I fixed the William Shatner link on this post. So sorry for the HTML flub. If you've never heard this, you really should.

I first heard it in college, and I've had trouble sleeping ever since. Sometimes I wake up in a cold sweat and scream "Mr. Tambourine Man!"

I've always known Hillary Clinton was a communist, but she could at least try to hide it.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

"On behalf of the common good" is never justification to violate an individual's rights.

Is there anything left that hasn't been blamed on global warming?

Britain's Antarctic ice station has a design problem few architects can have envisaged when it was built -- within a decade it is likely to float away.

The existing base is built on an ice shelf which is likely to break off into the sea if global warming continues at its current rate.

The guilt is enough to make me want to cry all over the steering wheel of my SUV this morning.

When one study says there's no risk from second hand smoke, the anti-smokers just go out and get another study.

Passive Smoking Heart Risk Double Earlier Estimates - Passive smoking may be much more dangerous than scientists had thought, researchers said on Wednesday in new study that is likely to boost demand for a ban on smoking in public places.

When researchers come out and proudly proclaim that their study should help advance a specific agenda, you can color me skeptical. The virulently anti-smoking World Health Organization found that there was no statistical link, nor any proof that second hand smoke has negative health effects.

Kudos to the Pink Pistols for standing their ground. Prior to their Pride Festival, event organizers sent them a letter saying that they would be forbidden from carrying firearms. It boldly told them "Should anyone bring a firearm this Stonewall Columbus event, the firearm will be confiscated and not returned and the individual will be rejected from the event." (emphasis mine)

Some members of the Pink Pistols were not intimidated and did take their guns with them. That's when all hell started to break loose.

Initially three, then later, four members of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols, a group promoting the safe handling of firearms in the GLBT community, were threatened by the Executive Director of Stonewall Columbus, who wielded a 2-foot club, and up to 30 volunteer security personnel at the Stonewall Columbus Pride Event on Saturday, June 26. The Pink Pistols were repeatedly ordered to surrender their legally-owned and carried firearms by a steadily-growing army of guards. Knowing the law was on their side, the Pink Pistols refused to surrender their property or knuckle under to illegal threats of violence, search, and seizure by Stonewall Columbus personnel.

My guess is that the main thing that kept this mob of rent-a-cops from attacking is that their victims were pretty well armed. The police were called, but it wasn't the event staff who called them.

According to sources, about halfway through lunch, the first two staff persons, one bearing a 2-foot long, inch-thick truncheon (which she referred to dubiously as a "keychain", by virtue of the split keyring and key at one end), accosted the group with the statement: "I thought I told YOU PEOPLE not to bring firearms in here?" The person in question was assumed from context to be Kate Anderson herself, since she did not identify herself, but seemed to be referring to the email.

The Pink Pistols did not respond. Then she said, "I'm going to confiscate those firearms, turn them over to me right now!"

The Pink Pistols responded that they would do no such thing. Ms. Anderson repeated that they must turn over their weapons, and they would get them back after the event.

The responses she received were variations on "no, we do NOT have to surrender the firearms to you, and no, we're not going to leave either, because we are part of the gay and lesbian community, AND it's legal to open carry in the state of Ohio and we have the law on our side, and you don't. We'll just continue sitting here, enjoying the day."

Ms. Anderson retreated briefly and returned with 10 security guards. She again insisted they surrender their firearms. Still, the Pink Pistols refused. More guards were called, until approximately 30 security guards surrounded the three Pink Pistols. Ms. Anderson at this time brandished her truncheon and demanded once again that the Pink Pistols either turn over their firearms or she would take them, but the Pink Pistols once again refused.

Kim Rife recalls: "I have a sense about these things, and I think her 'plan' was to 'subdue' us. So I started informing her that if they so much as TOUCHED us, and confiscated our firearms they'd be guilty of a third degree felony, robbery, assault and anything else our lawyer could come up with." Ms. Anderson said she should call the police, and Ms. Rife and Ms. Lee said that would be a good idea, and suggested she do so.

Mr. Jones, another marcher and member of COPP, recalls the reaction of Ms. Anderson. "At this point she is obviously taken aback, as it was apparent that she had planed to use force."

One of their members called the attorney for Ohioans For Concealed Carry, who was on call for their support, to double-check their legal position. This additional attorney corroborated the legality of the Pink Pistols' actions, and was informed the police were on their way. During this entire exchange, the Pink Pistols remained calm, ate their lunches, and chatted amongst themselves.

According to Sergeant Mull of the Columbus Police Department's Public Information Unit, police were dispatched at 2:56 pm on a possible charge of trespassing. Firearms were mentioned, but also that the weapons were holstered and legally carried.

When the police arrived, they were polite and professional, for which the Pink Pistols applaud them. The Columbus Police Department entered the situation with a spirit of negotiation and respect for the law and the rights of everyone, for which they should be commended. The intricate nature of the new concealed-carry law was discussed at length, including where the law permitted a firearm owner to carry a weapon, whether a licensee could carry on government property, and whether a parade permit afforded "private property" control to the permit holder. Eventually, after running the chain of police command, a call to the City Prosecutor was made, and the point was still ambiguous. But the Prosecutor felt strongly enough that the police could at least make arrests to clear the scene if necessary, so the Pink Pistols were asked to compromise and depart at that time.

The Pink Pistols did depart. They are, after all, civil human beings. Under the law, they probably did not have to, but when the Police ask you to move on it's best that you heed their command. It's a shame that such anti-gun bigotry from one of their own spoiled an event for which they had probably spent weeks preparing.

Apparently sleeping on the job is a right now.

Software engineer Terry Williams claims he has a right to sleep on the job. Williams says his sleep disorders force him to take nap breaks at work.

He was fired by Telecommunications Systems of Maryland and is now suing the company for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I pretty much despise comment registration. But if you are going to put an annoying comment registration policy in effect on your site, you should do the following things:

1. Tell people about it before they start typing their comments.
2. Code the HTML so that when they type a big long comment and then get an error for not registering, they don't lose everything.

How can this be true? I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of big money special interests, while Democrats were the party of the common man.

Only one of the top 25 donors to political 527 groups has given to a conservative organization, shedding further light on the huge disparity between Democrats and Republicans in this new fund-raising area.

The top three 527 donors so far in the 2004 election cycle - Hollywood producer Steven Bing, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and financier George Soros - have combined to give nearly $24 million to prominent liberal groups. [...]

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks 527 data, liberal organizations have amassed nearly $80 million in donations compared to a mere $8 million for their conservative counterparts.

This has always been the case. For all the money George Bush raised in 2000, most of it came from small donors. Apparently, that is holding true for this election cycle as well.

"[Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet." -- Michael Moore in Britiain's Mirror newspaper.

Judging by the number of people that believe his lies, there is a ring of truth to that.

After banning guns, swords, knives, airguns, and the carrying anything considering physically "offensive", citizens of the United Kingdom have resorted to begging criminals for mercy marching against gunmen.

The Mothers Against Violence group is being headed by Pat Regan, whose son Danny, 26, was blasted to death by three bullets.

The march is part of a national campaign which aims to rid the streets of violence and gun-related crime.

Unlike in the U.S. where moms march against gun ownership, moms in the UK don't have much left to march against. Everything is banned, which is having the expected results.

Crimes involving firearms have doubled in West Yorkshire in five years, from 1,062 to 2,044 for the year 2002/3.

Doubled. That's a pretty telling statistic, considering crime has been falling in the U.S. (where access to guns is prolific) since 1994.

Sales Up Despite Ban on Smoking - Restaurant revenue in Montgomery County increased in the six months after a countywide ban on smoking took effect, a finding that anti-smoking advocates hope will boost their efforts to enact similar bans statewide and in the District. -- Washington Post, June 28, 2004.

Consumer Spending Rises in May - Americans' incomes and spending rose strongly last month, but much of the money went to pay higher food and gasoline prices, the government reported today. -- Washington Post, June 28, 2004.

On the one hand people are spending more money on food, and that's good. And of course, it will be used as "proof" that smoking bans are a good thing. On the other hand, consumer income and spending is on the rise, but it's being dragged down because people are spending more money on food; and that's a bad thing.

Of course the smoking ban was never about sales revenue. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 percent of all restaurants were already non-smoking. If a smoke ban was so profitable, the other 60% would have jumped on that bandwagon voluntarily. Forcing restaurant owners to ban smoking is about violating people's property rights. The government shouldn't be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property. Especially over something so trivial and unproven as second hand smoke.

UPDATE: Here come the naysayers. Would anything less be expected from Reuters?

"I want to behead Saddam Hussein for what he did. He killed four members of my family," said Akeel Kathim, another driver. "Despite that I hope he comes back because only he can end the security crisis."

The roads were safe under Saddam because criminals faced severe sentences such as long prison terms, or the severing of hands for illegal money dealing. During the chaos of occupation, armed gangs preyed on motorists. Now al-Quds's 25 drivers can only wait to see if Allawi delivers.

"I used to take jobs at two in the morning. Now I shut down at six because it is too dangerous to drive at night," Bashar said. "The future is uncertain now. I hope I we can work at night again soon."

So, Saddam may have killed most of his family, but at least it was safe to drive at night. So much for progress.

The absolute worst song I've ever heard is William Shatner's rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man. Suddenly, there is a new contender. Barbra Streisand sings for John Kerry.

PEOPLE
I MEAN G - O - P - EOPLE -
WHO'D BELIEVE THERE'S SUCH PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD?
BUSH SEEZA
LOTTA CONDOLEEZA,
THEY'RE DIVIDING THE PLANET'S OIL
ACCORDING TO RICHARD "POIL"
AND THEY'RE ALL JUST TRAINEES
OF CHENEY'S.

RUMSFELD,
WE MUST GET RID OF RUMSFELD -
HE'S THE SPOOKIEST PERSON IN THE WORLD.
AS FOR POWELL -
HE'S NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL.
HE'S IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM,
WHILE THEY'RE ALL FIDDLING WITH DOOM.
NO ONE'S MINDING THE STORE.
WHAT'S MORE,
LET'S DISCUSS THIS WAR WE'RE LOST IN,
DON'T ASK WHAT IT'S COSTIN' -
WHAT'S A TRILLION OR TWO TO RULE THE WORLD?

It goes on and on for several more verses. And of course, there's plenty more moonbattery posted proudly on the rest of her site.

UPDATE: Fixed the Shatner link.

Geek notes that Moveon.org supporters have resorted to roughing up people that dare to disagree with them.

You can't force people to like you. Then again, you can always sue them when they don't.

The more I hear about Vice President Dick Cheney telling Senator Patrick Lehey to go fuck himself, the better I like Cheney. In an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Cheney sheds some light onto the subject:

CHENEY: I expressed my dissatisfaction for Senator Leahy.

CAVUTO: Over his comments about you and Halliburton?

CHENEY: No. It was partly that. It was partly - also, it had to do with - he is the kind of individual who will make those kinds of charges and then come after you as though he's your best friend. And I expressed, in no uncertain terms, my views of the - of his conduct and walked away.

CAVUTO: Did you curse at him?

CHENEY: Probably.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Do you have any regrets?

CHENEY: No. I said it, and I felt that...
(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: So let me understand, he comes up, he sees you, Mr. Vice - he's all nice, shakes your hand. And then what do you do, let into him?

CHENEY: Explain my unhappiness with the way he conducted himself. What - part of the problem here is, that instead of having a substantive debate over important policy issues, he had challenged my integrity. And I didn't like that. But, most of all, I didn't like the fact that after he had done so then he wanted to act like, you know, everything's peaches and cream.

And I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards.

When asked about the matter, White House spokesman Scott McLellan said, "These things happen from time to time". When asked about how his conduct was received by his collegues, Cheney said, "Well, I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue."

Long overdue indeed. I'm always amazed at how politicians can spew all this venom and hatred about one another and then come together with open mouth kisses on each other's ass when they meet face to face. Bush and Daschle come to mind.

Apparently the felons they are sending door-to-door to get out the vote don't have a history of violence. They're the white collar felons who've committed fraud, embezzlement, or identity theft, so there is nothing to worry about.

Go ahead and give them your name, address, and social security number.

Until I recently watched Breakfast at Tiffany's (for the first time), I never knew that Audrey Hepburn wasn't related to Katherine Hepburn.

That California would try to ban or limit the sales of BB guns is not all that surprising to me. But this run-on sentence by the Pasadena Star-News left me scratching my head.

The death of Deputy Mike Arruda in a shootout prompted by a man with a pellet gun that looked like a semiautomatic handgun has strengthened a police union's support for a bill that would make it a crime to display fake guns in public and brandish a BB gun in a threatening manner.

I had trouble understanding how a cop could be killed by a BB gun. That is, until I got down to the 29th and final paragraph.

Arruda was accidentally shot by a fellow deputy during a shootout at a Motel 6 in Hacienda Heights earlier this month.

His death is a tragedy, and it is very easy to make the claim that had this ass clown not pulled out a BB gun and started threatening people, Arruda would still be alive today. But blaming the BB gun is idiotic. Had the perpetrator pulled out a black cell phone or a comb, the exact same outcome could have transpired.

After years of conspiring to keep CD prices artificially inflated with minimum pricing incentives, the music industry coughed up a few million dollars and hundreds of thousands of music CD "gifts" to public libraries and schools. But librarians and school officials are not very happy that their end of the payout was heavily laden with CD singles of Whitney Houston.

The Puget Sound Educational Service District, serving 35 school districts, received 1,300 copies of Houston's soaring rendition of the "Star-Spangled Banner," a disc that includes only one other song, "America the Beautiful."

Other discs have raunchy rap unsuitable for school libraries, and some librarians said it looked like the music companies were dumping stale inventory.

Lucky for me, I received a cash settlement. But as I noted back in February, it wasn't even enough to buy a single CD.

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), an avid Michael Moore fan, arrives at the premier of Michael Moore's latest mockumentary.

Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) joins his collegue. Florida voters must be proud.

(Hat tip to Allah.)

Spoons delivers the absolutely absurd news that U.S. troops are being told they cannot use their Israeli ammunition to kill Iraqi terrorists dead. Apparently killing them is just fine, but we don't want to hurt their feelings by using those dirty Jew bullets to send Muslim terrorists to meet their 72 virgins. (I think we had a similar policy during WWII when FDR was worried about offending Hitler.)

Allah Pundit is taking it all in stride.

Owen Courreges notes that Russia has taken a big step backward. The Jehovah's Witnesses have lost their standing as a legally licensed religion.

Without that, the group's 10,000-member Moscow community is forbidden to rent premises, print literature, or officially assemble. The court further ordered the Jehovah's Witnesses to "terminate their activity," which could subject members to fines or arrest simply for gathering in a private home or discussing their faith with friends.

Homer Simpson's crusade for legalization of marijuana is cut short when he and his supporters forget to vote. -- Simpsons Episode 1316, April 14, 2002.

Pot activists forget to file signature petitions in Nevada -- AP, June 25, 2004.

This only makes me like Cheney even more.

Right Wing News has Michael Moore in quotes. At the end, there is a flyer that Moorewatch is encouraging people to hand out at theaters. In my opinion, this is preferrable method of protest than calling theaters and encouraging them not to carry Fahrenheit 9/11. I'd much rather see Moore's lies debunked than have him play the "victim of censorship" role.

Washington Times lists all the women that are missing from Bill Clinton's book. I would post them all here, but I've only got so much room to play with.

Democrat advocacy groups are sending tough guys to people's homes to get out the vote.

According to the Associated Press, a group that wants to get George W. Bush out of the White House is now paying convicts to sign up potential voters in at least three states -- and maybe as many as 17.

America Coming Together told the AP that it believes felons deserve a second chance -- and therefore it is paying them to go door to door in Missouri, Florida, and Ohio, where they ask voters what issues are important to them; hand out information on voter registration; and sometimes collect personal information, such as telephone numbers and driver's license numbers.

I think rehabilitated felons deserve a second chance too. But this isn't the way. Keep in mind that these are the same people that would take away your right to keep and bear arms or defend yourself. I think Geek put it best when he said: "In a hypothetical Donk Utopia, the .gov would first have deprived you of your means of personal and home defense and next would have sent convicted felons to your doorstep to case the place collect your vital information "help you" to register to vote. "

John Kerry is a little upset at the schedule mishap in the Senate. He flew all the way back to Washington to actually represent his constituents cast a rare vote in the Senate, and the GOP had the nerve to postpone the vote. CNN captures his outrage:

"Oh, no. Not in this Senate, not with these people. Once again, it's my way or the highway, shut the door, lock the people out, don't let them take part in the democracy, don't respect the institution. Don't show the common courtesies that actually bring people together to find the common ground. So they found a way all day to twiddle their thumbs, do very little, attend a reception at the White House, but not let John Kerry vote.

"That's the way they play."

The guy is gone more than 80% of the time, and when he does show up he expects the rest of the Senate to work around his schedule. This is coming from the man whose party blocked all judicial appointments until they got their way. This man filibustered the appointments of no less than four minority candidates, ensuring that the Senate would not get to vote on them.

Kerry has missed so many votes over the past two years, maybe the Republicans figured one more wouldn't make a difference.

Spoons points out that minority home ownership is on the rise. Apparently, however, that is bad news and of course, it's all Bush's fault.

If the ratings on IMDb are any indication, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is a love it or hate it movie.

Perhaps most telling is the breakdown by nation.

Granted the movie has yet to be released and there are only a few thousand votes, the movie appears to be polarizing and steeped in controversy. And as usual, Moore stands to make a financial windfall from it.

I'm not sure how I missed this one, but better late than never. The unintended consequences of the Australian gun ban are taking hold. I'm surprised PETA isn't stepping into the fray on this one.

Brian Kentwell says he has been left with no choice but to "hammer" injured or dying animals as he patrols 75 kilometres of irrigation channels in the district.

Mr Kentwell feels he is a casualty of the new handgun legislation that now precludes the use of pistols in the agricultural category.

Mr Kentwell, who has been manager of the Marthaguy Irrigation Scheme for 15 years, said he was no longer permitted to use the 9mm Ruger he was specifically licensed to carry for the humane euthanasia of stock and native animals bogged in channels or injured when hit by vehicles.

"Just last week I had to put down a kangaroo that had two broken legs. It's not very pleasant at the best of times and doubly difficult without a firearm," he said.

Kentwell is applying to register his rifle, but the government is so backed up he'll have to wait months. Of course, he can't even carry a sword any more either.

The Washington Times has the latest from Virginia Democrat and Governor Mark Warner:

Virginia Gov. Mark Warner said yesterday elected officials should quit using phrases such as "user fees" and "revenue enhancements" and instead call them what they are - taxes. [...]

"You've got to be straight with the people," Mr. Warner told a gathering of about 120 at a Democratic Leadership Council luncheon in Northwest.

On the campaign trail, Mark Warner promised, "I will not raise taxes! I will not raise taxes! I will not raise taxes!". Once he reached office, Warner pushed for the largest tax increase in Virginia history, which a month later turns out not to have even been needed.

How he managed to say that without his pants bursting into flames is beyond me.

Police taser guns are referred to as "less than lethal". With high profile police brutality cases in the news, they are intended to be an alternative to a policeman shooting someone in the chest with their service pistol. This Police conference/sales pitch in Toronto described their mission as "exploration for alternatives to police use of lethal force" and heralded taser guns as the product of addressing "the issue of deaths arising from police use of force".

But with increasing frequency the tools provide to the police are being abused. They are being used simply to punish suspects or make them toe the line when their uncooperative. Often times the officer is in no danger at all, which is the litmus test for an officer firing his sidearm.

A Seattle family is contemplating a lawsuit after their 16 year old son was tased four times, while handcuffed.

Within minutes, a routine pat down turned violent and Kenneth lay on the ground, handcuffed and bleeding. A Seattle police officer had pressed a Taser four times against the back of Kenneth's neck.

Each of the 50,000-volt jolts lasted five seconds and left a dime-sized char mark. Scars still remain almost a year later.

After an internal investigation, the department concluded it was an unfortunate misunderstanding and ruled three of the four officers involved did not violate department policies. The fourth was ordered to undergo additional Taser training.

The way they brush it off as inadequate taser training, they make it sound as if he's using the wrong size batteries. Instead of teaching officers how to use the device, they should be teaching them when to use it.

And this is far from an isolated incident. In Kansas City, a senior citizen and grandmother was tased twice in her own home. Her crime was illegally honking her horn.

Last week, Louise Jones, 68, was shot with a police Taser gun in her home. She said the officer twice used the weapon on her after coming to her home to give her a ticket for honking her horn. Police say Jones was shocked because she assaulted the officer by pushing him away.

A cop, undoubtedly younger than 68 years old and probably trained in self defense had to tase an old woman, twice. Keep in mind that the development and adoption of these devices was intended to be an alternative to lethal force. Instead, they seem to be being used at cattle prods.

Remember that police are almost never justified in shooting people who are simply trying to run away. But in Kansas City, where the rules were just made more restrictive, the bar for taser use had to be raised up to that level. Previously they could tase people for not jumping fast enough for them.Police are conducting an internal investigation into what happened, but there has been no resolution yet. But police commissioners did take action, raising the level of force required before officers can justify using the Taser guns.

Previously, it was the department's policy that a "passively resistant" person could be shocked with a Taser gun. Now, a person must be pushing, pulling or trying to flee from an officer before the weapons can be used.(emphasis mine.) The lawyer for the Seattle family, Fred Diamondstone, highlights the free-tasing attitude of police.

"Clearly, as an alternative to using deadly force, (the Taser) is a wonderful tool," Diamondstone said. "What concerns me is the use of the Taser in a very low-end situation, a situation where there's no immediate threat to the officer. ...

"Just because somebody is uncooperative doesn't mean you jump to using less-than-lethal force."

In Kansas City they seem to think so.

"We want the word out," says [Michael Moore], who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court." -- Michael Moore, quoted by the New York Times.

His threats don't scare Christopher Hitchens, who thoroughly debunks Fahrenheit 9/11.

The IRS is apparently planning to pay off stool pigeons who turn in their tax cheating neighbors. In principle, I don't disagree with the concept. The government has been putting prices on criminal's heads for over 150 years. The problem is that the IRS is not a law enforcement agency, and doesn't play by their rules. In fact, Congress has been looking at the IRS' overzealous gestapo tactics for years.

In my home town of Virginia Beach, the story of a local restaurant, The Jewish Mother, is well known. The restaurant was raided and shut down by IRS goons, on nothing more than the word of a disgruntled employee.

Colaprete's restaurant, his home, and the home of his manager were raided by IRS agents on the say-so of a former Jewish Mother bookkeeper who was trying to wriggle out of an embezzlement rap. The effort didn't work (she later became an unwilling guest of the state of North Carolina), but the results were what Colaprete himself referred to as a "dance with the devil."

By raided, I mean they marched in and stuck guns in the faces of employees. Knives and forks were taken out of customer's hands, and anything with numbers on it was thrown into the back of a government van. After about 6 months, all the files, books, cash registers, and computers were dumped on the front doorstep without so much as an apology, and no charges filed.

The accuser it turns out, had a history of embezzlement. The owner of the Jewish Mother, John Colaprete, was preparing to file a complaint against her for embezzling $40,000. She had initially approached the FBI, but they wouldn't touch it. They didn't find her to be credible. The IRS didn't bother to make any checks into her background, and took the story at face value. They just rolled in with the swat team and started cracking heads. In the end, Colaprete never fully recovered, and was forced to close one of the two Jewish Mother locations.

Congress has tried to crack down on the IRS's tactics, but I'm far from convinced.

California has come up with another way to reward criminals who break immigration laws. San Francisco is considering allowing them to vote.

A plan is being considered that allow non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in San Francisco school board elections.

The San Jose Mercury News said Monday the proposed November ballot measure was aimed at getting more parents involved in their children's education by waiving California's requirement that voters be U.S. citizens.

The slippery slope here is obvious. First they're allowed to vote for school board elections, based on the premise that they send their kids to taxpayer funded schools and thus have a vested interest. Next they'll pushing to allow illegal aliens to vote in city council elections, county elections, recall Arnold Schwarzenegger elections, etc, etc.

If illegal aliens are going to get all the benefits of citizenship, why even have immigration laws at all. Perhaps the INS should stake out polling places on election day.

Last week the terrorist group Hezbollah announced their intention to help distribute Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Wall Street Journal Op-editor, James Taranto, quipped "Far be it from us to say that Michael Moore and Hezbollah are on the same side. But Hezbollah certainly seems to think they are." Well, it appears that Michael Moore seems to think they are as well.

The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."

The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."

Terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward publicized the Chacra quote and reacted strongly against it.

"Michael Moore dismisses Americans who are upset with his film and the impact it has in undermining support for the war against terrorism," said Vice Chair Melanie Morgan. "At the same time, his distribution companies are concerned about offending the sensibilities of terrorists. That certainly gives rise to asking the question: Whose side are you on?"

Michael Moore is always on the side that will line his pockets the most. In this case he and Hezbollah share the same goals and a common enemy in George W. Bush. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak.

Lies and misdirection from gun grabbers is nothing new. But in an attempt to catalog the plethora of misinformation coming from the gun fearing wussies, I feel compelled to point out this story from the gun ban group, Ceasefire Maryland. (emphasis mine)

Three police officers were shot to death yesterday when they approached a house in Birmingham Alabama to serve warrants. The bullet proof vests the officers were issued were no match for the SKS assault rifle, named by officials as the weapon used in the killing. The SKS rifle is a copycat of the AK 47 assault rifle. It is cited by the ATF as the rifle most frequently used to kill law enforcement officers and is readily available in the US despite the current federal assault weapons ban.

Nevermind the fact that just about any rifle cartridge (other than the .22) will pierce body armor. This is a blatant lie. Other than the fact that they fire the same round, the SKS is nothing like the AK-47. Just to clarify what they mean by "copycat", here's their definition:

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the manufacture, transfer, and possession of 19 specific semi-automatic assault weapons, such as AK-47s, AR15s, and UZIs. However, the gun industry immediately began to evade the law by making minor cosmetic changes to assault weapons, renaming them, and marketing them as "copycat" models. "Copycat" assault weapons are functionally identical to those banned by the 1994 law, which is why the assault weapons ban must also be strengthened.

Actually gunmakers weren't "evading" the law, they were complying with it. But that's not the point. Did you get the part about "copycat" guns? A "copycat" firearm is one that was created to be functionally identical to guns banned by the 1994 law. They claim that the SKS is a "copycat", thus it must have been created to circumvent the ban on AK-47s. Right?

Now for a brief history lesson. AK-47 stands for Avtomat Kalashnikova Obrazets 1947. It was produced in, you guessed it, 1947 and became the main battle rifle of the Soviets in the 1950s. The SKS was created by Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov. The modern SKS rifle, the 7.62x39 SKS 45, was adopted from older SKS models in, you guessed it, 1945. According to Wikipedia, the "SKS is said to be the precursor to the AK-47, but it is of a much heavier construction than the AK-47". Chinese and Soviet Bloc states created other incarnations of the SKS in the 1950s and 60s. It was used early in Vietnam before being replaced by the much superior AK-47.

That said, it's impossible to make the case that the SKS rifle is a "copycat" of the AK-47. AK-47s and AK clones are still being produced today, but SKS rifles are imported surplus rifles manufactured in the 1960s. An AK-47 costs about $350; an SKS $125. That's quite a big difference for a post-ban "copycat" rifle.

Finally, here are some photos. Here is the SKS.

Here's the AK-47.

The differences between the two rifles are numerous and astounding. Most obvious is that the SKS lacks a pistol grip, and detachable magazine. That means it's not classified as a so-called "assault weapon" under the Clinton Gun Ban. Then again, neither is this AK-47. It has has both a pistol grip and detachable magazine, but none of the other "assault weapon" features such as bayonet lugs or a folding stock. Although it's not abundantly clear by the photos, the AK is also about a foot shorter than the SKS. The SKS most certainly cannot be "fired from the hip" which is one of the tenets of the 1994 ban. Plus, this particular rifle was manufactured over 25 years before the ban took effect. If this rifle was tailor made to circumvent the ban as alleged, the Ruskies had amazing foresight.

That these Alabama police officers were killed is tragic. But just about any .30 caliber rifle round would have easily penetrated their vests. That holds especially true for your average hunting rounds (like the .308) which are usually much larger than the 7.62x39 that the AK and SKS shoot. Banning the SKS is not the solution.

Democrats are going to give press credentials to webloggers who want to cover the Democrat convention.

California Democrats are once again kowtowing to illegal aliens by championing a law to provide them with driver's licenses. The previous law, signed by former Gov. Gray Davis who was trying to keep his job, was repealed before it took effect. Now the Democrats in the Legislature are re-enacting the legislation to try again.

Sacramento's chief of police, Albert Najera, favors giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

"Why are we penalizing people for coming to California after we entice them here with jobs and quality-of-life standards far above what they can ever achieve in their homelands?" he wrote. "Why don't we face reality and concede that we cannot keep our standards of living and our low cost of quality products and services or our booming building industry without foreign nationals?"

It's pretty disturbing that a police chief would blame the victim for the actions of criminals. I guess carjacker victims shouldn't "entice" criminals by driving such a nice car. As comedian George Carlin would say, "She had it comin'. She was wearing a short skirt."

In Virginia, the Legislature made it tougher for people to get a license after it was discovered that many of the 9/11 hijackers used a lax Virginia law to get identification. Virginia faced some harsh criticism for making it easy for terrorists to move freely about the country.

Whose side is California on?

Given their weekly calls to repeal Ohio's concealed handgun permitting law, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has made it no secret that they are rabidly anti-gun. After losing the fight to quash Ohio's concealed handgun bill, they announced they would publicize information about permit holders in hopes of discouraging people from applying. Now they are crying about a so-called "loophole" in the law, that permits someone to carry (gasp) more than one gun.

Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro's office confirmed what will no doubt worry almost everyone: Nowhere in the legislation's 99 pages is there any language limiting the amount of heat a citizen can pack.

Two guns, four guns, six guns, a dozen all legal. Really, the only thing limiting the number of guns you can carry is how many you can carry, physically, until you topple over from the weight of the lead.

The loophole, whether an oversight or intentional, is one of the many flaws of the legislation, says Seven Hills lawyer Stephen C. Miller, who teaches the concealed-carry law's required safety course at Stonewall Ltd., a Broadview Heights gun store and range. [...]

By allowing people to carry more than one gun, the state's lawmakers have put police officers, who usually carry only one weapon, at a firepower disadvantage, Miller says.

The presumption is that guns corrupt otherwise law abiding citizens, and that people who are legally licensed to carry handguns will be running around shooting at police. The gun fearing wussies also appear to be stupid enough to believe that a goblin who would go around shooting at cops would not only license his handgun, but obey a law that limits him to carrying a single sidearm.

Of course, they aren't really stupid enough to believe that, they're just hoping that the you are. If they can convice the voting public that a cop-killer will be swayed by tougher concealed handgun legislation, they can advance their gun grabbing agenda. Perhaps some inane comic book metaphor would help.

The character in these illustrations, whom Miller calls "Captain Ohio," is weighed down with 12 hidden guns that could carry a total of more than 100 rounds. That's quite a portable arsenal, fully legal under state law.

It's only legal if Captain Ohio takes a safety course, passes a police background check, and spends the cash it takes to get licensed. Considering he and his guns are fictional, it's pretty unlikely he'll be granted a license.

The Supreme Court has repealed the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and ruled that "papers please" requests by police are not unConstitutional. The SCOTUS heard the case of Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, who was arrested and convicted in Nevada for failing to give an officer his name.

If you watch the dash-cam video and read the transcript of the Terry stop and arrest, you'll see that the police officer has no reason to request identification from Hiibel. He is standing on the side of the road chatting with his daughter. Police claimed the two were fighting and they are responding to a domestic disturbance call. The officer claims he's performing an investigation. When asked what he's investigating, the best the officer can come up with is "I'm investigating an investigation."

The verbal sparring resulted in the arrest of Larry Hiibel, and the unwarranted assault face-plant and arrest of his daughter, whom the police were supposed to be protecting. The only charges that stuck were for "delaying" a police officer, for which Hiibel was fined $250. He appealed the conviction all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming that his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and his Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination had been violated.

By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court disagreed. I think Justice Kennedy's remark pretty much sums it up. (emphasis mine)

"Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests," Kennedy wrote.

AUGH! Far be it for a citizen's Constitutionally protected civil rights to get in the way of "important government interests".

It used to be that the Constitution protected the rights of individuals. Now it's seen as an obstacle (albeit a minor one) to "important government interests".

After wrapping up a week of class warfare campaigning, Kerry was off to a posh Nantucket vacation.

Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, had this to say about the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda: "There were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is that we don't have any evidence of a cooperative or a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaeda operatives with regard to attacks on the United States."

But that's not what is being reported, as Neal Boortz points out.

"Saddam, al-Qaeda Not Linked. Sept. 11 Panel's Conclusion at Odds with Administration." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"9/11 Panel Debunks Saddam Link. Report: No Evidence of al-Qaeda Ties." Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Now listen to the words of Keith Olberman of MSNBC last Wednesday. "Memo to vice president: 9/11 Commission finds 'no credible evidence' of any link between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

I think this cartoon pretty much sums it up:

(Hat tip to Curmudgeonly & Skeptical.)

LT Smash takes a look at a public government school teacher who also happens to be an activist for communism.

It looks like it's time to gas up the B-52s.

"Far be it from us to say that Michael Moore and Hezbollah are on the same side. But Hezbollah certainly seems to think they are." -- James Taranto, Best of the Web author noting that the terrorist group Hezbollah has offered to help distribute Michael Moore's latest propaganda film, Fahrenheit 9/11.

"Police: Bodies in lake 'suspicious' " -- CNN headline.

The first paragraph of the article notes that the "bodies that washed ashore on Lake Michigan [were] bound together by nylon rope and tied to bags filled with sand."

Leave it to Maureen (...) Dowd to take a puff piece 60 Minutes informercial about Bill Clinton's book and turn it into an anti-Bush anti-war tirade.

The Clinton alpha instinct on Monica, fueled by a heady cocktail of testosterone and opportunism, was the same one that led W. into his march of folly with Iraq. After 9/11, the president, vice president and secretary of defense wanted to go to the Middle East and knock the stuffing out of somebody bad - because it would feel good, because it would put our enemies on notice, and because it would make the president look strong.

The folks at 1600 Pennsylvania didn't have Osama's address. They couldn't go after Iran or North Korea because those countries could defend themselves and retaliate, maybe with nukes. They couldn't invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia because they're our "allies." But the Bush team knew that it wouldn't be hard to get rid of the second-rate dictator and romance novelist who posed no real threat.

Am I missing something, or is that "romance novelist" crack about Saddam's rape rooms?

Tricky Dick may actually believe in his concocted connection, but he must also realize that the administration can't lose the terrorist-linkage argument for war, having already lost the W.M.D. argument.

If our leaders didn't lead us there, why did 69 percent of Americans, in a Washington Post poll last September, believe that Saddam was involved in the attacks?

Well 57 percent of Americans also believe that our nation has lost jobs over the past 6 months, when in fact more than 1.2 million jobs have been created? That must be Bush's fault too.

Mr. Clinton, though he was vilified by the right, tittered at by the world and dolled up in pink-and-black suede shoes as a toddler by his mom, is selling a zillion books.

As Republicans keep saying, with fingers crossed, W. has stayed even with John Kerry despite the litany on Iraq, terrorism and domestic affairs that has turned out quite differently than promised.

But one thing you can say for Bill Clinton: His "Who's gonna stop me?" Oval Office power surge produced a much lower body count.

Tell that to Vince Foster, or the people who died in the Sudanese aspirin factory. Better yet, tell that to the families of those killed in the World Trade Center bombings, the Pentagon, Oklahoma City, or Waco. Clinton has plenty of blood on his hands.

When the 9/11 Commission found that Iraq didn't directly help with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, the New York Times misreported that the commission had completely debunked the whole reason for the war in Iraq. Under the headline "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie", the Times claimed that BUSH LIED!!! and almost seemed to yearn for the return of Saddam Hussein. As even Andrew Sullivan points out, it's the New York Times who is in the wrong.

The vice-president's direct attack on the New York Times' portrayal of the 9/11 Commission report was a zinger. On balance, i think Cheney is right. The links between al Qaeda and Saddam may not have amounted to a formal alliance, but they existed all right, as the Commission conceded. The NYT itself reported that "The report said that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, 'they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.'" But if there were "repeated contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq, how can it be true that, as the headline put it, that "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie"? Headlines truncate things, of course. But Cheney is dead-on in describing this headline as misleading. Here's Tom Kean, the chairman of the Commision: "What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy - but they were there."

Of course, the Times isn't backing down, and they are lashing out at the Bush Administration for daring to defend their position. The folks over at Power Line recognize the Times as the lynch pin for the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy.

As a news organization, the New York Times is illegitimate. It no longer seeks to inform its readers; rather, its daily effort is to misinform and mislead them. You simply can't believe anything you read in the Times.

The competence of the New York Times can be summed up in two words: Jayson Blair.

Desperate for an agenda, Presidential wanna-be John Kerry is ramping up the class warfare. Apparently the government is just giving away money to those evil, hated rich people while poor folks are rounded up and forced into servitude to Bush campaign contributors like McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

"If a president can go out and fight for four years to provide over a trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America, we can fight for a few months to raise the minimum wage for the poorest people in America," Kerry told an audience at Northern Virginia Community College.

Kerry preys on economic ignorance and class envy to get people to vote for him. I had thought that tax cuts were just a way of the government letting taxpayers keep more of their own money, but according the Kerry the government is apparently just giving away trillions of dollars. And while Bush is giving all this money away to rich cronies, minimum wage earners (who don't really pay much income tax any way) are left to fend for themselves.

Kerry said three of four women who would benefit from the increase are adults. Such a boost in the minimum wage, which has not changed from $5.15 since 1997, would provide a family with enough money to buy 10 months of groceries or pay for eight months of rent, he said. [...]

Kerry said Americans are "living with a minimum wage that is lower in value that it's been at any time since 1949 when Harry Truman is president.

People aren't really meant to "live" on minimum wage. Minimum wage workers are low-skilled people who don't yet have enough training or experience to earn more. People who are "stuck" in a minimum wage job, are those who aren't doing enough to get ahead. (Or they keep doing the things that hold them back.)

Then again, there are other side-effects of minimum wage laws. The great Dr. Walter Williams explores what he calls racist policies that kowtow to big labor unions.

One effect of minimum wages is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. A worker might be less-preferred in the eyes of a particular employer in a number of ways. He might be low-skilled, less intelligent, or a different nationality or race. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If the law requires me to pay, say, $9 an hour, no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire someone who has skills enabling him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most people would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition.

Are low-skilled workers made better or worse off as a result of the $9 minimum wage? It's almost a no-brainer to conclude that being hired at $5 an hour puts more food on the table than not being hired at $9. What's more, minimum wages reduce training opportunities. Most of us gain skills through on-the-job-training. Minimum wage laws deny that opportunity.

Plus there is also the overall effect on unemployment. If an employer has three workers making $5 an hour, and is suddenly forced to pay them more, he may lay one of them off and expect the other two to pull up the slack. While the two guys making more money are better off, it's little consolation to the guy that got laid off to pay for their raises.

Still yet, you could look at it this way. Lets say a guy is getting paid $8 an hour to sweep the floor. Here you come, fresh out of high school looking for a summer job, and offer to sweep that floor for $6 an hour. Why should the government be allowed to tell you that's illegal for you to work for that little bit of money? When you don't have very many skills and you're out there competing for work, sometimes your price point is the only competitive advantage you have. John Kerry hopes to take that away, and something tells you that his big union contributors will be happy to reward him for it.

If Ravenwood were an icon, this would probably be it.

(Hat tip to Mays)

UPDATE: By request, here I am naked.

Bush is desperately trying to dispel the myth that the economy is doing poorly. In his radio address, he touted the good economic numbers. Meanwhile, Democrats are harping about jobs being sent overseas. Rep. Nick Lampson of Texas claims that all our high tech computer jobs are being sent abroad. The democrat's solution, he says, will be to put all those computer techs back to work... building roads.

Rep. Nick Lampson of Texas, in the Democrats' weekly radio address, said Bush's term has seen more and more jobs heading overseas with little done by the president to stop it.

"No matter how hard some of our friends and neighbors work; no matter how much training or retraining they've gotten; the opportunities before them are shrinking," he said. "America's jobs are being sent overseas; even the accounting and computer jobs that we once thought were secure are now disappearing."

Democrats have the better plan to turn the economy around and bring more jobs back to the people, Lampson said.

"The 'American Jobs Plan' would invest in our work force, helping those who have suffered under the existing policies, and those who will lead us into the global marketplace of the future," he said. "Our proposal would put over 2 million people back to work almost immediately, rebuilding the highways, transit systems, and other infrastructure that are the backbone of our wonderful nation."

No offense to computer workers (as I am one), but I'd rather not ride on a rail system welded together by some out of work poindexter. Perhaps I'm an old fashioned guy, but when I envision people in construction I picture big burly guys that whistle at women who walk by. For some reason pasty skinned computer nerds who haven't seen the sun since the latest computer worm hit the scene don't spring to mind.

I will also note three things about the Democrat's rhetoric. First, for the first three months of 2004, only 4600 jobs have been outsourced. Second, they aren't your jobs they belong to the employers. Third, the democrats plan sounds an awful lot like a New Deal style big government jobs program.

I gotta get me one of these 45 mm pistols. I bet it kicks like a mule though.

For the past several years, I've told you that the smoking ban was not about health but about property rights. The government is telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property. No where is that more evident than in Ireland, where U2's Bono can't even light up in his own bar.

The singer, real name Paul Hewson, was spotted lighting up during a late-night bash in the plush Tea Room restaurant of the Clarence Hotel, which he and fellow U2 mates own.

"It was the wee small hours. I was in the company of people from out of town who didn't know about the ban and for a moment nor did I," newspapers quoted Bono as saying on Friday.

"I was quickly reminded by the staff and a few friends. I apologized then and I apologize now."

These types of policies are being adopted all over the United States. Business owners are a minority, so voters and politicians don't pay them much heed when they vote to strip away their property rights. Today, bar owners cannot smoke in their own bar, but soon the reach of the pleasure police could be coming into people's homes. In Georgia, they have already been toying with the idea of banning smoking in cars where children are present. And of course the next step is to ban smoking in homes where children are present (or employees if you have a maid or manservant).

Of course the intent of smoking laws is to "protect" the employees from harm. Apparently in the restaurant industry people are forced into servitude. That must be the case, because otherwise an employee bothered by smoking would simply find another job. Personally, I think Bono should have fired the guy. In fact, how about firing everyone for 10 minutes while he enjoys his smoke and then rehiring them after he's done.

When I visited Ohio last month, I spoke with a friend of mine about getting his concealed handgun permit. He told me that he'd probably wait a while before applying for a permit. I was a little taken aback, and asked him to explain his reservations. Quite plainly, he told me that it was a shitty law. He said that the way the law is written, you have to jump through too many hoops and obey too many nuances. And if you step out of line just once, you get hit pretty hard. He said that even a simple violation of one of the many nuances in the law could mean that you lose your firearm's rights forever. At the time, I thought he was a bit paranoid, but now I'm starting to wonder.

Ohio's concealed carry law indeed appears to be suffering from growing pains. In Shelby County, Sheriff Kevin O'Leary released a bunch of confidential information about permit holders to the news media. The media promptly published people's names and home addresses in the local newspaper. In doing so, both committed a felony.

You see, when concealed carry was being debated in the legislature, Ohio Governor Bob Taft demanded some concessions. One such concession was that the names of permit holders not be kept secret. He demanded that the news media be allowed access to the lists of concealed handgun permit holders. The provision effectively put cops in between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, local Sheriffs are met with a huge demand to process concealed handgun applications in a timely manner. On the other hand, they've got big media liberals hammering them for personal information about just who is being granted permits. Although the law clearly states Sheriffs are to provide the "county of residence", the Shelby County Sheriff took that to mean "local address". Now, I don't know about you but if I was filling out a form and it asked for my "county of residence", I'd name the county in which I reside. I certainly wouldn't fill in the blank with my complete home address. In doing so the Sheriff, perhaps unwittingly, committed a fifth degree felony. He claims it was just a misunderstanding, and I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. If a stern warning changes the way he handles future requests for information, I don't see the need to ruin a good policeman's career. Although the county has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the matter, the chances are pretty good that they'll take care of their own and nothing will happen to the Sheriff O'Leary.

But then comes the double standard. Just one county over in Montgomery County, Douglas Lyons mistakenly tried to carry his pistol into a court house. He had a permit, but carrying guns in court is illegal. In fact, under the new concealed carry law, it's a fifth degree felony. He claims it was just a misunderstanding, and I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. If a stern warning changes the way he carries his firearm in the future, I don't see the need to take away a good citizen's firearm's rights.

County police, on the other hand, don't really see it that way. OFCC reports that local "Law enforcement officials say permit owners need to be careful about where they carry concealed weapons. They said gun owners are aware of what the law is and that there will be no warnings, but arrests." Montgomery County officials think that there is no room for tolerance, and they are prepared to throw the book at Lyons. Should we also presume that if their sheriff (and news media) violated Ohio's concealed handgun statute like Shelby County Sheriff O'Leary did, they would be just as zealous in their prosecution? I have my doubts. It sounds an awful lot like another case of 'rules for you but not us'.

Remember all the bitching and moaning how much the war in Iraq is costing? Democrats like John Kerry, who voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it, suddenly became fiscal conservatives when it came to spending taxpayer dollars on military spending. This year when Bush asked for more funds for the military, there was even more whining.

Yesterday, the highly politicized Senate approved adding 20,000 U.S. troops to the U.S. army by a vote of 93-4. John Kerry, consistent with the past two years, missed the vote.

James Taranto points out this piece of anti-gun media bias:

"In a direct challenge to federal limits on political advocacy, the National Rifle Association plans to begin broadcasting a daily radio program on Thursday to provide news and pro-gun commentary to 400,000 listeners," the New York Times reports.

In a direct challenge to federal limits on political advocacy, the New York Times Co. plans to continue publishing a daily newspaper to provide news and antigun commentary to 1.1 million readers.

To the New York Times, supporting the Second Amendment of the Constitution is considered challenging the "federal limits on political advocacy", but supporting the repeal of the Second Amendment is not. The fundamental question is what makes a media company.

The NRA considers themselves a media company with a pro-gun slant. They offer news and opinion just like any other media company, and should be free to endorse a candidate for office. The major difference is that the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Chicago Tribune and a dozen other national media outlets who are free to endorse political candidates, are routinely and consistantly anti-gun. Lashing out at the NRA is their way of crushing dessent.

The European community is looking for ways to censor "hate speech" on the web. Thank God our country's founders had the forsight to protect our freedom of expression.

Experts gathered in Paris on Wednesday seeking a common approach to combating racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic propaganda on the Internet, believed to be a chief factor in rising numbers of hate crimes.

Officials from more than 60 countries were attending the two-day conference aimed at finding ways to keep racist information off the Web without compromising free speech and freedom of expression.

Now I dislike "hate speech" and racism as much as the next guy. But the European approach to the problem is backwards. "Hate speech" doesn't cause crime, it's the asshole who pulls the trigger that commits the murder. No matter what the motive, the victim is just as dead.

I guess the major problem with limiting speech is that these Euroweenies don't know where to draw the line. In this day and age where people are so hypersensative and easily offended, almost anything can be twisted so that it classifies as "hate speech". If I say that I hate France, am I committing a crime or just exercising sound judgement? If someone reads that and says "Yeah, I hate them too, I'm gonna go kill a bunch of Frenchies", don't blame me. Blame the guy that commits the crime.

Plus they're always trying to elevate "hate crimes" to some sort of special status. As if killing a person for the $100 in his pocket is not quite as bad as killing him because he's French. Dead is dead, and if you kill someone, should do the time. (Actually, I think you should be hanged from the neck until dead, but we know the Euros won't go for that.) But piling on extra punishment because the killer harbored some special contempt for the guy he was killing is dumb. Furthermore, it cheapens your average, everyday, murdering for drugs or money predator. When it comes to sociopathic predators, I say kill them all. They are all equally worthless.

Fox News finally responded to my email about their recent web redesign. Although my email was entitled "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?" they apparently think I was offering them praise.

Thanks for writing. We want to let you know that we care about our readers and always try to listen to what you have to say.

We have read each and every email regarding our recent site redesign. We have listened to your suggestions and feedback, and have made some modifications to our recent redesign addressing your specific concerns. We have lightened the color scheme, added many more headlines throughout the home page, and made some alterations that should make finding stories and videos easier.

We were heartened to hear that the new site navigation made it easier for users to traverse Foxnews.com and find sections previously undiscovered by many of our readers. We believe this new navigation menu allows you to get faster access to more content than ever before.

Please keep the feedback coming and thank you again.

FOXNews.com

As far as I'm concerned they're done. Most of their offerings were AP and Reuters stories any way. My main reason for still going there was that I liked their layout. Now that they've scrapped that, and apparently have no intention of fixing it, I'm not going back.

San Francisco recently ended the practice of giving cash to the homeless urban outdoorsmen, and it's having astounding results.

Under the new guidelines, homeless people who were getting as much as $410 a month now have a choice of accepting housing and getting a check for as little as $59 -- or keep living on the street and still getting a check for as little as $59.

City records show that the number of homeless people getting cash assistance fell from 2,138 at the start of May to 1,769 as of June 1.

Apparently when the city stopped handing out "free" money, people who weren't really homeless to begin with stopped asking for assistance. While many San Francisco liberals were shocked by the revelation, Mayor Gavin Newsom wasn't surprised. Alameda County tried the same thing years ago.

With the change, there was no incentive for anyone who wasn't actually homeless to claim otherwise.

Throw in a get-tough policy that included follow-up calls to make sure recipients were keeping up with their treatment programs, and Alameda County saw its homeless cash assistance numbers drop from 2,000 to 200.

Apparently they all moved to San Francisco.