Yeah. Guns again.

Here we go folks. You know, over the past couple of years, as much as I would like to live near my family, I could never live in N.Y. Between the proposed sugar taxes, the proposed salt ban and the ridiculous tax rates, I just can't do it. In that vein, the wonderful Mayor of NYC has seen fit to pool the firepower of a group of other mayors from around the country to campaign for a ban on the sale of weapons to suspected terrorists. How is the determination of your status as a "suspected terrorist" made? Great question. If you can find a single reference to any concrete criteria as to what defines a "suspected terrorist," then you are a better student of law than I. Though since I have never actually studied law in any way shape or form, it shouldn't be much of a challenge. (I also didn't spend 1/8th of a million dollars on a law degree. *cough* *cough*) I did not sit here and cross-reference this thing with the other pieces of legislation that it proposes to modify. Again I feel the need to point out that I am NOT a legal scholar, a legal professional or in any way an expert on how the Federal government can screw you. My opinions are based on what I read, and placed in the proper context, which I have neither the time, nor the inclination to put them into, they might not be that bad. If you are so inclined, then please feel free to cross reference and post your comments below.

Here is a link to the proposed legislation on the Govtrack site including a summary of the text, the full text, past actions and current status on the proposed legislation.

The bill is Senate bill 1317. A.K.A. ‘Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009’

Seriously? Do you really need to indicate the terrorists are "dangerous?" I guess they need to in order to distinguish them from the terrorists who show up at your home and fold your laundry. Or the ones who come to our work and give people punch and pie. Or the ones that show up at busy commercial areas and hug bunnies. *sigh*

My personal favorites sections are:

The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General--

(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism;

I am going to "Glenn Beck" you now. That is to say that I am going to give you the most extreme and ridiculous example. Have you put gas in your car this week? Can you prove that that gas that you purchased did not come from a country that sponsors terrorism? More importantly can you prove that the money that you spent did not in some way make it directly into the hands of an organization that, in turn, purchased weapons, training or information that was used in a terrorist act? Congratulations. You could now be labeled a terrorist.

Now your natural response to this would be, as would mine, "That's ridiculous. I'm an American citizen. I don't have to prove my innocence, the state has to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of my peers." Hold on to your hats folks, because this is where things get "interesting."

(g) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 923(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘However, if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(3) or (e)(1)(C), any information upon which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner, if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.’.

(2) SUMMARIES- Section 923(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following: ‘With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.

Did you catch the title of that section? Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information. That's right. They don't have to tell you a God blessed thing. In part (1), even if you drag them into court, they can slap a label of "National Security" on it and you don't get to see a thing. Part (2) lets them give the judge summarized and redacted documentation to make their case, so that the JUDGE doesn't even necessarily get to see the information used to make the determination that you should be prevented from purchasing a firearm. I am not a lawyer, but I know the words "may, might and shall," are VERY different from "must, will and shall." I could be misinterpreting the intended/legal implications of Part (2). Please feel free to point out my ignorance in the comments.

The lone bright spot of this legislation is that the the accused or the court can petition for the judge, and only the judge, to view the un-redacted documents, and determine if they are a fairly represented by the redacted documents in use in the courtroom.

(b) ... Upon request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.

Did you catch the rub? Even if the judge sees something in the un-redacted document that the judge would normally overturn the determination of the Attorney General, the judge CANNOT consider that information in the rendering of his verdict.

The stuff above about firearms? Yeah. Ditto that for explosives. I know, I know, "But why do we care if someone can buy explosives? What possible reason could someone have for owning a hand grenade?" OK. Is a firecracker an explosive? "Of course not. You couldn't use that to commit an act of terrorism." Really? The core of the failed device in Times Square that was supposed to initiate the reaction in the main explosive charge was... wait for it... a couple of M-88 firecrackers purchased at a "Phantom Fireworks" in Central PA. Thankfully the guy was a moron and bought underpowered legal fireworks (instead of their much more powerful illegal counterpart) and used crappy, substandard fertilizer to commit an illegal act that was going to end dozens of innocent lives.

Anyway, I don't want to bore you any further. I am just going to post what I sent to my representatives. If you are so moved, you can use it too. If not, you can make your own. If you don't care enough to send them a message, then be prepared to live with the consequences of your silence.

I should mention that I utilize the "No Fly" list as my litmus test. You may want to alter that in some form as the "No Fly" list is not specifically mentioned and you may, or may not know someone why was actually put on the "No Fly" list, so that part may not be applicable.

Representative:

I have recently heard about legislation that is being proposed in the Senate (Senate bill 1317) that would prevent law abiding American citizens from purchasing firearms. The test for being denied this right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you are on the "No Fly" list after, in theory, having been labeled as a terrorist. The process for being added to this list is a complete and utter mystery. I personally know a person who was added to this list. He had never committed a felony. He had never committed a misdemeanor. He had never uttered a seditious word. He had never done anything in the entirety of his life that would indicate that he was a danger to anyone, except while driving a car. He only found out that he was on the list when he was asked by his boss to take a flight to a business conference. With the relative ease and capriciousness that someone can be added to the "No Fly" list, the thought of it being the deciding factor in who can purchase a firearm borders on the obscene. Removing a felon's right to own firearms is acceptable to me. The accused is tried in a court of law, he is given due process, he gets to face his accuser, and the burden of proof is on the state. There is no such process involved in the proposed method. Anyone who would vote to authorize some nameless, faceless, unaccountable person/entity to restrict the rights of an American citizen, is someone who does not deserve the honor of representing those citizens. At one point, the citizenry that took up arms against the French monarchy were labeled terrorists, people who rose up against the British monarchy were labeled terrorists. We are the descendants of terrorists. And those same terrorists enshrined in the Bill of Rights the right of every American citizen to keep and bear arms. I hope that if this affront to our rights, by some horrific mistake, makes it out of the Senate and to the House of Representatives, that you will have the good sense and strength of character to stop this bill before it is passed to the President.

Senator:

I have recently heard about legislation that is being proposed in the Senate (Senate bill 1317) that would prevent law abiding American citizens from purchasing firearms. The test for being denied this right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you are on the "No Fly" list after, in theory, having been labeled as a terrorist. The process for being added to this list is a complete and utter mystery. I personally know a person who was added to this list. He had never committed a felony. He had never committed a misdemeanor. He had never uttered a seditious word. He had never done anything in the entirety of his life that would indicate that he was a danger to anyone, except while driving a car. He only found out that he was on the list when he was asked by his boss to take a flight to a business conference. With the relative ease and capriciousness that someone can be added to the "No Fly" list, the thought of it being the deciding factor in who can purchase a firearm borders on the obscene. Removing a felon's right to own firearms is acceptable to me. The accused is tried in a court of law, he is given due process, he gets to face his accuser, and the burden of proof is on the state. There is no such process involved in the proposed method. Anyone who would vote to authorize some nameless, faceless, unaccountable person/entity to restrict the rights of an American citizen, is someone who does not deserve the honor of representing those citizens. At one point, the citizenry that took up arms against the French monarchy were labeled terrorists, people who rose up against the British monarchy were labeled terrorists. We are the descendants of terrorists. And those same terrorists enshrined in the Bill of Rights the right of every American citizen to keep and bear arms. I hope that you will have the good sense and strength of character to stop this bill before it is passed to the House of Representatives.

Teabagging to randomness

Probably should get this out of the way. If you want to know what "teabagging" is go here. This is why liberals like to refer to anyone who identifies themselves with the "Tea Party" movement as a "Teabagger." They find it quite funny. Hell, even I do.

Here is the problem though. I don't know that I am a teabagger. I certainly see some of their points. I agree that the government spends too much money and that they should work on fixing the spend to debt ratio. I think that they need to reevaluate their priorities.

I am not happy with the way the government is in spending my money. I am not happy with how much of my money they are taking. I am not happy about the fact that they are forcing me to carry "health insurance". I am not happy that they want to legislate to me how and what I should eat. I am not happy with the way that the government wants to punish me for lifestyle choices I may make. I am not happy with the choice to bail out financial institutions with my money because they are too big to fail and allow them to merge with institutions they decided NOT to save to get even BIGGER. I am not happy that federally backed mortgage institutions crapped out a bunch of loans to people who were not likely to be able to pay them back. I am not happy that the government solution to a faltering economy is to just print out more money, and more money, and more money. I am not happy that our government, in the face of a massive debt has decided that the best way to solve the problem is to borrow money in orders of magnitude more from countries that don't really like us that much. I don't like the fact that a government entity can come into my home, tell me to leave, and pay me a fraction of my home's value so that they can make room for a new strip mall "for the good of the community."

Let me be as clear as I can. I believe that we need a federal government. I believe that the federal government has, as its sworn duty, the obligation to provide for the safety, personal and financial, of us as citizens. I believe that the state governments exist as a check to the federal government and they are there to manage the day to day activities that affect our daily lives. I believe that there are well meaning people at all levels of government who genuinely think that they are doing things in the best way possible. I think that many of these government employees that serve in all of our forms of government are good people with good morals and in some cases a genuine desire to help people. Unfortunately for them, they are not the ones who make the headlines.

I believe there are some baaaad apples. I believe, regardless of why they became involved in government, they are only looking out for themselves. They seek to increase their wealth at the expense of others. They seek to expand their power at the cost of others rights. I believe that they have to be stopped.

I am not declaring that all democrats or liberals are socialists and that they are completely wrong. I think they make some valid points. I am not saying that all republicans or conservatives or, for that matter, libertarians are right. Neither side is right. I don't believe that all matters are black and white. Life is not binary. Everybody's opinion has value. I get really tired of watching "debates" about issues between people. It has gotten SO much worse since the pseudo-anonymity of the internet has come into the equation. At this stage of the game, exchanges go like this.

Person1: I think blah blah blah.
Person2: I think halb halb halb
Person1: How can you possibly think that. You don't agree with me, therefore you are an idiot.
Person2: Ditto, and your momma dresses you funny.

The debates are often filled with hypocrisy. Example courtesy of Rachel Maddow.

She ran a segment on how the tea party movement is full of hypocrites citing some good examples. People holding signs saying that government needs to stay out of people's lives while wearing a tee-shirt that says "Keep your hands off my social security." The hypocrisy was indeed staggering. The government needs to stay out of my life, but they better keep sending that check. Or the example that most of the protests, at least the well publicized ones, taking place in federally managed parks. Or the examples of people complaining that the government managed public transportation system was not handling the needs posed by the additional burden of the protesters. It is really quite entertaining. I believe you should check it out here.

I see her point. I even agree with her to an extent, but here's the problem. Why is it hypocritical to look at a situation where you have been conditioned that the government is going to take care of you in your old age, find out that by every measure of every economist, that the programs designed to do this are going to be bankrupt within your lifetime, possibly within the next decade, and be upset that the government, who has grossly mismanaged these programs is getting ready to start some more? Why is it hypocritical to look at a situation, evaluate the situation based on acquired knowledge and decide that the same thing that has been done before and failed, probably is not the best course of action? Changing your mind in the face of evidence is not hypocrisy. It is normal. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, all people who gave people a new perspective and changed world views. Nobody thought that the people who looked at their new information and changed their minds were hypocrites. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein. That one is a personal favorite.

Do I think that Medicare should have been started? No. Do I think that Social Security should have been started? No...Regardless of if I what I think, they were and theree are a lot of people who have planned their life around these programs being there. I currently pay into the biggest Ponzi scheme going. I am currently paying into Social Security and it will likely be bankrupt by the time I could collect. I have absolutely no faith that I will see one dime from the program.

I don't like that when my desire to spend money and I don't have enough, I have to change my expectations. The government either, takes more money from me, borrows money from other sources, which ends up getting paid back with... my money, just prints more. I don't think that if I wanted to spend money, that my boss would just pony up more dough for me to by a new XBOX360. I am also pretty sure that if I were to borrow a bunch of money from a bank and then tell my boss that he needed to pay me more money so I could pay that debt after I let the debt fester for a few years, my boss would tell me to go pound sand. I am also pretty sure that if I wanted a new XBOX360 and decided to print out some money to buy it, that the Secret Service would have something to say to me. I'm not asking the government to shrivel up and blow away, but I AM asking the government to do what I would be expected to do if I didn't have enough funds to operate the way I wanted to. CUT YOUR SPENDING.

The government failing (specifically the SEC) to keep track of the financial institutions that created and sold these risky financial packages that trashed economy, infuriates me. Then instead instead of letting these financial institutions fail because of their shoddy business practices, we bail them out, with my money, and allow them to grow even further by acquiring more large institutions. Then instead of tackling the necessary financial reform and telling people to live within their means, the government instead tells the banks to lend people more money, saddling them with more debt, and ignores financial regulation reforms and instead drives health care reform that, depending on which polls you look at, most people don't want. Where are the priorities? How is capitalism supposed to function if you never let anyone fail? Not everyone gets to win all the time. You take risk you fail.

I'm pissed. I don't like what the government is doing. I don't like that my speaking out against the government could get me labeled as a right-wing violent extremist militia nutcase. Anyone that holds a sign with Obama in Hitler regalia is some sort of violent extremist. Holding signs of Bush in Hitler regalia was OK though. I don't like that I have to sit back and think about someone else's feelings before I say something because I might "offend" someone. I know that any of you who knows me can't really believe that I think before I speak and that those thoughts involve someone's feelings, but it does happen. It has to. That is how real discourse is achieved. I also don't like that other people can't seem to do this. Again, I blame the pseudo-anonymity of the internet on this. Hyper-reactivity to contrary opinions, not just political (Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux anyone) combined with this pseudo-anonymity contributes to a lack of accountability and some serious "dick" behavior. You're labeled as an idiot, or a nutcase. It can never end up as, "I see what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree." It makes it impossible to achieve compromise. Again, I don't see the world as black and white. Compromise is necessary. We are human beings and we have to live together. You don't like my views? Fine. You have yours, I have mine. Live and let live you tree-hugging hippie communist retard.

Yeah. I know it kind of went all over the place. Suck it. I'm tired and it is late. I had to get some of this stuff out of my head. Hopefully I can get some sleep now.

Out of Work

Well, I have been out of work for a couple of weeks now. The bad news is I am still unemployed, the good news is I qualified for unemployment. Yay. We are in money saving mode now. Already canceled one relatively inexpensive trip. May be skipping another. Pulled the kids out of daycare for most of the week. Just in two days now so we can hold their spots for my inevitable return to work.

Let me tell you there are a couple of motivators for my desire to return to work quickly.

Money - Obviously money is a plus. Money lets you do things. Doing things is fun. I would like to do things again.

Pride - I do not like being a drain on the economy. I like to be a productive member of society. It actually hurts my pride to think that I am not contributing to my family's welfare. I can imagine for people that are looking for jobs and there are none to be had for months, that is can be quite frustrating. I have a new sense of empathy for the unemployed who are diligently looking for work.

Kids - I love my kids, but if I have to keep watching them 3 days a week, I may shoot myself. My weekends are no longer Saturday and Sunday, but Tuesday and Thursday, the days my kids go to school. I'm not Superdad. I consider the day a success if they survive relatively intact.

Boredom - Working on the "Honey-Do" list is nice, but a good chunk of the list requires motivation #1.

The good news is that today I was contacted to schedule a phone interview for Monday or Tuesday. Hopefully it will go well. The problem with the job hunt is that I have always had this minor inferiority complex. Always thinking that I am not good enough to fill a position. I normally have to have demonstrated to me that I am indeed as smart or smarted that a lot of the other people out there who are also looking for the same positions. I also need to remind myself that I have been doing this for 11 years now. I also have to remind myself that even if I do not have a specific skill set that is being requested that I ACTUALLY AM smart enough to pick up just about anything that would be required. The problem is, how do you prove that to someone in an interview, when they hear that a dozen times a day.

Another problem is that I hate interviewing. I haven't interviewed a lot. Especially in the last 5 years. Now I have to re-learn a skill set that never was a strong suit to begin with. It is basically selling yourself to another person. I am not a sales person. Ask one of my previous bosses, he can vouch for my sales skills. That combined with the inferiority complex makes it tough for me to sell myself. I have got to overcome that.

Privacy vs. Anonymity

There has been an ongoing legal battle regarding a blog called "Skanks in NYC". The blog was removed from Google when Google was sued to find out who ran the blog. The Plaintiff won and now the name of the blogger has been released. Story here http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43718/98/

The person who wrote the blog is now in the process of looking at her legal options for suing Google over her invasion of privacy.

Seriously? Can you really claim that you were looking for privacy when you are posting your thoughts for the whole world to see?

I think that what she was looking for was anonymity, not privacy. Anonymity allows you to make comments that you would never make to a person's face. Anonymity allows you to avoid the repercussions of what you say. Is anonymity a right? If it is a right, is it a right you can expect when you are putting yourself out there in the public eye spouting off on topics that would normally expose you to defamation/liable (not a lawyer so sue me) lawsuits if you were to put your name on something?

I believe that what a person does in their own home is their business, but if you step outside it becomes the community's business. Walk around naked in your own house, we have no problems. I don't even care if you don't have the shades drawn because I shouldn't be peeping in your windows. But you step outside (and are not hot) we're going to have a conversation (if you're hot I'm likely to make as little noise as possible).

Privacy may be a right, but is anonymity? As always, your thoughts are welcome.

MS on the receiving end

Check out the story below. Go ahead. I'll wait.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Step-one-in-the-process-Microsoft-files-appeal-of-Word-injunction/1250694380

Did you read it? If not' it's OK.

Briefly, MS has been issued an injunction, that in a couple months time, they will be unable to sell Word 2003 and Word 2007 (Word 2010 is not affected by this case). The good news is that i4i (eye for eye - funny) says they are not planning on suing anyone other than Microsoft. At least that is what they are saying now. We'll see how this goes if their case holds up.

I have been reading a couple of posts about this topic and I am sad to see that a lot of people are of the opinion that since Microsoft makes so much money on the Office suite that they should get a pass. Wow. How do I even respond to that. I"m sorry, but if they have a valid case, how can you just let it go? Would it suck to not have any updates for Office 2K3 or 2K7? Yes, but you can't just ignore the law because they were making buckets of money off of it.

By the same token, as much as I would find it chuckle worthy if the verdict is not overturned, I can't imagine the wholesale chaos that will envelope the user community from students to IT support staff to deal with the fallout of it. Speaking as an IT guy, you can't necessarily just change your platform on a whim. It took us months of testing to get sign off on moving from Office 2000 to Office 2007. We had to modify some of our apps to use the new file formats and that took time. Where I work is NOT going to adopt an Open Source solution (don't ask me to explain it as I don't understand it myself). That would mean we sit unsupported until Office2010 comes out (hopefully a rush put on my MS, but not TOO much of a rush) and then we scramble to adopt.

It looks to me like MS has a couple of options.

1) Pay some royalty fee and settle the case
2) Issue a patch that prevents the allegedly infringing behavior in Word.
3) Rush 2010 and offer a free upgrade so as not to piss off their customers by leaving them without support
4) Win the appeal
5) Pay the fine and just let the chips fall where they may

MS, as described in the article, is working on the appeal. I am honestly kind of torn as to which way I want this to go. The jealous douche-bag in me wants MS to lose just to take them down a peg or too, but the IT guy in me wants to see MS win because otherwise things could get VERY ugly for me at work.

In Fairness

Below is a link to a transcript of one of the town hall's conducted by President Obama. In it he sort of answers the question of how a private insurer is supposed to compete with a "public option." He acknowledges that if it is a government organization he can see where there would be significant difficulty, but points out that Blue Cross/Blue Shield are non-profits as well and that for profits are still doing well. There are plenty in the insurance industry, my wife included, that would say otherwise with regards to both BC/BS being non-profit and with the assertion that the for-profits are doing well, but I can't say as I have no information. He also mentions an example of private businesses that compete with the government and are kinda beating its pants off (UPS/FedEx vs. USPS). It's food for thought but really light on specifics. It kinda boils down to "We need to be really careful in how we structure this thing."

I have not finished reading it, but plan to tonight.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/08/obamas_health_care_town_hall_i.html

It's my way or the highway.

It seems like civil discourse in the modern era is a relegated to what I used to do on the playground in the first grade.

"Blue is pretty."

"Pink is pretty."

"You're a big stupid head."

"You're a bigger stupid head."

If you disagree with me you are obviously an uninformed flame-troll put here by the (insert opposition)'s lobbyists to fear monger and scare the other poor unintelligent people out there who are not as intelligent as I obviously am because I cannot possibly be wrong and if you're disagreeing with me in any small way, then your opinion cannot possibly have any merit.

Should say that I am conservative by nature. Don't like the government telling me what to do. Think people should take personal responsibility for their own situation.

That being said, both sides do this. Of course Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly do. So does Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. So does the President and every member of Congress. Obama and most other Democrats have said that they believe that if people just had all of the facts they would fall in line. Republicans say if you knew all the information you would run screaming for the hills. It's just an extension of the same I'm right and you're stupid argument you had in grade school. The difference now is that instead of a stupid head, you are "uninformed" or "un-American." We're all Americans. We all have the right to disagree with each other. We have the right to voice our opinions. You also have the right to ignore my opinions, but if you are an elected official, you ignore them at your political peril. I remember someone mentioning that "We need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable." Where did that go?

Compounding the problem is that nobody seems to have the ability to compromise. There is no give and take anymore. Almost everything that has been done on this legislation has been along strict party lines. Now with a Deomcratic majority, the thought is if we can't get the Republican side to vote for this package, instead of compromising we will enact a procedure that was intended to deal with the federal budget and only require a simple majority to get it through. Sad.

Sadly, politics as usual. This is why people don't want to vote.

It is with great pleasure that I can say that I have a friend that while I tend to disagree with on a significant number of issues, we can still meet up and have a good time together and not let the fact that we have differences of opinion prevent us from enjoying each others company. I hope he enjoys the spirited debates as much as I do. :P You should check out his site sometime.

http://mofyc.blogspot.com/

Pat A.