Recently in Social-Political Category

Thank goodness, Internet Taxation moratorium passed, versions in both the House and the Senate.

Ok, this article really pissed me off:  Water pistol prizes draw a sharp rebuke

The basic point is, a city councilman (Democrat) was working as a lifeguard at a pool, when he found a 9-year old boy that had a water gun toy.  This councilman took the toy, and asked where he got it.  The boy replied it was a prize he won from the town libraries' reading contest.

So, from a big box of mixed prizes, a little boy wins a water gun, and the city council man is "up in arms" about it.  Somehow he believes it's ill-conceived, and that we must do so much to stop horrors like this.

The worst part is the article has the director of the library apologizing for the "mistake".

How can we have progressed to where we have to feel bad because a little boy got a prize that he probably really liked.  And from a reading program at that.  Remember folks, the lesson today is that it must be those toy guns that are the cause of violence, not people's choices...

America is a country built on breaking the law.  It's a fact, just look at how our country formed, why we broke free, and how it was possible.  Smuggling was a key industry.  I had a teacher years ago that harped about how this ethos has continued on to make us what we are today.  It's why we feel ok breaking laws like speeding, and more.  But it's also what I think causes so many people to find it easy to try and find ways to circumvent our tangled laws.  One that I look into a lot is what ways people will find to get around the convoluted Sarbanes-Oxley act, and also for campaign finance laws, such as McCain-Feingold.

Two examples of this that came up recently that got me to the point of writing this article:

First: Bundling Issues .  As reported in the linked WSJ article, some groups are using a refunding scam to get around the laws and donate more than the legal amount to their preferred candidate. From the article:

When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband's boss for the donations. "It wasn't personal money. It was all corporate money," Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. "I don't even like Hillary. I'm a Republican."

Second: Hsocking Hsu Secrets Revealed!

As people dig into the background of the now famous Hsu, we find out all sorts of dirty little secrets about how he's been getting money to different people.  Some in ways related to the previous article.  What really ticks me off is after people discovered the Jack Abramoff scandal, some representatives were run out (in many ways I agree).  Yet based on party lines, some people were completely kept clean (Sen. Reid for example).  Hsu has donated *as much* to Democrats as Abramoff did to republicans (and 99.96% of his monies to Democrats alone), and yet they seem to be unscathed, pitching Hsu as a standalone donor.  What is the difference between the two?  Why can prominant Democrats be seen as clean from the money, when someone simply from another party be considered dirty?  Loopholes, fair for the victimization party, unfair for the others.  (They both are guilty IMHO).

The following message just came in from one of my teams' sponsors, Special Ops Paintball (Spec Ops).  This company has done a lot for paintball in general, and huge amounts for the sport in Utah.

Several months ago, Spec Ops bought land in Tooele County that it planned to use as a commercial paintball field. The Spec Ops property is over seven hundred (700) acres, and Spec Ops is exploring the possibility of developing a destination paintball field that would be the finest scenario paintball field west of the Mississippi. Unfortunately, the neighbors have petitioned Tooele County to ban ALL paintball fields unless they are located in commercially zoned areas. If the proposed amendment passes, not only will it scuttle Spec Ops plans for the existing land, but it might just keep all paintball fields out of Tooele County.

The Tooele County Commission is holding a public hearing on the proposed amendment to limit paintball in Tooele County. The public hearing will be held on August 21, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. in the City of Tooele at 47 South Main Street. This is your chance to be heard by the Tooele County Commissioners, the very people that will vote on whether or not to limit your access to paintball. Since it is a public hearing, anyone can attend the meeting and tell the Tooele County Commission just what they think about limited access to paintball fields. So if you'd like to keep paintball thriving here in Utah, we suggest that you turn up at the public hearing and voice your support.

We hope to see you there!

Special Ops Paintball

This news is just scary.  A similar thing happened a couple of years ago in Saratoga Springs, when city commissioners rezoned the land just to shut down Showdown, Pegleg paintball's field.  With that action they forced a up-and-coming business to give up major assets, and they also shut down Utah Valley's only paintball field.   Will Tooele join with other cities such as Draper to shut down paintball, either simply as recreation, or as a business?  Face it people, paintball is now the second largest "extreme" sport in the nation, it's big business.  The only reason I've ever been to Tooele is for paintball. I've seen mock-ups of some of the plans for the Tooele field, and believe me, they are telling the truth about it being the finest scenario field around.  Given the chance to build this field, people truly will come not only from across the state, but absolutely the country, just to play this field.  Don't be idiots Tooele, this would be a huge boon to your city and county.  Don't mess this up.

Thanks to Levi for this link from ars technicha today.  The link tells of people believing they can get the Pirate Party, started in the US, beginning with Utah of all places. 

The founder of the original Swedish Pirate Party spoke at OSCON this year (link) which explained very well the basic premise of the party, and made several very valid points.  I think he was pretty straightforward about the fact that even if they didn't win, they at least caused other parties to assume their copyright stance, or evaluate what they had.

Now frankly I see the chances of the Pirate Party in the US as basically nil.  Besides the mental and now largely legal lock in to two parties (there's a big soapbox to get on), the whole "Pirate" theme for a political party would be shunned by so many clueless folks.  With that said, I do hope it can help get the message out.  Who knows, maybe old Orrin Hatch could pay attention, he's got plenty to learn :)  Wonder how long until we get this discussed on the PLUG list.

Utah Pirate Party

House Resolution 1022 Back with a vengeance.

Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is out for blood as she has reintroduced the so call "Assault Weapons Ban", which she says is "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes." So why do I care? Well most friends wouldn't wonder that, but I thought I'd list a few things out.

First off, let's see what an assault rifle is. This Blogger gives a nice little breakdown of the what the bill defines as an assault weapon. Basically, the main definitions include a lot of cosmetic details that people see in movies, and think must be important for a gun to be dangerous. Does the Rep introducing the bill even understand? View this video to find out . That's right, the lady admits she doesn't even know what the barrel shroud is, and admits the bill isn't the best.

As for pistol grips on a rifle, I get really upset. I enjoy having this style of grip, why? Because my normal trigger finger was shattered as a teenager, and I have less movement with it, so I fire with a different finger, and a standard rifle inhibits my ability to shoot. So should I make an argument that this bill is anti-disability? In a way it is, because part of the text of the law goes on to describe that merely the existence of a kit to modify a gun to have these features makes that gun banned. That's right, if you own a Ruger 10/22 (one of the most popular rifles ever produced) you will never be able to sell it, because of the existence of barrel shrouds, folding stocks, foregrips, and because it has an evil detachable magazine.

Many people contest that this ban should be ok, because what person would want a gun like that? What use does it have? Actually, quite a bit. The law is so broad that it bans guns of every type. Even your most common Scout range .22, to the most popular hunting and competition target rifles are included. Every semi-automatic shotgun, most non revolver pistols.

This bill would ban:
* Every gun that was modified to comply with the Clinton ban
* Most of the most popular hunting rifle styles
* Guns with "any characteristic that can function as a grip." (lawyers will have fun with that)
* WWI and WWII era carbines, unless rendered inoperable
* Any gun the attorney general claims is not "Sporting" (yes, up to the current attorney general to decide, no elected oversight)

Any of these guns (the vast majority that exist) could cause a penalty of "at least 10 years" in jail, followed by fines, confiscation of property, etc. Just being charged for violation would cause all weapons to be confiscated, without return!
Please read up on the law, and some resources about it here, and follow up with your representative.

Why is it the people most champion civil rights seem to be the first to want to remove your ability to keep them?
--------

It will come as no surprise to those that know me that I am not exactly a supporter of Hugo Chavez, the current leader of Venezuela. The man believes himself to be a new Simon Bolivar, and is a very outspoken critic of George Bush, often making extreme claims of how George Bush is planning some form of attack against his country. The man often makes claims of how America is a failing democracy and that only he is leading "the people" in a new leftist revolution.

However, for a good example of how he controls his "People's Movement", check out this article discussing Chavez's repression of speech

This is the same guy who felt it was his right to smack-talk the US while in New York. Of course he was here with one of his other well know democratic leaders, Ahmadinejad.

AARRGGHH... IDIOTS!
--------

"I'd rather go hunting with Cheney than driving with a Kennedy"
--------

So the white house is looking for a new Press Secretary, let me suggest the best candidate for the job, Ann Coulter

Can you imagine just how much fun that would be? Most media outlets have been sending the snottiest, most annoying whiners to review the white house for years, turning the average question into more of a political grandstand than useful information gathering. Imagine with Ann to give the responses it would level things out for the current administration, and make the session worthwhile to people besides those in attendance.
--------

As all the local geeks are aware, Pete Ashdown is running against the incumbent Orrin Hatch for US Senate. It's not like every local group hasn't been chatting about this for a while. While really wanting to vote for him, I can't be positive yet, as I still have questions for him. But that's one of the great things it seems about Pete, not only is he willing to talk to geeks like us, he's going out of his way to do it. He's been scheduling with every Linux group in Utah, and making time to answer real questions (yes, many extra bonus points there, and he already had a lot).

One thing we'd really like though, is the chance to actually get a similar discussion with Senator Hatch. We geeks represent a group that has a lot of questions about decisions he's been promoting, and it just seems fair to give him a chance to own up to why he's been saying what he has. But how to we get him to talk to us, and even better, with Pete Ashdown at the same time. If anybody has any contacts, the local LUG leaders would like to arrange a multi-group meeting, which could bring in the numbers that could interest them. Pete is more than willing to talk with us, is Orrin?

Personally, I would have really enjoyed it if Steve Urquhart had stayed in the race, although I can see how he would have had trouble kicking Orrin out of the Primary. But Pete has a lot going in his favor in my opinion, and it would take some strong opinions on major issues to be able to push my vote back towards Orrin.