John Hawkins is in list making mode again. He asked everyone which movies they thought were the best. Here is my list. Compare it to the films that actually made the top 15. Apparently I'm the only Kubrick fan. I wonder if the 6 morons that picked The Matrix are the same 6 morons that picked This is Spinal Tap. Both good films, but greatest of all time? Better than African Queen, E.T., or The Graduate?

This was a difficult list to put together. I started with about 50 films, and had to cut it way down.

A Clockwork Orange
African Queen
Blues Brothers
Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Deliverence
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Driving Miss Daisy
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Empire of the Sun
Forrest Gump
Glory
Godfather
Goodfellas
The Graduate
Jurassic Park
Kramer vs. Kramer
Mister Roberts
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Rain Man
Star Wars
To Kill a Mockingbird
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Wizard of Oz

I want to take a moment to talk about need. Whenever you hear a gun fearing wussy talking about taking our rights away, some moron invariably pops up and says, "you don't need an [insert evil gun type]". As soon as someone says "you don't need a machine gun", or "assault rifle", or "handgun", I know exactly which hole they are speaking out of.

No debate should ever come down to a question of need. When you start trying to justify property ownership on the basis of need, you start down a path that could rid us of many of today's modern devices. For instance, any one of us could get along without our refrigerator, television, computer, telephone, video game system, toaster, or even electricity. The automobile strikes me as being particularly unnecessary.

From a personal standpoint, you could rely on public transportation, or simply just walk every where you go. Sure, you'd have to reorganize your life, perhaps by finding a job nearer to where you live, but getting rid of your car would mostly just be a huge annoyance.

From a national standpoint, you can compare and contrast guns and cars quite easily. Each year, tens of thousands of people are directly killed by the automobile. Guns, on the other hand, are used defensively in private hands to save millions of lives each year. You could argue that policemen and firemen use automobiles to save lives, but then again, they also use guns. Conversely, you might find a policeman on foot, horseback, bicycle, or even roller blades, but you'll almost never find him without his gun.

Plus, with cars there are all sorts of indirect concerns like pollution, or dependence on fossil fuels. Cars create smog that chokes our nation's urban areas, and they add to noise pollution which forces us to keep our windows shut and build huge sound barricades along our suburban interstates. Sure, a gunshot may be louder than a car, but the overall ambient noise and sheer volume of cars creates quite a nuisance.

In history, cars are just over 100 years old, whereas guns have been around for centuries. After our nation was founded, we survived over 100 years without a single automobile. How long would we have survived without a single gun? Sure, both are crucial to today's military, but a soldier on horseback with a good rifle still stands a better chance of surviving than if he were driving around in a car with no gun. (Although either one could still probably conquer France.)

Whether you want to admit it or not, you could probably do without your car. Sure, you'd have to rely on public transportation, and your quality of life would decline, but it could be done. Hell, you could even resort to walking everywhere and probably live a longer and healthier life. For longer distances, you might want to invest in a horse and buggy. It seems to work for the Amish, so why not you.

California efforts to ban .50 BMG ammo came and went this summer. Although the proposed ban died in committee, it raises genuine concern for our right to bear arms, and wacky Kalifornia politicians views on crime. The San Jose Mercury News goes on record as supporting the ban. They claim that it is only a matter of time before criminals pony up the $1000 for a .50 caliber rifle, and go on a killing spree.

The gun is powerful enough to punch a hole in an oil tank or take down a civilian airplane. Its 5 1/2-inch long bullets can pierce an inch of armor 40 yards away and hit a target a mile away. A massive weapon, with some models weighing in at 28 pounds, it's ill-suited for hunters -- it would take out a deer and the tree behind it -- but ideal for assassins.

They also note that it's easier to (gasp!) buy one of these evil monstrosities than it is to buy a handgun. Sure, you wouldn't hunt deer with a .50, but you might take on a rhino or elephant with it. Personally, I don't care if there is no hunting purpose for it at all, or no reason to need one. You have no need to own a car either, and they kill more people per year than guns.

The fact is that banning the .50 BMG will solve nothing, and prevent nothing, and the idea that you can get one of these for a mere $1000 is a misnomer. The cheapest .50 on this list is more than twice that. Some of the rifles cost five figures. You aren't likely to find a $1000 model that is deadly accurate at 1 mile, like they would have you believe. Even if criminals were able to steal one, they aren't likely to pony up $1.50 per round to fire the damned thing.

Even if they had the gun and the ammo, the rifle isn't very practical for mass killing or terrorism. This cheap ($2400) carbine looks pretty unwieldy. You wouldn't exactly hide it under your coat. Add a scope to it, and you aren't likely to hide the thing in your car either. They even admit that the rifles typically weigh more than 25 lbs, and firing a 700+ grain round out of one of them at speeds upwards of Mach 3, is going to sound just a bit like a cannon going off. Not exactly conducive for stealth. Of course, with it's pistol grip, heat shield, and muzzle brake, the detachable magazine versions are already illegal in California under their "assault weapons" ban.

Of course, the idea of banning this gun, does nothing to stem crime. The truth is that the .50 BMG is never used in crime. Not hardly, not rarely, NEVER. Not only would a shooter have to go unnoticed while he set up his perch, but he'd have to have some fortifications in place to keep from being busted right away. The sheer size of the gun means you aren't exactly picking it up and running with it before the cops arrive. In a terrorism capacity, you'd do much better with a poodleshooter AR-15 or Bushmaster like the Washington snipers used. Hell, you could create more fear by shooting some random person with a .22 and walking away than you could trying to lug one of these around. As far as killing power goes, you could do more damage with a rental van and some ANFO, something that was proven in Oklahoma City and the first World Trade Center bombing.

Sure, the rifle may be deadly and effective when mounted on an Army Humvee, but in the private sector it's nothing more than an expensive novelty. Banning it is just another empty promise of gun control. The gun fearing wussys may sleep better at night, but in the end, they aren't any safer than they were before.

For more reading, check out this letter to the Chief of the LAPD. Apparently the department is in the habit of using public money, and their very own LEO model .50 caliber, which is already illegal for civilians, to crusade for tougher gun control laws.

MSNBC reports that Aussies are planning some Koala population control.

Female koalas are being given contraception in the Australian state of Victoria because the population is eating itself out of house and home. [...]

"We have found that relocation and surgical sterilization hasn't worked that well, so now we're shifting to a more humane, large scale option which is basically putting them on the pill."

We practice population control with animals here in the United States, too. It's called hunting.

Rather than actually allow people to hunt the bears with firearms, and generate some revenue while their at it, Australia is going to spend taxpayer money to put Koala's on "the pill". Ironically, the bears are still considered a protected species, which tells me that their version of the Endangered Species Act is just as corrupt and bogus as ours.

I have a hard time believing this. The Duke would have kicked Stalin's ass!

Still, I could see that House UnAmerican Activities Committee propaganda film, Big Jim McLain getting him in trouble with the Reds.

MSNBC is reports on the visually stunning Russian.

Anna Kournikova's tennis career may be in jeopardy after her agent revealed Tuesday a long-standing back injury may force her out of the game.

Who knew Anna even played tennis? Now that I think about it, in some of her signature moments like this one, she may have been holding a tennis racket.

Carnival 45 is running full speed ahead over at Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Kim du Toit will be celebrating his birthday for an entire week this year, and thus Ammo Day has been extended. In case you are unfamiliar with Ammo Day, the idea is to get more rounds of ammo into private hands, and thus negate the effect of any sort of prohibitive tax.

It's a good theory, but as Kim notes, it can be a bitch to put into practice. Kim laments that Ammo Day was a failure, or at best, a partial success. I disagree. I think Ammo Day was highly successful, in that it raised awareness. Prior to Ammo Day, I kept very little ammo on hand. If I went shooting, I just bought some at the range. Now, I've got... well, let's just say that I need to buy a few more ammo cans, and leave it at that.

The spirit of ammo day was not lost on me, and I'm sure it touched a lot of other people too. Hopefully those supporters will enlighten a few friends for this year's event, and those friends will tell even more people next year.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and even the best ideas take time to catch on. Still, extending it to a week was a good idea, and should enhance the ammo buying fun.

Am I the only one that thinks Christopher Reeve comes off as selfish and arrogant when he champions causes that directly benefit him. I guess that most special interest groups are always trying to get more government funding for their cause, but he has a way of sounding like he's being denied of an entitlement.

Actor Christopher Reeve told an Israeli audience Tuesday he thinks there is a good chance he will walk again -- provided "politics and religion" don't interfere with scientific research. [...]

"My hopes are that politics and religion will not interfere with progress for a cure," Reeve said Tuesday. "If those problems are overcome, I stand a good chance of walking."

I'm all for finding new cures, and treatments for any ailment, but Reeve rubs me the wrong way, when he seems to blame others for not curing his self-inflicted injury. It really sucks that he fell off his horse and suffered a back injury, but this "I'd be walking by now if they'd spend more money researching my paralysis" attitude has to go.

Remember all those Puerto Ricans that were furious at President Bush for the Navy's testing at Vieques? Al Sharpton flew down there, and everyone was protesting and blaming Bush for live fire testing that the military had been doing for decades. Clinton had promised to end testing, and Bush warned them that it might mean job losses for the island.

Now Fox News reports that Puerto Rico is whining about the Navy base closure. They are accusing the government and Navy of "economic revenge". I guess we are supposed to keep the base open, and just let everyone sit around doing nothing.

Bill Clinton Declares California Residency -- Scrappleface, July 24, 2003.

Bill and Hillary Clinton will inject themselves in to the historic California recall battle -- Drudge Report, July 28, 2003.

A pox on me for not doing enough testing. The templates weren't displaying well at all in Mozilla. So, for the 3% of readers that use Netscape, I've changed the templates back. I'll be working on finding a fix for netscape, and then I'll reconvert to CSS.

Sorry to my Netscape readers for the inconvenience.

UPDATE: I've put the CSS templates back up. Screw those netscape losers. Ok, not really. I figured out that nescape was wigging out over the position inheritance in the DIVs. Once I deleted the inheritance instructions from the CSS files, everything started working fine. Or so it would appear.

Please let me know if you find any bugs. It should display correctly in the latest versions of Netscape and IE now. I'm still not completely happy with the netscape look and feel, but I don't have time to tweak it right now.

UPDATE: If it was displaying garbled earlier, you may need to SHIFT-REFRESH your browser to get it you clear out your cache and re-read all the files. I noticed that Netscape didn't correct the errors unless I forced it to reload the pages with the correct style sheets.

While I'll try to address all browser compatibility issues, please realize that I primarily program this site for IE. Looking at my stats, more than 85% of the users read this site with Internet Explorer. Netscape/Mozilla users are 4.7% and 2.2% respectively. Opera, Safari, Galeon, and Lynx users are all less than 1%. I'm sorry, but I cannot address problems for every browser out there. Remember, there is always the PDA version and numerous XML versions to choose from.

Someone pissed in Mr. Coons cheerios this morning. He doesn't have a permalink to today's miniblog entry, so I'll just quote the entire thing.

I'M DISGUSTED WITH...

...the whole concept of blogs and blogging (or at least what most of them have degenerated to)!!! IMHO there are some serious "sick puppies" out there!!! I've simply had it with "bionic dick" tales (and all the clever comments about same), witnessing several of what amount to "electronic nervous breakdowns", and well just about everything connected with blogging. Doesn't mean I'll stop reading the few of my favorites, I just don't want to be part of it anymore!!! Buh-bye!!!

I haven't witnessed any ENBs, save Phillip's. (The excessive use of exclamation points is the first sign.) Then again, I haven't had a lot of time to really look for any. With some people it's hard to tell if they are having a nervous breakdown, or they just overdosed on coffee.

Oh well, it makes for some entertainment to cure the doldrums. I'm reminded of the time my friend Ken kept picking on this guy's last nerve. The guy got so upset, he finally stood up and charged at Ken screaming "I can't take it anymore." Needless to say, he never made it there. There's a reason Ken always surrounded himself with big friends.

The AP reports that Texas lawmakers have run for the border again, and this time it's Democrat members of the Senate. With 11 of 12 democrats gone, the Senate doesn't have enough members present to vote on anything.

The lawmakers are apparently hiding in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In case you've forgotten, the House lawmakers tried a similar ploy back in May, when they fled to Oklahoma.

I hope they aren't putting all these frequent flee-er miles on their government credit cards.

Just in case you were running out of reasons to hate the French, the Washington Times reports that America has asked France for help in Iraq, and they've declined. At issue is the political control of the situation. France wants the U.N. to have total political control.

Of course, usually when we helped France out, it was the Nazis or the Communists that had political control, and the French were standing their with their hands in the air.

In 2000, Pam Grunow's husband was tragically murdered by a 13 year old student the last day of school. The young teen stole a pistol from a neighbor, and used it to gun down the teacher outside his classroom. He was ultimately convicted for murder.

Grunow sued the gun distributor, Valor Corporation, alleging the product was "defective". She lost, and now Valor is counter-suing her to recoup legal fees. The AP offers up this sob story:

Pam Grunow's attorney, Rebecca Larson, said the widow was worried about losing her house if she was forced by the court to reimburse the gun company. The estate has no assets, Larson said.

Boo hoo hoo. Perhaps she should have thought of that before bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Forgive me if I sound unsympathetic. Grunow has suffered a tragic loss, and she may have been coerced into bringing a malicious lawsuit. Groups like the Violence Policy Center, or Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership, often solicit victims to bring malicious lawsuits in hopes of bankrupting gun dealers and manufacturers. Perhaps she should go back to them and see if they can dole her out some cash because their scam has backfired.

Either way, she is the one ultimately responsible for bringing forth a baseless lawsuit, that had absolutely no legal merit. Valor is simply trying collect their lost legal fees. As is typical in America, this is just another case of the bloodsucking lawyers getting rich and everyone else involved losing their shirt.

UPDATE: Kevin covers this in much greater detail.

Ms. Grunow sued the legal owner of the gun for the previous EIGHT YEARS, the pawnshop that sold the gun 13 YEARS BEFORE THE CRIME, Valor - the distributor that sold the gun originally, and the school system. (Edited to add: The gun was the same age as the shooter. Kinda makes you wonder which was the "defective product" doesn't it?) She settled out of court with the gun's legal owner for $300,000, with the pawn shop for $275,000, and with the school system for $245,000.

He also notes that Valor originally offered a settlement of $200,000, and that although she is claiming she's broke, Grunow received over $820,000 settlement money.

Congressman Dick Gephardt, who used to represent Missouri, took a break from campaigning today to pay homage to the late great Bob Hope, who died at the age of 100. Gephardt personally contacted Hope's family to offer his condolences, and urge them to quickly settle Hope's estate. With a net worth estimated anywhere between $100 Million and $1 Billion, the government stands to make quite a financial windfall with the death tax.

"If we get that money before the end of the year, we might be able to extend child tax credits to the working poor, who didn't win life's lottery like Mr. Hope," claimed Gephardt. The congressman also said that if elected president, he'd do executive orders to make sure that the super rich didn't ignore their patriotic duty to pay the death tax, when it sunsets for one year in 2010.

(photo via AP)

The AP reports that Patre Eugene Williams faced 30 years in prison for selling cocaine within 1000 feet of school property. With the trial winding down, Williams couldn't bear to wait and see what the verdict would be. So, he asked for a recess and fled the courtroom.

Judge Thompson gave Williams 15 minutes to return, then said, "We're going to finish the trial without him."

The two sides presented closing arguments, and the jury returned after 30 minutes with the verdict.

Although he certainly acted like it, he was found not guilty. The Judge didn't bother issuing a bench warrant, and Williams was not found in contempt.

Sky News reports that Tony Martin is due to be freed from prison. He is the UK farmer who defending himself from attack, killing one man and injuring another. Martin was routinely turned down for early release, because he was considered to be a "danger to burglars".

Coincidentally, the goblin that Martin wounded is being released from prison on the same day. Brendan Fearon, who has been described as a 'career criminal', was in prison for an unrelated charge of heroin dealing.

By the way, Fearon is being released early, after serving less than one third of his 18th month sentence.

In related news, Fearon is dropping his taxpayer funded legal claim against Martin for shooting him, however. What a nice guy.

Related articles:
UK continues to champion criminal's rights II - 07/21/2003
UK continues to champion criminal's rights - 06/16/2003
UK Parole Board concerned about "burglar's rights" - 05/12/2003

The AP has an update on the anti-backpack crusade. Several Arizona schools have banned backpacks because of the potential back problems they cause. It beats the hell out of teaching students the proper way to carry their books.

Curiously, they don't bother to say just how students are supposed to carry their books. Do students have to carry them all loose, or did they just stop assigning homework as well? Maybe they'll go back to strapping their belt around it like in the old days.

Related articles:
The Sissification of America II - 06/11/2003
The Sissification of America - 05/12/2003
The Empire Strikes Backpack - 01/06/2003
California trades back pain for eye strain - 10/14/2003

The AP is just flabbergasted as to why President Bush isn't meeting with the NAALCP. Every President since Warren G. Harding has paid homage to the left wing lobbying group, but not ol' W. I was going to try to explain why, but then I remembered that I don't have to. Someone has already covered that here, and here.

I've converted the main template over to CSS. Getting rid of the nested tables, should make the page load a lot quicker. Also, you may notice that the body text loads before the sidebar, which is another convenience just for you.

I'll be working on converting over the monthly and category archives next, as they really need it. Eventually I'll get to the individual archives. Let me know if you see any bugs. You may need to reselect a style sheet from the sidebar on the left.

Considering I knew almost nothing about CSS when I started, I think it looks pretty good.

UPDATE: If I ever get trackback working, perhaps I'll implement something like this guy or this guy.

ScrappleFace hits the nail on the head:

(2003-07-26) -- A day after the National Football League fined the Detroit Lions $200,000 for failing to interview black coaches when it hired Steve Mariucci, the league has ordered all quarterbacks to consider blacks as primary receivers on pass plays.

More?

With 2000 combat Marines being positioned off the coast of Liberia, it is inevitable that anti-war protesters will be painting their "No Blood for Mineral Resources" signs and picketing the White House this weekend. Liberia has no WMDs, no Saddam Hussein, and no other reason to go to war, except for their rich mineral resources.

The Bush Administration has an image problem. "Liberia has rich mineral resources," claims Arthur Vandelay, an architecture student at William and Mary College in Virginia. "Clearly, Bush and his buddies at the big mineral resource companies have wanted to get their hands on them since Bush was selected back in 2000."

While he was able to disguise his quest for Iraqi oil under the guise of an illegal attempted uranium purchase from Niger, President Bush has no such excuse for Liberia. Without a good reason to invade, the American people won't support another war.

The Washington Times reports that Former House Minority Leader and Presidential candidate Dick 'Gebhardt' was on the campaign trail in South Carolina this week. Gephardt, who in May was reported to have missed 85% of the House votes, missed a vote on a Republican Head Start Bill that passed by a single vote. The two absent Democrats that could have killed the Republican bill were Ed Paster of Arizona, whose father had suffered a heart attack, and Dick Gephardt, who supposedly represents Missouri.

There is no word on whether or not Gephardt, as President, would do executive orders to overturn the Head Start bill, should it become law.

I pulled this beauty from the High Priest's web site. It's supposed to be some sort of optical illusion, but I just don't see it. I never was good at these things.

Despite all the exposure "Hunting for Bambi" is getting, your's truly ended up at the number 2 spot on Lycos.

The AP reports that reverse discrimination has hit the NFL with a vengeance, with League Commish Paul Tagliabue fining the Detroit Lions president $200K for hiring Steve Mariucci. Mariucci was the only person interviewed for the job, and Tagliabue claims that bigger fines will come if minorities aren't given preferential treatment for interviews.

Of course, the problem with the Mariucci hiring was that all the minority applicants refused interviews. The Lions say that "five minority candidates turned down interviews because it appeared inevitable Mariucci would be hired." (Who'd want to coach a 2-14 team any way?)

The real downside to reverse discrimination will be that quality football coaches like Tony Dungy will be perceived as being hired or interviewed, just to fill the quota and avoid the fine. The policy will diminish and overshadow their real gift for coaching. Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association tries to defend the League's actions.

"The Detroit Lions gave mere lip service to the agreed-upon minority hiring process, treating it almost as if a nuisance to their hiring of Steve Mariucci," Upshaw said at the time. "The minority candidates were never given a fair chance to interview. In this case, the Lions' position is indefensible."

A nuisance is exactly what it is. Hiring an NFL coach is pretty much like casting the starring role in a Hollywood movie. NFL teams don't exactly post an ad on monster.com and wade through a pool of applicants. When a vacancy comes up, they run down the short list of candidates they want to fill the position. They look for coaches that they envision filling the role. That pool of guys is extremely small, and usually includes only previous NFL coaches, a handful of assistant coaches, and very few college coaches. This time, the Lions list only contained one name, and it wasn't a black guy, so they got dinged by the NFL.

It's time for the Friday Five.

1. If your life were a movie, what would the title be?
"Masturbates with Wolves"

2. What songs would be on the soundtrack?
"Pop goes the world" - Men Without Hats
"Cruel Summer" - Bananarama

3. Would it be a live-action film or animated? Why?
It would be the cheesiest low-budget piece of trash anyone has ever seen. Live action or animated? Does it really matter?

4. Casting: who would play you, members of your family, friends, etc?
It would be one of those fucking annoying Martin Short movies where he plays every role.

5. Describe the movie preview/trailer.
The trailer would make you run screaming from the theater, and the movie would replace Woody Allen films as a third world torture device. It would lower the bar for bad movies everywhere.

Kevin has a wonderful article about gun control in Scotland. He notes that in Scotland, where "shotgun-toting criminals felt safe enough to blast a cop at the police station" their main focus of concern is over the handful of legally owned and registered long guns. (All handguns are illegal.)

Their assumption is that the mere proliferation of legally owned rifles and shotguns, (all 80,000 of them) is what is feeding the increasing crime rate. The logical conclusion from their assinine assumption would be that less legally owned firearms would mean less crime.

If that's the case, they should just get it over with, and ban guns completely. Hell, it's worked so well for DC, right? I mean, it's not like they're the murder capital or anything.

Taranto (third item) apparently missed (or ignored) this connection.

"[Saddam] Hussein was invited to speak at the funeral by the commander of allied ground forces in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez." -- Scrappleface, July 22.

"U.S. officials said the bodies would be stored in a refrigerated tent at Baghdad International Airport until a family member came forward to claim them." -- Associated Press, July 25

The Washington Post weighs in on the DC gun ban. Naturally, they are in favor of citizens being forbidden from owning firearms, and find it offensive that Senator Orrin Hatch would want to restore freedom to the people. Of course, they also profess that the idea of a few select lawmakers banning firearms for the whole of the law abiding populace is simply "the ability of District residents to make their own decisions". I guess they think that Orrin Hatch would be requiring citizens to own a firearm, rather than letting them decide individually; something that only Kennesaw, Georgia* has thus far been able to do.

Of course, they also make the claim that criminals will be delighted about the prospect of law abiding citizens owning firearms. Burglars and muggers must be better sports than I thought, if they prefer to have a victim that is armed versus one that is unarmed and helpless. I think this pretty much sums up the Post's view on guns:

The best way to dry up this supply of guns would be for Congress to enact a federal law extending the District protections to Maryland, Virginia and all other states.

In case you were wondering, by "protections", they mean "gun ban", and by "all other states", they mean yours.

*In 1982, Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring (with few exceptions) all heads of households to own at least one firearm. Crime plummeted the next year. Shortly after passage of the law, city lawmakers even passed the hat to purchase a gun for an elderly lady who wanted to comply, but could not afford to.

With the shooting death of Councilman Davis in New York a few days ago, city leaders across America are undoubtedly raising concerns about their own safety, and drifting closer to earning "Gun Fearing Wussy" status. In Virginia, where persons with a concealed handgun permit are allowed to carry in most municipal buildings, including the capitol building, irrational fear is exceptionally high. Of course, what aggravates the fear, is that local governments are not permitted to ban permit holders from public buildings, under the state preemption law.

The Virginian Pilot notes that the debate about firearm possession has really been heating up following the New York shooting.

In municipal buildings, tempers sometimes run high over disputes concerning taxes, property taxes and parking tickets, [Jim Sollo, board chairman of the Virginians Against Handgun Violence Ownership] said, and firearms should be restricted from the potentially volatile environments.

Even if guns are merely shown and not used, he said, "it could be intimidating to public servants."

That is ridiculous. Brandishing a firearm without just cause is a crime, with or without a permit. Doing so in a city building that is filled with police officers might just get you thrown out of the gene pool.

Of course, the whole New York incident is a complete red herring. Councilman Davis was shot by someone he knew rather well, and someone he had invited into the building. Comparing that to "random" violence doesn't measure up. Plus, New York already has strict gun control, which clearly wasn't enough to help Mr. Davis.

That doesn't stop politicians in Northern Virginia from trying to create the false analogy. Today's Fairfax Journal (subscriber only) notes that the incident in New York has caused Alexandria City Councilwoman Joyce Woodson to "flip out".

"It sort of gives rise to the fear that many of us live with in Virginia," Woodson said. "I would like to see greater security in public buildings, especially since Virginia law allows people to carry concealed handguns as long as they are licensed."

Apparently Woodson lives in fear more because of licensed permit holders than because of the thugs that wander the streets of Alexandria day in and day out. She must lead a sheltered life.

At the center of all of the debate, is the mind set of the gun fearing wussy. I honestly believe that these people have trouble controlling their emotions. I can only presume that Sollo fears that people will go on a shooting rampage, because that is something he would do if you made him angry enough. Ms. Woodson is apparently more afraid to go to work then she is wandering the streets of Alexandria.

Ironically, even banning guns in government buildings will not make them gun free. For one thing, the police will have guns. For another, it is impossible to make any facility gun free. We cannot keep guns out of our schools, off our airplanes, or even out of our prisons. (If you don't believe me about the availability of weapons in prison, just ask this guy.)

Of course, you should also ask yourself just what is it that these politicians are doing, that they are so worried about being dragged out of their offices and shot because of it.

The Washington Times reports that trial lawyers are hoping to strike it rich by suing "Big Ice Cream". Apparently there is the silly notion that ice cream is fattening. Who knew?

Well, apparently a lot of people were clueless about the dangers of over-indulgence of the creamy treat. They've been mindlessly gobbling up the fatty goodness for years, without the slightest inkling that it could lead to obesity. Since it's obviously not their fault, they have no other choice but to take legal action.

Of course, it all makes me wonder how The Onion could have been so prophetic. I remember first reading this story back in 2000, and thinking about how absurd it all sounded. I even printed it out and posted it on the wall of my office at work. Of course, by now, most people have heard about the famed Onion parody about lawyers suing "Big Chocolate." The story made several arguments against the candy industry, many of which are actually being parroted in today's legal circles. Three years ago next month, the Onion wrote:

"Let this verdict send a clear message to Big Chocolate," said Pennsylvania Attorney General Andrew Garsten, addressing reporters following the historic ruling. "If you knowingly sell products that cause obesity, you will pay." [...]

[Hershey's] "knowingly and willfully marketing rich, fatty candy bars containing chocolate and other ingredients of negligible nutritional value." The company was also charged with publishing nutritional information only under pressure from the government, marketing products to children, and artificially "spiking" their products with such substances as peanuts, crisped rice, and caramel to increase consumer appeal.

At the time it was all in good fun, but it sounds eerily similar to what lawyers are actually claiming today. The Times notes:

More than 100 lawyers and health lobbyists met in Boston June 20-22 to map out a strategy of filing obesity-liability lawsuits, particularly against the food industry. [...]

"Your failure to disclose such obviously material information as unusually large calorie and saturated-fat loads may violate state consumer-protection laws and/or your common-law duty to disclose material facts, and may invite lawsuits from concerned consumers, legal-action organizations, or even state officials," read one letter addressed to Haagen-Dazs President David Keil.

Apparently the people gorging themselves on ice cream have been duped for all these years. And of course, there is the lovely new "obesity liability lawsuit" terminology. As if Turkey Hill is holding a gun to people's head to make them eat ice cream.

I see the lack of any personal responsibility as a side affect of the "me generation", and the baby boomers. I can only hope that when they die out, their lunacy will too. Personally, I was fortunate enough to be raised by pre-baby boom parents, who actually knew how to raise their kids. Growing up, I wasn't allowed to chew gum because it would rot my teeth, and sugared cereals were purchased sparingly. My sister and I certainly never had access to some of today's sugar packed foods like General Mill's "Cinnamon Toast Crunch", whose sales pitch was "You can actually see the cinnamon and sugar in every bite."

Of course, my parents also believed in corporal punishment. Although they deny it now, I have vivid memories of my father reaching for that yard stick he kept by his chair. Don't take that the wrong way, they were never abusive. They just didn't let their kids walk all over them the way today's parents do. Personally, I'm a better person for it. It's too bad that now-a-days parents are threatened with jail for exercising just about any sort of discipline.

As I grew older, my parents rewarded me with considerable freedom, as long as my obligations for school and work were met. Ironically, at the time, I viewed my parents as tyrants. If I wanted something, I had to actually work for it, rather than have it handed to me, like some of my friends. When I was 12 years old, I worked a paper route to earn extra money. I used the money to purchase a TV for my room and I even used it to buy a water bed. When I was 14, I quit my paper route and started working a real job over the summers. Although I was allowed to use my mom's car when I got older, I couldn't have my own unless I bought and paid for it myself. Oh, woe is me.

Unbeknownst to me at the time, their type of rearing was building character. Apparently, I really didn't know everything, and my parents really didn't just live to see me suffer.

Too many of today's kids are just handed things at birth. You see kids with cell phones and pagers, and teenager's are driving around in BMW's and Camaro's. When I lived in Atlanta, I used to read about kids that would wreck the car that daddy got for them, only a few weeks after receiving it. Instead of facing discipline, their parents simply went out and bought them another car. What kind of lesson does that teach someone? It's the same lesson that tells people it's okay to sue Breyer's because they ate too much ice cream.

This is why I think that Oliver Willis is the greatest hope for liberals to break into talk radio.

Well, here's somebody that doesn't think Jessica Lynch deserves all the hoopla.

"If I had my way, I would say, 'You can't do that,' " -- Mary Norwood, Atlanta city councilman, expressing her desire to regulate the size of people's homes.

That kind of attitude is what makes me refuse to join a homeowner's association. Sure, my neighbors sometimes had unmowed grass, and I had no recourse if one of them decide to put a rusted out old truck up on blocks in their front yard. But the other extreme, is that nosy neighbor that walks down the street with a ruler, measuring the height of people's lawns. (My parents actually had a neighbor who did that.)

Maybe it's just the libertarian in me, but I really don't worry about what somebody does with their own land. I realize that property values are a product of the neighborhood, but I still think freedom is worth more than the price of your home. If you are really worried about your property values, than you should buy more land. If you have several acres, a buyer isn't likely to care what your neighbor's house looks like.

Then again, it's much easier (and cheaper) to just use the police power of the government to exert control over your neighbors. After all, telling someone "You can't do that" is free, right?

The Boston Globe notes that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is number one in fee hikes, and shows just how gullible and ignorant some taxpayers are.

"We used the occasion of the fiscal emergency to look at our fee schedule and make adjustments. Yes, fees did go up, but taxes did not." -- Eric Fehrnstrom, communications director for Republican Governor Mitt Romney.

"There's less political fallout for fees, the general public isn't conflicted. They just say, 'Oh good; you didn't raise our taxes.' " -- Rep. Paul Casey, the House taxation chairman, (yes they actually have a chairman of taxation).

"We really need to measure what happens when we raise taxes and what happens when we raise fees." Rep. Anne Paulsen.

Of course, anyone with a brain should recognize that fees are just another form of taxation, and a dangerous one at that. People aren't affected by fees until they go to use a government service, and thus don't have as big of a negative reaction to them. Also, if the fee is for a service they don't need or won't ever use, they tend to have an apathetic reaction to a fee hike. For instance, I never go to concerts at the Virginia Beach amphitheater, so I didn't really care when the city jacked up the mandatory parking fee for every ticket sold.

What is most dangerous is that fees are used by governments as an attempt to control demand and behavior. Once you let government regulate something, there is nothing to keep them from jacking up the fees to control the balance between supply and demand. If a state wants to give out less drivers licenses, all they have to do is jack up the fees. Of course they don't do it to something so popular as drivers licenses, they do it to building permits, alcoholic beverage licenses, and firearms licenses. For instance, under Bill Clinton, the BATFags began a crusade to drive gun dealers out of business. In addition to using any excuse not to grant an FFL, one of the first things they did was jack up the fees.

Voters are a fickle bunch. The same people that think private banks shouldn't be allowed to charge ATM fees for using their machines, are completely unphased when the government hikes the price of marriage licenses, car registration, or the local telephone service charges.

LONDON (Reuters) -- As life goes, it doesn't get much better than for male Zeus bugs. The tiny water bugs that are common along Australia's east coast have an easy life. Their female partners provide free food, transport and unlimited sex whenever they want it.

There are plenty of deadbeat hippies out there that live the same lifestyle. Zeus is the king of the Greek gods. What I want to know is why scientists didn't name this bug after Kato Kaelin or Tom Arnold, instead?

"All the advantages in this relationship seem to fall to the male with no obvious advantage for the female, yet the female Zeus bug seems a willing partner in this one-sided affair," Mark Elgar of the University of Melbourne in Australia said.

Now that I think about it, how many women could say this about a few of their many relationships? I won't name any names, but I'd start with everyone I've ever dated I know quite a few.

I have to hand it to Jenn with two 'n's. Yesterday I was trying to figure out the name of a song I'd heard, and she was there to help. I didn't know any of the lyrics, and could hardly convey how it sounded, over internet chat. Basically, all she had to go on was that it was good to dance to, and that the guy sounded like an islander or something.

After only the second try, she correctly came up with Sean Paul singing "Get Busy".

Fox News reports that the effort to recall Gray Davis has enough signatures to force a recall election. The California Secretary of State reported that the state wide tally of valid signatures had surpassed 1.3 Million, far more than the 897,158 required.

I'm going to go on the record and predict that the people of California will never get to vote on it. Once Davis exhausts all of his legal challenges, and realizes his fate, he'll resign. That would give the presiding Democrats the option of naming his successor. They'll make a big show of it, and Davis will say something like "For the good of California..". I seriously doubt Davis will give the voters the pleasure of tossing his ass out of office, and I know that the democrats don't want to lose the governorship. After all the legal appeals are exhausted, the only option to short circuit a recall would be for Davis to resign.

There is an outside chance that Davis will take a Plan B approach, and take his chances with the recall vote. If he loses, the Lt. Governor could just name himself governor. Of course, he would have to make that decision prior to the actual vote, to ensure that no candidates were allowed on the ballot. It's complex and politically risky, so don't look for it to happen. Davis will either try to win through the courts (the Way of the Democrat) or resign. I don't think the courts will risk the political backlash of breaking state election law, so look for the latter to happen. Either way, it won't be Arnold sitting up there in Sacramento.

John Mays sent me this story about an interesting incident in his home town of Chattanooga. When police tried to stop 21-year-old John Nicholas Hood for a broken tail light, he leaped out of the car and ran into the woods. Hamilton County Sheriff's Deputies Henry Ritter and Richard Gough didn't have too much trouble getting the dimwitted suspect to come back out though.

The officers' calls to Hood went unanswered so Gough said they were sending a dog after him. Ritter started barking.

"He stood up and said, 'I'm here. Call off the dog,"' Ritter said.

The AP also notes that although Deputy Ritter barked at the suspect to get him to give himself up, he had no intention of biting him.

A Spanish town mayor has made it illegal for men to go out on Thursdays. While Reuters finds this humorous, I find it disturbing.

MADRID (Reuters) - The mayor of a southern Spanish town has declared Thursdays "ladies' night" and says he will fine any man found strolling about town in the evening, in an attempt to encourage them to stay at home and do the chores.

A spokeswoman for recently elected Andalusian regional party mayor, Javier Checa, said on Thursdays from October, the streets would be the preserve of the town's women and a five euro ($5.67) fine would be slapped on any man found out and about.

The men of Torredonjimeno, a town of 14,000 people in the olive-growing province of Jaen in Spain's southernmost region, were not impressed by the attempt to tie them to the kitchen sink.

"Who does the mayor think he is to fine me if I go to a bar?. I'll go to a bar on Thursday, and if they fine me I'll pay it...but we'll be seeing each other in court," resident Jose Damas told state television.

Can you imagine a political figure in the United States making it illegal for anyone to go out on a certain night of the week? That is almost as disturbing as a United States Congressman telling a Californian that he's not welcome to visit Michigan. Oh wait, John Dingell already told Ward Connerly to "Go home and stay there, you're not welcome here."

Kevin highlights the anti-gun rhetoric in the NAACP gun lawsuit dismissal. If you are like me, and didn't have the time to look at the actual ruling, now you don't have to.

Related articles:
Judge dismisses gun lawsuit for all the wrong reasons - 07/22/2003

The reaction from the far-left in response to Uday and Qusay Hussein being killed is pretty ignominious. Reknowned America hater Robert Fisk, who once blamed himself for being mugged by a band of Afghani thugs, doesn't think it was them at all.

So they are dead. Or are they? [...]

The two men are said to bear an impressive resemblance to the brothers. A 14-year-old child killed by the Americans - one of the four dead - might be one of Saddam's grandsons.

Fisk wants us to believe that we ambushed 4 guys sitting around playing poker. Oh, and one of them was but a mere innocent child, caught in the murderous crossfire.

Then there is New York Congressman, Charles Rangel. Rangel thinks that we broke the law by "assassinating" the Hussein boys.

"We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody. [...]

"I personally don't get any satisfaction that it takes 200,000 troops, 250,000 troops, to knock off two bums."

These are, of course, plays right out of the ultra-left handbook. First, that the Husseins were just minding their own business, and second, that we are a big mean bully who is fighting an unfair war against and underdog enemy that couldn't even muster a defense.

Spoons has some nice scary reactions from the lefty-blogger crowd. Not only is there a question of the necessity of deleting the Hussein clan, but some are questioning the timing. Just when their partisan attacks were starting to take hold, Bush springs this trap on them. It was all part of the VRWC to discredit their demagoguery.

The San Francisco Gate reports that some California Democrats accidentally left a microphone on during a closed door planning meeting. Just what were they planning? Prolonging California's budget crisis for political gain.

Some members of the group, including Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, said if the budget crisis were extended, it could improve chances for a ballot initiative that would make it easier for the Democrats to raise taxes by lowering the threshold for passage from two-thirds to 55 percent.

Is anyone really surprised? These are the same type of people that wished September 11th would have happened a year earlier, so that Slick Willie could have grabbed some political credit.

My entry to Carnival 44 was accepted, and I've got my name in lights. Woohoo!

You can check out the Carnival over at Jonie's Joanie's.

Why say anything, when you've got Scrappleface:

Saddam to Offer Eulogy at Sons' Funeral
(2003-07-22) -- Saddam Hussein may deliver the eulogy at a state funeral for his sons, Uday and Qusay, who died suddenly today in Mosul. The elder Hussein was invited to speak at the funeral by the commander of allied ground forces in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We understand the emotions triggered by the death of one's sons," said Lt. Gen. Sanchez. "So, we want Mr. Hussein to stand up there on the podium, in clear line of sight, and tell the world how special his boys were. We aim to give Saddam the respect due a leader of his caliber. I can assure you that he will have the full attention of many of our finest men."

The allied commander said Mr. Hussein's remarks would last "roughly 7.5 seconds, after which the former Iraqi leader, doubtless with a heavy heart, will return to an underground bunker."

Muahahahaha.. The VRWC strikes le tower de Eiffel.

(photo via CNN)

CNN, by the way, will let you watch a video of the burning tower, if you give them $40.

(link via Bob the Bear)

Schadenfreude
      top   link me