Maybe most people who read my blog are Microsoft haters (which would be especially ironic, since I get paid based on my skills with Microsoft products). Or maybe many of them are sufficiently technically adept and iconoclastic to rely to some significant degree on non-Microsoft browsers and operating systems. Or maybe the majority of my visitors somehow and for some reason mask the fact that they're using Microsoft products. Or maybe my hosting company's statistic programs frequently get confused about my visitors' browsing tools. Or maybe most of my visits are various RSS readers (which I'm guessing would show up as unknown browsers using unknown operating systems) checking for updates. Who knows?

But there's no denying the fact that, over the past month, 57.3% of the visits to my site have used an unknown browser, and 46.5% use an unknown operating system. By contrast, 21.5% of my visits have been through a Netscape browser (I assume that really means Mozilla, which would include Firefox) and 21.0% have been through IE (as a point of interest, 0.1% used Opera). On the other hand, 45.3% of my visits have originated from various flavors of Windows platforms, while other identified platforms such as Mac OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, each hit somewhere under 5% and in many cases under 1%.

I don't understand it, but I just thought I'd share.

Kevin McGehee posts a Letter to the Editor of Time magazine from an Amateur Radio licensee who took exception to a part of Lev Grossman's Time article on their Blog of the Year award (that's PowerLine, by the way).

Apparently, Mr. Grossman's article referred to Hams as "curiosity, a cult phenomenon, a faintly embarrassing hobby." Go read Kevin's post to see exactly how John Elicker responded, but I wanted to add my thoughts on the topic.

First off, Amateur Radio is primarily a hobby. We Hams participate in the hobby for a wide variety of reasons. Some of us just like to talk. There's generally a community spirit among Hams, where we like to help each other when we have questions and problems. Some revel in the technical aspects of the hobby, which cover a tremendous amount of ground, from radio frequency energy, to emergency power supplies (batteries, conventional generators, solor panels, wind generators and more), to a surprisingly large number of digital communications modes, to antenna technology and much, much more. Many of us really enjoy the public service aspect of Amateur Radio, providing communications support for local events, regional emergencies, and international disasters. But regardless of why we like the hobby or what we do in it, it's all because we enjoy what we're doing.

In years past, when RF technology was in its infancy, some Hams played significant roles in advancing the science and the practical implementations of it. As commercial interests have come to rely more and more on various types of radio communcations, they have taken the fore in pursuing new applications. That notwithstanding, Hams still serve a worthwhile purpose, even if we are a little geeky, in an old-fashioned kind of way.

But go ahead, crack a few jokes at our expense. We often do things deserving of a wisecrack or two. But don't dismiss us. As a group and over time, we have provided many benefits to society, and we still do so today.

Postscript: Both Kevin and Chris McGehee are Hams, like me (I didn't know that Chris had a license until yesterday). If we want to, we can pick out our own callsigns within certain parameters. I chose my call, N5CTI, for several reasons, one of which would be obvious if you know my career field when I was in the Navy. Chris also picked out her call, which I think is pretty neat: KL0UD (that's a zero, not an O, by the way).

The Washington Post reports that Republican Congressional leaders are proposing ethics rule changes:

House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber's fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.

The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers — including Majority Leader Tom DeLay — for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.

In a nutshell, there's currently a catch-all rule that states, "A member ... of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." This rule is used when there's no specific rule against a given behavior that could be considered unethical.

During my Navy career, I was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which has as its final punitive provision Article 134, which permits service members to be convicted for acts prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and conduct which brings discredit upon the armed forces. I always thought that article was valuable to have for a specialized organization which requires higher standards of its members than those applied to society in general.

Acts punished under this article tend to fall into two categories: either the individual knew they shouldn't do it, but decided to go ahead anyway, or their standards and understanding are so far removed from those of the organization that they need to be taught a harsh lesson or they should no longer belong to the organization.

I think these principles should apply to Congress, as well. Their behavior should be judged against a standard that doesn't have predetermined, specific rules, but rather against a corporate understanding of morality. You know, like...ethics?

Maybe there's a good reason for this change, but I doubt it. Speaker Hastert and the rest of the Republican House leadership need to justify this rule change to Congress and the public. They need to tell us what's wrong with this rule, and why it should be eliminated.

Unless a public outcry builds over this, I don't expect that will happen. And if it does, I doubt that I'll be satisfied with their rationale.

Republicans, this is a bad idea. Scrap it, now.

Me!

Via Brent and Kevin:

If you’re looking for ways to help our troops this Christmas and show your appreciation for their service to our country:

Purchase a $25.00 phone card at Operation Uplink.

Purchase a $25.00 phone card from the USO’s Operation Phone Home.

If you don’t want to use your credit card on the net, you can donate to the USO 24 hours a day by calling 800-876-7469.

I can't think of a better gift or recipient(s) this Christmas. If you can, please give.

Thanks.

For my readers in balmier climes, I just want to point out that the DC area is enduring a sudden cold snap. As I type this, it's 14° outside with 23 mph sustained wind, gusting to 35 mph. There may be a bit of snow overnight, but the low pressure system is pretty far off the east coast, so we probably won't see much.

The forecast high temperature for tomorrow is 25°. This is not what you would call normal December weather for this area.

James Joyner points out a couple of articles reporting that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office has been using a signature machine to sign letters to the families of service members lost in action in Iraq.

The controversy arose when soldier-turned-writer David H. Hackworth penned a column on Nov. 22 reporting that two Pentagon-based colonels told him that Rumsfeld "has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself."

It's no secret that Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts to reshape the military over the past four years has angered many senior officers, especially in the Army. Retired Colonel Hackworth has been on a campaign against the Bush Administration's military policy for some time now. But this whole thing is just...well, petty.

Sure, if my Marine son were killed as a result of hostile action, it'd be nice to know that the Secretary of Defense stopped long enough during his busy day to think about my son, his sacrifice and our loss. But come on, this is just silly. My loss would be so severe that whether or not Donald Rumsfeld personally signed his letter of condolence would be of absolutely zero consequence.

To the two active duty and one retired colonels involved in this story, I say, "grow up." You're acting like little children. My respect for military officers, as a class, is about as low as it can get, anyway. Even so, these three babies have driven that opinion even lower.

And for my friends and acquaintances who are or were officers, I acknowledge that there are many exceptions to the above rule, but as a percentage, you exceptions are a very small portion of the total population in my experience.

Update: Kevin Aylward is also unimpressed. I think.

My apologies to my faithful readers (I think I'm up to seven now) for my lack of posting (and thanks for noticing, Kevin). The reasons are several:

1. With the coming Christmas holiday, I've been busier than normal.
2. I've been spending a significant amount of my online time commenting, both here and elsewhere.
3. Unlike some other bloggers (who shall remain nameless in the interests of retaining their friendship), if I don't have something worth saying, I don't say anything.

When the inspiration strikes, neither busy-ness, commenting nor anything else will stop me from posting. Just try and stop me!

The Commissar comes to the same conclusion I did, although for vastly different reasons.

Let's lose the death penalty. It isn't worth it. As a matter of fact, we don't have an effective death penalty; we have a nearly-theoretical death penalty, with just 65 executions last year. At this point, the U.S. has the worst of both worlds, a de facto life-imprisonment maximum (in the vast majority of cases) that does not offer the deterence or justice of regularly-imposed capital punishment, combined with a de jurepolicy of capital punishment that only annoys our European allies and hands the liberals another stick to beat us with. It is not worth it.

While I have other, additional concerns, I'm in wholehearted agreement with The Commie. He points out some statistics and an anecdote that illustrate is point which are well worth reading, so be sure and click through to his post.

The bottom line is that the Death Penalty gives society no substantive benefits that aren't grossly outweighed by what society loses through this legal policy.

Jerry Kindall alerts us to a new parlor game: your Google Suggest number.

The idea is based on Google's new beta service, Google Suggest, which suggests possible search terms as you type. The idea is to search for yourself by typing your name and determining how many letters you have to type before your name comes up in the suggestion list, and which item on the list is your name (see Jerry's post for the details — I might as well send him a little traffic, eh?). Matt Carter thinks you should add a third digit which indicates where in the search results you appear.

Using myself as an example, I'm a 7.2.1, because when you type the first seven letters of my name (Boyd Gar), my name appears as the second item in the list. If you go ahead and search on my entire name, the first result is a link to a reference to me (as opposed to some other Boyd Garrett, of which there are actually a few).

The whole thing smacks of narcissism a bit, but it's all in good fun.

Tip of the ten gallon Stetson to Dean.

Update: For what it's worth, Paris Hilton is a 1.1.1, which a colleague mentioned to me (not using this numbering system) on the day that Google Suggest was announced to the public.

The Washington Post reports that Germany is considering deporting suspects in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States to countries where the suspects are more likely to be convicted.

HAMBURG -- After three years of failing to hold anyone accountable for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Germany is preparing to expel accused members of the Hamburg-based cell that led the hijackings and send them to countries with more aggressive records of prosecuting terrorism.

While I want everyone who played a role in those horrible attacks to be brought to justice, I have my misgivings about this approach. Far be it from me to tell the German government to conduct themselves, but I have to state my opinion.

And my opinion is that democracies operate under the rule of law, and if you don't follow the laws you have, you run the risk of engaging in the very abuse that laws are intended to prevent.

Extradition is the legal method to move suspects to jurisdictions where they can be tried for the crimes they may have committed. Deportation shouldn't be used as a tool to fix your inadequate laws.

I didn't fare too well against some of the Paragons Of The Blogosphere last week, but I keep trying.

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around. Per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

I was talking to my brother yesterday about our father. He was a Southern Baptist minister, and believed strongly in the Southern Baptist dogma: no consumption of alcoholic beverages, no dancing, no profanity (or even mild substitute profanity, such as "darn"), and abhorrence of divorce. Since those of you who know me personally realize that that's four strikes against me, I have to state for the record that my father loved me as deeply as a father can love a son. That's his photo at the bottom of the right sidebar, by the way.

At any rate, I was commiserating with my brother that so many liberals regard us with such disdain, because we're, you know, evangelicals. To many, evangelical is synonymous with fundamentalist, which is synonymous with ignorant, bigoted, toothless rednecks.

Guys, I'm here to tell you, you are sooooo wrong.

I know I'm going out on a limb here for many liberals, but please try to think back to any lessons you might have had regarding the application of logic. Just because Joe is both A and B doesn't mean that A = B. Similarly, just because rabid fundamentalists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are evangelicals doesn't mean that all evangelicals (or even most evangelicals) are fundamentalist (if you use those two yayhoos as exemplars of fundamentalism). A perfect case in point is Angel, who is as ardent a liberal as you can find anywhere, but is equally ardently an evangelical Christian.

What makes someone an evangelical? Belief that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross, dying for our sins. Reliance on preaching over ritual. Salvation through regeneration (being born again — incidentally, I regard the term "born-again Christian" as redundant. If you aren't born again in Christ, you aren't a Christian), resulting in a spiritually transformed personal life. Notice that this description doesn't contain any of the facets normally associated with being a fundamentalist Christian.

My brother expressed his belief that the term "fundamentalist" has been so overused that it's now meaningless: fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, whatever. He feels that there must be better terms to describe these people who so twist their faith to justify their immoral actions. And we agreed that "fundamentalist" certainly doesn't describe our father.

He offered a different term that he had picked up from one of our father's colleagues: a traditionalist. Yeah, that fits. Dad was a traditionalist, but that doesn't mean he never grew and changed.

As an example, I grew up hearing my father on many occasions state that he would never perform a wedding ceremony for anyone who was divorced, unless they were remarrying the person they divorced. For this reason, I never approached my father to officiate at my second or third wedding.

My brother (who is on his fourth marriage — in our cases, the apple appears to have fallen pretty far from the tree, at least in this area) took a different tack. When he was setting up plans for his second wedding, he told Dad that he was planning to ask a friend of the family (who was both an ordained minister and a Justice of the Peace) to officiate, since he didn't want to put Dad in the position of choosing between his faith and his family, seeing as how Dad didn't believe in remarriage after divorce.

Dad replied, "I believe that approach has caused more harm than good." So he has performed all four of my brother's weddings. And I'd be willing to bet (oops, there's another one that Dad was against!) that he performed many other weddings for people who had been divorced.

I offer up these personal experiences to illustrate the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists. And traditionalists, too. Too many liberals don't have sufficient contact with evangelical (and traditionalist) Christians, which is the basis for their misunderstanding as well as their fear of many Christians.

The fire-and-brimstone preachers, the haters of homosexuals, the morality police, these are not typical evangelical Christians. These are the exceptions, the outliers, who grab attention based purely on the volume of their voices.

Christians are compassionate beings, as a whole. We love you no matter who you are, or what you've done. Which is not to say we don't get angry with folks sometimes, but as any spouse can tell you, you can feel love and anger toward someone at the same time. But this portrayal of evangelical Christians as intolerant fascists by many on the Left is just so inaccurate.

While I didn't fare too well in The Watcher's Council competition this week, but at least I got a vote or two for my post on Government and Internet Service.

On the other hand, I can't complain too much about losing to Victor Davis Hanson, can I?

You may recall the reported abduction of Marine Corporal Wasef Ali Hassoun back in June of this year. After five months of investigation, CPL Hassoun has been charged with desertion.

The marine who disappeared in Iraq in June and later turned up in his native Lebanon was charged with desertion yesterday by the United States Marine Corps, according to a statement from officials at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, 24, has said he was captured from his military camp near Falluja and held against his will for three weeks by enemy forces this summer. A videotape showing Corporal Hassoun blindfolded with a sword above his head was released in June before he reappeared in Lebanon in early July.

But after a five-month investigation, the Marines charged him with taking an unauthorized leave from the unit, where he worked as an Arabic interpreter. He is also charged with loss of government property, theft of a military firearm we well as theft and wrongful appropriation of a government vehicle, according to the statement.

It's worth noting that his wife was in Lebanon (last paragraph) at the time of the incident.

While I'll still leave it to the Marine Corps to determine guilt or innocence, of course, it doesn't look good for CPL Hassoun.

Air America is coming to the nation's capital:

Air America, the liberal radio network that had a rocky takeoff last spring, has struck a deal to land in Washington.

... WRC (1260) plans to drop its syndicated sports talk programming in favor of Franken and some of the rest of Air America's left-leaning lineup while adding other liberal commentators, say people familiar with the matter. This would give WRC's owner, Clear Channel Communications, a "blue state" station to balance its "red state" programs on WTNT (570), which includes conservative hosts Laura Ingraham, G. Gordon Liddy and Michael Savage.

Their inaugural broadcast in Washington will be January 20th, with Al Franken broadcasting from President Bush's second inauguration (pun intended — what can I say, I'm a horrible punster).

I've been curious about Air America since they first went on the air earlier this year (but not so curious that I've bothered to find and listen to their audio stream online). At some point, I'm sure I'll bring them up on my truck's radio to see what's going on over there. I probably won't be able to listen for long, though. I frequently find Rush Limbaugh unlistenable (is that a word?) because of the outlandish nonsense he sometimes spouts, and I expect that Air America will be able to make my blood boil, too.

But I think it's great that they're coming to Washington. Those who want to be able to listen to them should be able to do so, and I'm sure there are grunches of folks 'round these parts who are chomping at the bit for the opportunity.

One thing that I must point out though:

Neither station [WTNT and WRC] has been a powerhouse in the Arbitron ratings, with WTNT ranked 17th in the market last summer, with an average of 74,500 listeners. WRC, which has a weaker signal, was last at No. 40, averaging 29,800 listeners.

I guess they've got to start somewhere!

The family computer crapped out a couple of months ago. It's been so long that the details are fuzzy, but I seem to recall I was trying to add an additional hard drive and ran into irreparable problems. It was one of those things where, for various reasons, I couldn't move forward, nor could I move back.

My employer had recently updated my computer with a new notebook, so I had my 3+ year-old notebook sitting unused. Taking the easy way out, I put the family onto the laptop with the best of intentions of fixing the old desktop (PII 300, if I remember correctly) or replacing it (yeah, right — like I'm going to get around to doing either one of those).

Well, tonight my hand was forced. The laptop died (I suspect it was the drive controller, since on bootup it said it can't find a hard drive or an optical drive, and it's got one hard drive and two optical drives) and the family was without a computer. The driving force here was the fact that the wife sent an email to our daughter's band director, and expected and needed an immediate response (none so far, in case you're wondering).

I really like Dell computers (and I can't rationally justify it — I just like Dells, so sue me), so I went to their web site to see what kind of computer I could build, what the cost would be and how long it would take to deliver it. I should have known this wouldn't work out, because regardless of the cost, I couldn't find a way to get a computer I wanted to ship before December 28th. Non-starter, dude.

So at 8:30 I'm rushing out the door to Best Buy to fill the Garrett family computer deficiency. Since I'd seen a highly favorable review of the HP 1170n (I'd provide a link, but that powerhouse PC manufacturer HP doesn't have anything on their web site about this computer — yeah, they're gonna go places, mark my words) a while back, I've been looking at it off and on. The big positive it had in its favor was a removable 170 GB hard drive, in addition to the standard 200 GB internal hard drive. I was a little concerned that it only came with 512 MB of RAM — and with RAM especially, more is almost always better.

My conscience required me to do at least a little due diligence, so I started looking around Best Buy's computer section to see what other computers they might have that would meet our needs. In that process, I stumbled across the Gateway 820GM, and to make an already too long story short, I opted for the Gateway. Ultimately, I chose it over the HP because the HP's most attractive feature (the removable 170 GB hard drive) seemed uncompelling in actual use, whereas the Gateway has 1 GB of RAM (compared to the HP's 512 MB). And computer geeks know that more RAM is always better.

So I'm going to be spending the next several days or weeks figuring out how Windows Media Center works, and how I need to upgrade every other piece of electronic equipment to take advantage of all our new capabilities.

Ah yes, making lemonade.

Okay, you can get one of these nifty little Accord hybrids, available later this month:

Or maybe you'd be more inclined to buy this 20' foot long, 9' high, 7+ ton (GVWR 24,999 lbs), inline 6-cylinder diesel, 220 horsepower, 450 lb. ft. torque, 70 gallon diesel tank, air brake operated little sportabout:

I just can't decide. Vehicles today are just so much alike, I have a hard time distinguishing one from another.

Lately, I've become more and more strongly in favor of scrapping the US's current federal income tax system and replacing it with a flat tax. This has been influenced to some degree by posts at both One Hand Clapping and Outside the Beltway that I've read recently. And when I say flat, I mean flat. The only "loophole," if you will, should be an appropriately generous personal exemption, something along the order of $20,000 per adult.

To me, the biggest factor which would make this type of tax system unfair is the huge difference in the cost of living in various parts of the country. Of course, people can move, but it's much harder for those who don't have much money living in, say, New York City, to be able to move to some rural community in Middle America where costs are much lower, but ultimately it's all a matter of priorities. What's more important to you? If you want it badly enough, you can make it happen. And if you just never manage to find a way to make it happen, that's ultimately your decision.

But wait, you ask, how about exemptions for children? Nope. That's your choice to have children. Do we really want folks deciding to have children based on tax benefits? You decide whether or not to have children, and how many. To me, government has no responsibility in this arena.

Next would be the home mortgage exemption or, more precisely, the exemption for the interest paid on home mortgages. Nope. Again, it's your decision on whether or not to buy a house, and how much to pay for it. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

Then there's the exemption for state and local taxes. Doesn't this really mean that that money is actually being taxed twice? Probably, but it's not being taxed twice by the same governmental body. Those taxes serve two different purposes, provide for different services. Also, I'm not really fond of the fact that some of my federal tax dollars are subsidizing governmental services in high-tax states. In our system of government, the states are allowed to make most decisions about what services they provide and how much they're going to tax their citizens to support them. Fine. Just don't ask me to help pay for it when I don't have any say in the matter.

How about exemptions for charitable donations? Nope. I'm big on charities, plus I believe that a lot of the work currently being done by governments should be done instead by charities. But they need to stand on their own. If they convince potential donors of their value, they'll get the donations.

When I say flat, I mean flat, baby!

What it boils down to is my aversion for using tax law as a social engineering tool. We want to promote families, so we give tax breaks for children. We want to support home ownership, so we don't tax you on the interest paid on the mortgage. Bah, I say! We should minimize government's involvement in our lives. Government currently both takes too much from us and gives us too much.

I know my position will generate contempt from both the Left and the Right. If so, I'll choose to interpret that as validating the rightness of my proposal. :) Too much of government today gets into the imposition of morality on the people. A certain amount is unavoidable (criminal laws are all based on moral judgments, after all), but we need to minimize that as much as possible. And a good place to start is with tax law.

Update: Joining in the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Saturday Night Live had a rerun on tonight, and it was the one where Ashlee Simpson was the Musical Guest (or whatever they call it) and her second lip-synch song got messed up. They showed it exactly the same way it happened originally.

Good for them.

Back when the original sixteen men and women were marooned on Pulau Tiga, Survivor captured my attention. The intrigue, the gamesmanship, the alliances, the betrayals — it was all captivating.

As is often the case, though, repetition breeds boredom, and subsequent versions of Survivor became less and less interesting. We're on Survivor 9 now, and you'd think the series could easily have run its course. And that's pretty much how it happened — until I stumbled across Jeff Harrell's The Shape of Days and his weekly reviews of the show. At that point, Survivor completely changed for me.

Every week, Jeff live-blogs each episode (well, he uses TiVo, but still...), and it's as much fun as watching it on TV. No, it's better. Much better. But I think it's best to watch the episode, then read Jeff's post the next day.

I'm loving it. You can catch his latest, Episode 12, here. But even better, go back and start with Week 1, and work your way through the season chronologically. It'll take some time, but it'll be well worth the effort. Seriously.

P.S. It's worth noting that Jeff is an adopted Texan (a recovering Louisianan).

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around. Per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Yes, It's A Clock. No, Your Mom Can't Read It*

It's easy for any self-respecting geek to figure out how to read this clock in a few minutes. Check out the image below for the details. Still don't get it? Then you probably shouldn't buy one, should you? Sure you could wing it and 'approximate' the time based on the position of the sun and act like you can read this clock, but you should probably go get one of these instead.

Computers use on/off switches to tell the time, now you can too! Get one of these puppies and you are on your way to truly becoming one with the binary...

Your Choice of RED LED with a semi-translucent red face or BLUE LED with a silver face.
Size: 3 1/2" x 3 1/2" x 2"
Packaged Weight: 10 oz
Note: Be sure that the line voltage is 120V (US Standard). Clock can be used outside the US with any regular voltage converter.

*OK, some moms can read it. The kind with degrees in computer science. Our bad.

The Washington Post's Jonathan Krim reports that some local governments are considering building high-speed data networks to service their constituents:

For the millions of people who cannot afford high-speed Internet access, some local officials think they've hit on the answer: Build government-owned networks to provide service at rates below what big telecommunications companies charge.

As someone who gained access to broadband Internet at home only a year ago, this sounds like a great idea!

From San Francisco to St. Cloud, Fla., an estimated 200 communities are toying with community-owned networks, sparking a battle with cable and telephone companies over how public, or private, access to the Internet should be.

The companies are lobbying furiously to block such plans, fearful that their businesses would be hurt. Their efforts most recently paid off Tuesday night in Pennsylvania, where a new law bans local governments from creating their own networks without first giving the primary local phone company the chance to provide service.

While I admittedly have a prejudice for business over government, this is starting to sound like a corporate giant is unfairly wielding its influence to bend government action to its will. Naturally, the anti-big business crowd is up in arms about this move.

For [consumer advocates], government has a long history of providing essential public services, such as national highways or electricity in rural areas.

"The Internet...is a true global public utility," said Jeffrey Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy, an advocate for consumer rights online. "We should be trying to provide it for free."

Wait a minute. Free? A governmental body is going to provide a "free" service? Nope, sorry, there ain't no such thing. Now I'm reading the story in a different light. Consumer advocates typically want the government to spend my money on someone else, so let's look at this deal a bit more carefully.

At least, they argue, community networks should be able to give the large companies some competition.

Wha-wha-WHAT? Since when was a role of government to compete with businesses? What kind of warped mind thinks that way? I'm liking this idea less and less.

Harold J. Feld, associate director of the Media Access Project, a consumer-media advocacy group, said a phone or cable company could always come in and provide a wireless network, competing on price and service with any municipal offering.

"But who gets to decide what municipalities can do?" Feld said. "Will it be corporations?"

So let me see if I've got this straight: Mr Feld and his socialist comrades want the government to slip their hands into my pocket, forcibly extract my money, and use it to subsidize a service provided by businesses? To compete with businesses?

And then he throws out the red herring of corporate control of municipalities. Sorry, Mr Feld, your sleight-of-hand (known 'round these parts as "lying") won't wash.

Companies such as Verizon Communications Inc., which helped shape the Pennsylvania law, argue that telecommunications firms would have little incentive to build networks if they have to compete with government-subsidized service.

Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe noted that the company is under state mandate to deploy high-speed access to customers in all of its Pennsylvania territory by 2015.

"If we should be asked to do that, we should be able to make a business of it," he said, and not compete with governments that can borrow money to build out a system more cheaply and can tax residents to pay for the service.

Maybe I'm gullible, or maybe all that Rovian-mind-control during the election campaign has left me vulnerable to evil, corrupt business ploys, but this sounds reasonable to me.

I will grant that there's a problem with spreading broadband access to parts of the country. But the reason we've got broadband "holes" around the country is because the return on the investment required for universal coverage isn't enough to justify the effort. And that fact applies to government as much as it does to business.

Advocates for government-provided Internet service also ignore another fact: especially in the 21st Century, people choose where they live. There are many benefits to living out "in the sticks." There are prices to be paid for those benefits. You can't go around the corner to the store to pick up a dozen eggs. You're going to need to drill a well for your water, and build a septic system to get rid of it after you've used it.

Electricity is a much more vital need than broadband Internet access. So did the farmers and ranchers depend on government to build the infrastructure necessary to deliver electricity to their property? No, they established Rural Electric Cooperatives to pool their resources and work together to get what they needed. Maybe that's an example to follow with the Internet.

And I should point out that the motivation behind some of this effort to get governments involved in providing Internet service is because broadband Internet is too expensive for some folks. Guess what? So are new Hummers, Mercedes, million-dollar homes, vacations in Cannes, and many other things. Dialup service is affordable to just about everyone. It's not nearly as convenient as broadband, but when you don't have much money, you have to deal with what you got. Trust me on this point; I've got plenty of experience deciding how to spend what little money I had in my bank account.

Here's another bit of misdirection to encourage you to support government going into business:

"Just like roads and transportation were keys to our past, a digital infrastructure and wireless technology are keys to our future," Philadelphia Mayor John F. Street said in September when he announced the plan.

No, Mr. Mayor, it's not at all like roads. Roads have existed longer than the human race. They've always been "community property." Having a ubiquitous road system is beyond the capability of businesses, and until relatively recently, there was no feasible way to collect fees for their use. That's why highway infrastructure has developed as a governmental concern. Broadband Internet is nothing like that, other than its value to individuals and society. But just because something is valuable doesn't mean that governments should try to take them over.

Especially if it means they're going to be sticking their hands into my pocket — again.

I'm back from my deer hunting trip in Pennsylvania, and the cupboard is bare.

The weather was warmer than it has been over the past couple of years, and it was thankfully dry (cold rain = miserable hunter). I only laid eyes on three deer, but they were behind some thick scrub and at such a distance that I couldn't even tell if there was a buck in the group. Oh, well...

One amusing event happened as a friend was talking on the radio about how you could hear the deer crashing over the hill behind us for quite a while before they actually got within sight. Just as he finished the sentence, I heard some crashing through the leaves coming over the hill behind me. Just as I started turning around to look, I heard an exceptionally loud crack, and then I saw the back side of a black bear about fifteen yards away, running full tilt back down the hill. I obviously scared it with my blaze orange presence before it had the opportunity to scare me back.

So now I have grunches of emails and blogs to catch up on. I expect my blogging frequency to gradually increase over the next couple of days.

Or not. You know how fickle I can be.