compromise to get the bill passed through the House.

Hold on to your butts, I'm going to make a long story short. The bill bounced from the House to the Senate, who gutted the anti-smoking verbiage and passed it back to the House. The House put the smoking ban verbiage back in, and passed it back to the Senate. The Senate deleted the anti-smoking verbiage a second time and passed it back to the House. In the final minutes of the legislative session, the revised bill passed both houses.

In the end, bottled water is going to be allowed on public transit vehicles, and anti-smoking nanny legislation will have to wait until next year.

Today's Cyberalert captures these statements by Ed Asner on Wednesday's Buchanan & Press on MSNBC. Host, Pat Buchanan was discussing Fidel Castro, and the Hollywood infatuation with the Cuban dictator. Asner was asked for his thoughts on Castro's recent execution of three hijackers, who were found guilty of attempting to flee the communist island nation to the United States. Asner justifies Castro's actions, even though he is a staunch opponent of the death penalty.

"I am opposed to capital punishment by any country, by any persons. I disapprove of Mr. Castro's executing. I understand that the trial was very fair, that the death penalty is exercised in Cuba and therefore, by Cuban standards, the trial was fair and judicious even though I abhor the death penalty."

Justice is swift in Cuba, which is also known for it's top notch health care system. It takes the United States years of trials and mandatory appeals before we execute anyone. Castro managed to wrap the whole thing up in a matter of weeks.

The MRC notes that later in the show, Buchanan pointed out: "He has persecuted his own people, he has denied them free elections for 40 years. He's an unelected dictator who puts people in prison on his own whim. What is the infatuation-"

Asner interjected: "We didn't have a free election in 2002."

Although the 2001 Georgia "Barnes" Flag is flying for the last time, neither Georgia flaggots nor anti-flaggots seem to be pleased. As a former Georgian, I am extremely pleased, if for no other reason to stick it to ex-Governor Barnes. Roy Barnes was like the Bill Campbell of Governors, and this just adds to the pleasure of seeing his surprise defeat in 2002.

I'm also pleased to see a media outlet finally recognize the fact that the "Barnes" flag also featured the 'controversial' St. Andrews Cross. The AJC reports:

The Barnes flag had put the controversial image at the bottom of the flag among other flag icons.

To me, the flaggots all seemed like hillbilly rednecks for putting the flag at the top of their agenda, while anti-flaggots seemed like hypocrites for wanting to keep the "Barnes" flag because it's Confederate Battle Flag emblem was somehow magically non-offensive.

By the way, does anyone know if, during all the flag commotion, Georgia ever bothered to pass a freakin' budget?

"This is the worst any mayor has done in nine years - and that's only because we've only been polling for nine years," said Maurice Carroll of Quinnipiac University to the New York Post, after an April 29th survey showed that Mayor Bloomberg had a lowly 32% approval rating.

Bloomberg didn't seem to mind, though. "When you raise the property tax you go from 60 percent approval rating to a 30 percent approval rating. Two months later you're back to a 50 percent approval rating," the mayor said.

I was hoping they were referring to Michael Moore, but unfortunately it is 007 himself, Roger Moore. Moore was always my favorite of the James Bonds, probably because I grew up in the 1980s. Connery is a very close second, with Timothy Dalton and Remington Steele tied for a distant third.

Senator Robert 'sheets' Byrd thinks that Presidents have no business visiting aircraft carriers. He called the display "flamboyant showmanship", and added "this is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial."

I guess he was referring to this bum.

Has this ever happened to you? You are surfing along, flipping through web pages, and you see a photo or link you want to email to someone, or perhaps just save for later. You right click, hoping to save the photo or link to your computer, and get the annoying "We don't allow right clicks" message. The wording typically varies from obnoxious lies like "Right clicking will format your hard drive" to benign pleas like "Please don't steal my photos", to blatant accusations "Quit stealing my content you thieving bastard". For most people, the result is usually the same. You click ok, and never get to the menu you need to copy the link or photo.

So, what can you do? You've graced this persons web page, viewed their ads, and waded through their pop-ups. What is your reward? Your right mouse button is hijacked. Disabled. Hacked. You are personally insulted, and your morals are called into question. You are essentially accused of trying to steal their precious intellectual property. Did they honestly believe that people that surf the web don't save photos and links to their hard disk? Were they not aware of the right-click/save-as feature before publishing publicly accessible content? I say screw those bastards and take what you want under fair use laws. After all, right clicking is not the moral equivalent of violating their copyright.

Well, I'm going to risk being prosecuted under the DMCA for letting people know how to break their clever 'encryption' technique. I'm going to tell you the super secret trick for getting around their annoyance. Are you ready? Here goes. All you need to do, is hold down the right mouse button, and hit the enter key after the popup appears. It is that easy.

Lets review. You see a photo you want to email to your mother in law. You right click, but don't release the button. You hold that right mouse button down until it screams. When the annoying "Hahaha.. I know Javascript and you don't" window appears, hit the enter key (or ESC) on your keyboard to clear the window. Then release the right mouse button, and viola, your right-click window appears.

Now practice your skill on this page.

I'm a little tired of hearing this environmental drivel coming from the far left. It is the same old tired argument. Detroit has the super secret blueprints for a car that runs on water, but they won't build it because they want to keep us dependent on foreign oil. The argument is years old, but greens have added the terrorism/despotism angle to try to make it an easier sell. I won't bother to try to debunk such a shallow argument, especially since I would be hard pressed to come up with something better than this.

What I will say is that consumer demand is what drives Detroit, not oil stocks. There is a lot of truth to the saying that 'necessity is the mother of invention.' When the need (or desire) is there, we'll come up with something. The fact that Detroit is already working on hybrid cars and SUVs is a case in point. As demand for the vehicles rise, so will the availability.

I'll also point out that even electric cars which need to be periodically charged are not pollution free. That electricity has to come from somewhere, and right now it's being produced with fossil fuels. You may sleep better at night driving your EV-1 Deathtrap, but you aren't really helping the environment much when all your electricity comes from that coal burning power plant 50 miles down the road.

Yowza!

While other web sites are adding advertising banners, pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-sideways, et. al, I want to remind you that this site is fully funded by the philanthropic Staff Writers at Ravenwood's Universe. We have no ads, no wish lists, no tip jars, no pledge weeks, no reader support what-so-ever, and we are proud of it.

I do not look down my nose at those who do run ads or resort to cyberbegging. They are merely keeping the economic machine going, however I do want to restate our proud tradition of remaining one of the last ad-free zones on the internet.

Common Sense and Wonder put an interesting spin on this week's Carnival of the Vanities. Naturally, my entry is under the R.

For those of you that want to bypass the "Where's Waldo" version, and just get to the meat of the Carnival, click here for the run of the mill version.

EU 'greenhouse' emissions continue to rise, despite ratifying the Kyoto treaty. UPI reports that 10 of the 15 member states missed their targets, resulting in a net increase of total emissions by 1 percent. The Kyoto treaty is supposed to cut greenhouse gasses and help offset the perceived threat of global warming. Ironically, the European Environment Agency blames the increase in output of greenhouse gases on a cold winter in many EU countries.

That doesn't stop the EU from being upbeat about meeting their Kyoto goal. "Our findings demonstrate that the Kyoto targets can be met without imposing unacceptable costs on society. Meeting them is a question of political will and full and effective implementation of the measures agreed," said EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom.

I guess some people see the good in everything.

Austria successfully defended itself from a 15 year old boy. He was dressed in fatigues and carrying a toy rifle. Austria responded with helicopters, special forces units, and K-9s, reports Ananova

The teenager who was finally caught said he had not intended to hurt anyone and was only on his way to a friend's house to play soldiers after months of watching the war on TV.

I'm happy to see Europe is finally fending for itself. Still, had this happened in France... well, you know.

I receive regular updates from the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) that included this conversation with the director of the Norfolk Airport. As VCDL President, Philip Van Cleave points out, he is none too happy about Virginians having the right to carry concealed firearms into non-secure areas of the airport.

Yesterday I made a courtesy call to Kenneth Scott, the executive director of the Norfolk Airport Authority, to make sure he was aware of the ramifications of HB1516 for the airport. The conversation went something like this (I am kicking myself for not having got a recording - kick, kick, kick):

Me: I wanted to make sure you were aware of a change in law concerning permit holders coming into effect on July 1. On that date, concealed carry permit holders can legally carry concealed in the non-sterile areas of the airport.

Mr. Scott: That does not effect us, we have a grandfathered ordinance on the books.

Me: Errrr - that is exactly what the new law does, it effectively removes all grandfathered ordinances that deal with carry, possession, and transport by permit holders.

Mr. Scott: I was told that the change in the law would not effect grandfathered ordinances.

Me: The General Assembly debated the measure and decided that it was more important that the laws be uniform across the state for permit holders. You can call the Norfolk City Attorney for more details if you like.

Mr. Scott: I will call our own attorney! (Now screaming at me) THIS IS A DISASTER!

Me: Mr. Scott - this only effects permit holders. People who have had training and a thorough background check. Permit holders do not commit crimes. Your airport will be safer.....

Mr. Scott: THAT IS YOUR OPINION AND I DISAGREE WITH IT. I AM ENTITLED TO MY OPINION. THIS IS A DISASTER!

(Margaret walks into the room at this point and can hear the screaming where she is standing and mouths to me "Who is that?")

I was just about to tell him that whether he trusted permit holders or not, I expected him to obey the law. But he beat me to the punch:

Mr. Scott: IF THAT'S THE LAW WE WILL OBEY IT!

Me: That's all I was checking on, sir. Thank you.

Whew! I think I lost some of the hearing in my right ear! ;) I have to view all of the yelling as more of a temper tantrum than anything else. He absolutely did not want to hear anything to dispel his prejudices against gun owners.
It was a disaster to him because bureaucrats hate losing any authority over the helpless, untrustworthy masses... Sheesh.

Why am I not surprised?

Sometimes I can be a solicitor's worst nightmare. Check out the recent conversation I had with a solicitor from a common charity. Actually, it is a charity that I have supported in the past, and had he not delved into his obvious script, I might have donated again. It's probably for the best that I didn't donate, since I'm still a bit poor right now from the move, paying my tax bill, and not getting a full pay check on my new job yet.

CALLER: Mr. Sexton?
RAVENWOOD: Nope. You must have the wrong number.
CALLER: Is Barbara at home?
RAVENWOOD: No Barbara here. You must have the wrong number.
CALLER: Are you the head of the household?
RAVENWOOD: Yes.
CALLER: Well I'm with the (common charity), and we'd like to thank you for your support last year. We were interested if you'd be willing to donate again thi...
RAVENWOOD: You don't even know who I am.
CALLER: Uh..
RAVENWOOD: I just told you that you had the wrong number. What makes you think I gave to your charity last year?
CALLER: Uh...
RAVENWOOD: I've got to get going.. buh-bye.

Was it a bit mean? Perhaps. But I found his 'well, whoever you are' attitude to be a bit insulting.

If you are going to burglarize a church, you'd better not do it in Big Lake, Alaska. The Anchorage Daily News reports that a church pastor successfully defended his church with a handgun, after witnessing two young men burglarizing the chapel.

BIG LAKE -- A church pastor shot and killed two men he caught burglarizing his small chapel early Thursday morning, Alaska State Troopers said. The pastor, whom troopers identified as Phillip Mielke, shot the men with a handgun, according to investigators still at the scene more than 12 hours later.

A handful of locals interviewed Thursday cheered the shooting, saying it capped off a winter of unsolved break-ins and vandalism around this lakeside community of scattered residences.

In my opinion, these goblins definitely got what they deserved. I'm left wondering whether or not the preacher gave them last rites after shooting them.

The more we find out about the relationship between France and Iraq, the uglier it gets. It makes me wonder if we invaded the right country. Today, the Washington Times notes that France has supplied fleeing Iraqi officials with French passports to help them evade capture.

The French government secretly supplied fleeing Iraqi officials with passports in Syria that allowed them to escape to Europe... The French support, which was revealed through sensitive intelligence-gathering means, angered Pentagon, State Department and intelligence officials in Washington because it undermined the search for senior aides to Saddam, who fled Iraq in large numbers after the fall of Baghdad on April 9.

In their own defense, French officials blamed the VRWC. "France formally denies this type of allegation, which is not only contrary to reality but is intended to discredit our nation," said Nathalie Loiseau, a spokeswoman for the French Embassy. "It is certainly time for rumors of this type - totally unfounded and a dishonor to those who spread them - to stop."

The AP reports that Democrats are continuing to block the vote on the nomination of two minority candidates for federal judgeships. The GOP has now lost five votes on attempts to break a democratic filibuster for Miguel Estrada. Republicans also lost a vote to break the filibuster for Priscilla Owen.

While I expected as much from sleazy Daschle democrats, the Republican lack of response to the filibusters is what really has me steamed. They never should have let the Estrada filibuster get this far, and should go back to the old rules of filibustering. A filibuster is supposed to be maintained by the filibustering party. The Dems should be required to take the floor and hold it until the filibuster is over. They should also not proceed with any other Senate business until the filibusters are resolved. Perhaps then the American people get the full picture of just how much the Democrats are obstructing.

I'm also upset that the media isn't focusing more on the democrats attempt to hijack the Constitutional process. You could have given them the benefit of the doubt as to their motives, up until Chuck Schumer suggested the President give up his Constitutional authority to the Senate. Schumer's suggestion that the only way to break the gridlock would be to allow the Senate to make the nominations, is a clear sign of a broader agenda. The democrats are holding the process hostage, and their goal is to negate the Constitution without an Amendment, and without ratification from the States.

This fits perfectly into their view that the Constitution is just some rag written by a bunch of racist white guys over 200 years ago.

The Greenville News reports that a handgun has prevented another crime. Robbers approached a man in front of his house and demanded money. The intended victim brandished a gun and chased the robbers away. Like most self defense stories, a crime was prevented without a shot ever being fired.

Word has it that the Slutpublican party is rocked by scandal and filled with fauxpublicans. Meanwhile, the Slutertarian party is humming along quite nicely, revelling in their disorganization.

Also, congrats go out to our newly selected Veep, Jim from Jimspot. Should our President be assassinated, I'm sure he'll step up and don the puppet strings for the good of the party.

Remember the flap over all the looting going on in Iraq? Well, Time notes that looting even happens in the U.N. When food workers at the U.N. staged an impromptu strike, and walked off their jobs, hungry employees looted and pillaged their own restaurants for food, liquor, and even silverware.

The walkout left thousands of U.N. employees scrounging for lunch - eventually, the masses stripped the cafeterias of everything, including the silverware. ...The restaurants had been locked shut by security until about 1:00 pm when the doors flung open.

The decision to make the cafeterias into "no pay zones" spread through the 40-acre complex like wildfire. Soon, the hungry patrons came running. "It was chaos, wild, something out of a war scene," said one Aramark executive who was present. "They took everything, even the silverware," she said. Another witness from U.N. security said the cafeteria was "stripped bare." And another told TIME that the cafeteria raid was "unbelievable, crowds of people just taking everything in sight; they stripped the place bare." And yet another astonished witness said that "chickens, turkeys, souffles, casseroles all went out the door (unpaid)."

Early damage estimates are as high as $9,000, not including several of the restaurants and the silverware.

"No public speech will be allowed on the bus, which may include but is not necessarily limited to religion, politics, economics or finance." -- the 'public speech policy' for bus passengers in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.

This rule was created to prevent political grandstanding to a captive bus audience, however it is being enforced to keep Vincenza Siano and her daughter, Lucretia Bacon from having one-on-one private talks with each other on the 'taboo' subjects. Naturally, when handed a rulebook and told to shut it, the pair sued.

In typical liberal fashion, city attorney Michael Vanderburg offered the good intentions excuse. "I think they sued the wrong people and they don't understand what the policy intends to do," said Vanderburg.

Vanderburg also notes that the city doesn't run the bus service, but merely contracts it from a third party. I'm no attorney, so I don't know how good of an excuse the city actually has. However, since taxpayer funds are used to subsidize and manage the bus service, I would imagine that the city is on the hook for their policies. I would think that the policy should be removed, or the city should find another contractor.

It looks like Michele is getting some hate mail for delinking half of her blogroll. That is precisely why I keep my blogroll down to about 20 links. I sometimes change them around, adding a few, removing a few. People that go on hiatus are usually fair game to be delinked. I actually read more weblogs than I have linked over there, but I don't like to clutter up the page with hundreds of links.

Michele has it set so that only about 10 are shown on the main page any way, so I don't see what the big deal is. I could do that, I guess, but then what is the point of linking hundreds of folks.

I follow the simple philosphy that this is my blogroll. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My blogroll is my best frien... sorry... Full Metal Jacket flashback.

If you made the cut at Michele's site, than congrats. You are in the top 50%. If you were down in the bottom 50% like I was, deal with it. Either way, it's only a link, and I don't think it's worth crying over.

I'm off to my super secret location this weekend. Posting will be very light, if at all. If you get too bored, read through the archives, or check out the sites on the blogroll.

Ciao

In other anti-smoking news, the Maryland Supreme Court overturned Montgomery County's smoking ban, reports the Washington Post. Apparently the court wasn't too thrilled with the way the county council skirted the legislative process. Its funny how courts look down their nose at legislative bodies that willingly violate the law.

The high court agreed that the county council acted improperly when it tried to bypass a veto from the county executive by creating a health regulation.

The opinion said the council can't act as a Board of Health without the participation of the county executive.

The fight probably won't end there, however. According to local radio reports on WMAL, the Montgomery county council plans to pass a similar bill that should "stand up to legal challenges". In other words, next time they aren't going to be caught breaking the law.

New York City restaurant and bar owners are facing yet another problem with the new smoking ban. As if it wasn't bad enough that they have to police smokers, lest they be faced with stiff criminal fines or the prospect of losing their business license, but now it would appear that some patrons are excusing themselves to grab a smoke outside, and never coming back to pay the tab. CNN (via Reuters) thinks that people running out without paying is a riot, but I wouldn't imagine that too many proprietors are laughing. The smoking ban will prove to be an expensive proposition to business owners, and may even lead to some of them shutting their doors.

The anti-smoking debate boils down to a question of choice. Employees and customers had the freedom to go someplace else if the smoke bothered them. Rather than exercise that freedom, they simply nullified the property rights of others, and put thousands of jobs at risk. Owning a small business is hard enough, without having to be the smoke-nazi, as well as be on the lookout for crooks who 'drink and dash'. In the east coast land of liberals, however, nobody seems to care.

While I previously said I'd never run for President, I didn't say anything about pulling the strings from the background. Venomous Kate is the newly selected President of the Slutertarians. I have been selected to be a member of her cabinet, and have accepted the role of Secretary of Health and Human Disservices. Perhaps it was my essay on Nationalized Health Care that made me stand out.

I still need to put together a mission statement for a PR release, but I'll come up with something over the next few days. I also have to hatch my super secret plan to take over the party. Naturally Kate would be allowed to stay on as President of my 'puppet regime', lest any three named assassin be lurking in our midst.

We also need to look out for our competition, the Slutpublicans. Our spies will be working overtime to infiltrate their regime. Perhaps while they are over there, they can fix their web site.

UPDATE: Just a bit of schadenfreude: It seems as though an 'accidental' adminstrative error has interfered with the Slutpublican nominations. It would appear that our secret agents are earning their pay. MUAHAHAHA!!

The Boycott Hollywood website is to be no more. The famed Hollywood pundit that exercised their First Amendment freedoms by criticizing anti-war, anti-Bush, and anti-American celebrities and countering the left-wing rhetoric coming out of Hollywood has been squelched, by none other than Hollywood itself. Apparently, the William Morris agency, representing several Hollywood actors and actresses has pressed legal action against the domain registrar. Cold Fury and Instapundit have some of the details, but this boils down to raw censorship of Indymedia.

Imagine if a big Hollywood agency went to your webhost or domain registrar and demanded that they shut you down? Who would win the legal battle? Would you even have the resources to wage such a war?

The folks at Boycott Hollywood offered some parting words.

Well, folks - it's been a blast and it's been fun.

Apparently, our domain registrar (namesdirect.com - subsidiary of Dotster.com) have caved to the pressures of the William Morris Agency giant. On April 29, 2003, Dotster.com received a letter from the William Morris Agency in regards to this website. Their complaint accused us of liable and potentially other civil and criminal offenses.

This is another fine example of how Hollywood feels that their opinion and view is the only one that matters. Average citizens are disallowed the free expression of our point of view because they don't like being challenged for their views. I stand firm on the belief that we have done nothing wrong at this website - - The celebrities have expressed their views, and we have responded in kind by expressing our views regarding the thoughts and ideas that they have, publicly, expressed.

...I can say only this - - the fact that we're being shut down because of the William Morris Agency tells me that we truly touched a raw nerve in someone, somewhere. At the very least, it tells me that our message was recieved by the people that it was intended for. The very fact that we cannot express our opinions regarding the views of these stars/celebs shows me, yet again, the double standard that exists in Follywood.

They continue into more detail, and offer up a scan of the letter their domain registrar received from the William Morris Agency. Another website, Hollywood Halfwits also has a cached copy of their final statements.

This irritates my last nerve. As someone who has been quantifying celebrity nonsense, could I be a target? What about others like me. The hypocritical left never ceases to amaze me. Are these not the same people who cried censorship and blacklisting? Are these not the same people that said they have the right to say whatever they want with no consequences?

I don't think I can get over this. Although I have not previously participated in any boycotts, I'm going to start now by refusing to see any movies this summer. I had plans to go see the new X-men movie on Sunday, but I will cancel them. It may not be much. My ten bucks may be insignificant, but they will get no more of my money for a while.

Site traffic held steady in April. Here are some raw numbers according to Webalizer: 7936 visitors (8250 last month), 18718 page views (20658 last month), 162261 hits (160220 last month), and 2.28 GB (2.29 last month).

The Ravnwood.com page counter also went over 60,000 last month, with very little fanfare.

There were 127 posts in April, compared to 123 posts in March, 153 in February, 171 in January, 131 in December, 186 in November, 157 in October, and 155 in September.

In case you missed it, here is Lamborghini's latest invention. It is called the Murcielago (mercy-AY-lah-go) and is named after the famed Spanish bull that defied matadors 122 years ago. Obviously, being a hand-built exotic, production will be very limited, at approximately 400 cars per year. The power plant is a 6.2L V12 engine that yields 580bhp* and 479lb-ft of torque. The Murcielago will scoot along at 210 mph, and reach 60 from a dead stop in a mere 3.7 seconds. The car features 'active aerodynamics', which means that spoilers deploy only at high speed, when needed. The price should be somewhere north of $200,000. (alt src=Cigar Aficionado - Apr 2003)

(click photo for supersize)

If you'd prefer a domestic model, you could try Steve Saleen's hand built S7. The S7 features a massive 7.0L V8 that makes 550hp* and 525lb-ft of torque. The S7 debuted in 2000, and won 4 GT championships in 2001. It is built from the S7R model that makes 600hp and has a pretty proven track record, as Saleen notes on their website:

With four Saleen customer teams entered in four series around the world, the Saleen S7R customer teams have set 29 poles and 27 fastest laps and won 19 out of 32 races this season -- quite possibly the finest inaugural race season for any marque in history.

If you want to purchase one, however, you'll have to put down $100,000 deposit and wait for it to be built. The full MSRP is $395,000, and the production is super exclusive with an estimated 400 models built over a 4 year production run.

(click photo for supersize)

* bhp and hp are not necessarily equivalent.

It is no secret that the Democrats are playing partisan politics when it comes to approving Judicial nominations. As Owen Courreges pointed out on Tuesday, Bush has had a mere 53% of his initial nominations approved, compared with 86% of Bill Clinton's. When Dems controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bushs' nominees weren't even getting hearings. On top of all this obstructionism, now, as Fox News reports, Chuck Schumer wants the Senate to take control of the nomination process altogether. Notice the last paragraph:

Schumer suggested setting up bipartisan nomination commissions in each state that would recommend a judicial candidate to the president for each empty judgeship. "It's our best hope for breaking the vicious cycle," Schumer said.

So Schumer thinks that the President shouldn't make any nominations, and that the entire process should be controlled by the Senate. He and the Senate Democrats are filibustering nominees in an attempt to hijack the entire process. Talk about rewriting the Constitution. Schumer wants to cross out "advice and consent" and pencil in the word "permission".

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY
The Supreme Court decision in Helvering v. Davis in 1937 is proving to be a disastrous one. Combined with another 1937 decision in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., the SCOTUS essentially vacated the 10th Amendment and rewrote the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses of Article I, Section 8. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that any powers not delegated to the three branches of the federal government were reserved to the states. The SCOTUS and 'New Deal' politics negated Amendment 10, and gave sweeping powers to the federal government. This power has ultimately led to a 'litmus test' and 60 vote requirement for federal judgeships.

As of this week, there are still 50 vacant judgeships, down from a high of about 109 in late 2001 and early 2002.(src, src)

The Hill notes that Presidential hopeful, Dick Gebhardt really knows how to cater his speeches to his audience. Last January, Dick was talking to some Union voters in Iowa about how his father drove a milk truck.

"He was a Teamster. He told me every time ... we were at the dinner table that we had food on the table and clothes on our back because he was represented by a union that could bargain and get him fair wages for his work." -- Rep. Dick Gebhardt, D-MO, wooing Union voters on the campaign trail in Iowa.

Here is how Dick's brother Don remembers things.

"My father was in the Teamsters, but that's because he had to be to get the job. I don't recall him talking much about the union, how great it was. He prided himself on being a Republican. He hated Harry Truman. He had the feeling you had to make it on your own, that any kind of welfare program would just raise taxes." -- Don Gephardt, Dick's brother.

You believe who you want to. But my old man is a Democrat, and while I remember him telling me on several occasions that he was busting his ass to put food on the table and clothes on our backs, I have no recollection of him ever telling me about the wonders of collective bargaining.

By the latest reports, it would appear that our VRWC boycotts of french goods are taking their toll on the french economy. Unemployment continues to rise in the socialist state, where employees are strictly limited to a 35 hour work week.

PARIS (AP) - France's unemployment rate rose to 9.3 per cent in March, its highest level in nearly three years, the Labor Ministry reported Wednesday.

Despite rising joblessness, government statistics agency Insee reported on Wednesday that French consumer confidence rose slightly from seven-year lows in April, but remains well below its long-term average.

The rise in optimism may be short-lived, however. Higher joblessness tends to lead consumers to spend less, which could in turn hurt the economy and cause more companies to cut jobs.

Good job fellow minions. We will crush the socialist dogs for their blatant anti-Americanism, blatant anti-Semitism, illegal dealings with Iraq, dove-like stance on the war, and because they smell.

MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!

(link via RWN)

The great Walter Williams takes on government waste.

Imagine that you and I are in a rowboat. I commit the stupid act of shooting a hole in my end of the boat. Would it be intelligent for you to respond by shooting a hole in your end of the boat?

Now that I live in DC, I wonder if I could enroll in one of his classes over at GMU.

With the democratic primary race heating up, candidates are scrambling for issues to grab onto. With the end of the war, Howard Dean was almost left out in the cold. Today, Fox News reports that Dean has latched onto 'Free' Health Care, a platform that had previously been championed by Dick Gebhardt. Dean plans to pay for the 'free' health care by raising taxes $1 Trillion. By doing this, he hopes to capitalize on an issue that the article labels as a "key voter concern".

I'm not sure who all these people are, that are bitching about their health care, but I am certainly not one of them. I, along with my staff writers, have been reporting on 'Nationalized' Health Care horror stories for months. Some oldies but goodies include health care waiting lists in the UK increasing in August, and even more in November.

Waiting lists for necessary treatment are common with a nationalized health care system. Even though the London Telegraph reported on the waiting list problem last year, there is still a critical shortage of doctors and nurses, and problems with outdated equipment. Naturally, the government answer is to throw more money at it, which means higher and higher taxes. Remember that with government programs, they never seem to have enough money.

Problems in the UK are not just limited to in-patient care either. Early last year, international news wires picked up on the story of 94 year old Rose Addis, who fell and hit her head. She arrived at the emergency room with blood flowing. Approximately 48 hours later, she was still there, sitting in a wheelchair, caked in dried blood, wearing the same clothes, waiting for treatment.

National health care problems are not isolated to the UK, either. New Zealand is known to have their horror stories too. Last August, there was the story of a New Zealand man that cut off his own fingers, rather than wait in pain for six months for them to be surgically removed. More recently, overcrowding in emergency rooms was literally the death of a man, while he waited over four hours for critical care. While New Zealand offers some good news that their waiting lists are decreasing, it would appear that the reason is that people are either being turned away, or simply living with the pain. Late last year, doctors claimed that the health board was deliberately turning people away to keep the waiting lists under the mandated limit.

Would you let American politicians bring this type of health care to the U.S.? Presidential hopefuls are making promises that everyone will receive a-list style health care that is now only reserved for the super rich. In reality, they would doom us all to the third world style of health care that the super poor are forced to wait for. A national health care system means no choices. One service, one price, and you pay for it up front on a biweekly basis.

We should learn from the lessons of people who have been there before us. So far, the best advice that people in the UK have to offer is, whatever you do, don't get sick.