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!"