As you may recall, I recently met Dean’s generous offer with a counter-offer of my own. He’ll help you move your blog away from Blog*Spot for $20 if you are not a racist or a troll; I’ll help you move to Blog*Spot for $200 if you are. Something for everyone, don’t you know.

Anyway, Dean’s been pretty good about keeping readers up to date on the bloggers who have taken him up on his offer; 27 as of the latest count. I’ve been a bit remiss in this department, so it is with pride that I now announce my first two customers.

(more…)

In just 90 days, Alaska will join Vermont in becoming the second state to allow its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. [Hat tip: Instapundit.] Unlike Vermont, the State of Alaska will continue to issue permits to those who apply for them and meet the existing statutory criteria. Which raises a Zen-like question: if you have a license that only authorizes you to do the same things you were able to do without a license, do you really have a license?

Actually, the non-rhetorical answer is “yes.” There is one thing a licensed permit holder can do which a non-permit holder cannot: carry a concealed weapon in other states. Many states honor CCWs issued by other states, but as far as I know, no state (other than Vermont itself, that is), allows Vermont residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Meanwhile, California remains among the few remaining states in which only the likes of Dianne Feinstein, Robert Blake, and Sean Penn are deemed worthy enough to carry guns for their own protection. It could be worse, I suppose. At least we don’t throw people in jail for defending their families in their own homes. Yet. [Hat tip: Rachel Lucas.]

Jackie Goldberg’s Assembly Bill 12, the latest effort by criminal rights advocates to water down California’s tough “three strikes” law, has died on the floor, apparently because its proponents knew that the votes weren’t there. This in California, a state run almost entirely by liberal Democrats. If it can’t pass here, where can it pass? Denmark?

Between the failed attempt to block the original “three strikes” law in 1994 and this latest effort to water it down beyond recognition, I’d say that’s at least two strikes against the “three strikes” opponents. One more strike, and it’s time to call them out. I’m a bit curious as to what that third strike will look like, though. Maybe they’ll try to pass a “four balls and you walk” statute, which provides automatic acquittals for any suspects who have previously been found not guilty of at least four serious offenses. I mean, c’mon, it’s only fair.

After that wildly successful protest at Augusta, it seems that the NOW crowd is on a roll. Now, according to FoxNews, a group of wholly owned subsidiaries concerned lawmakers in Washington is pushing a law that would penalize companies that do business with Augusta or any other private club that admits only one sex. One has to wonder what this new law would do for such oppressive organizations as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, or the greatest oppressor of all, the Boalt Hall Women’s Association.

In one way, it’s kind of fun watching these zealous advocates spin their wheels pushing an agenda that no one has cared about since the women’s liberation movement, if they even cared about it then. By the same token, allowing these poor souls to continue on this track indefinitely seems almost cruel. Somebody really ought to take them aside and politelty, but firmly, urge them to rent a life. Where is Heywood when we need him?