What should the limits be?

Where should the limits of free speech be drawn? Specific threats of violence including death threats I do not believe should be protected. They should be placed in the category of inciting violence. But what about symbols? At what point do vague references become inciting action.  According to this article, placing target sites on someone are what are meant by threats to law makers.

Dem planning bill that would outlaw threats to lawmakers - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room 

I do believe that what happened in AZ was a tragedy, but I'm not about to credit the actions of a mad man to the Tea Party affiliated web site.  If the word "target" would be outlawed, I'm sure that whatever word used to mean "focus efforts on" could be potentially construed to mean the euphemism for "target" and thereby also be brought under the umbrella of the ban.  If that were to be the case, then someone, presumably the courts, would have to discern the author's (or speaker's) intent. Something which the courts already struggle with.  That then leaves a ban being either a broadly covered unconstitutional infringement on 1st Amendment rights or a selectively enforced ban based on the political leanings of the enforcers or jurists.

Hence, I would lean toward no ban. Not that I don't want to prevent such tragedies that occured, but rather that I find the proposed solution to be more harmful than the problem. But I'm open to suggestions.  

Is This Really Happening?

While it is a little premature for me to be posting this, since I haven't researched it yet, if any of this is true, it is a little disturbing.

I'm going to be looking into this further. If anyone has evidence that this is happening, please let me know.

Asking for Your Opinion

Readers, what say you: is this a retreat or not? If it is, what kind?
From National Review: The U.S.’s Disorganized Retreat

War?

One has to wonder if Raúl Reyes is the modern Archduke Ferdinand. This You Tube video claims to be a video of the operation (Operatión Fenix) in which the Colombian military killed the FARC member.

With sensationalist healdines like that on the Economist web site (Rumours of War) it is easy to jump to conclusions. (Spanish Language TV report)

Whether a real confrontation or just saber rattling results, I do not know. What I do know is that there is real comfort knowing what lies ahead.

9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

- Matthew 24:9-14

Huckabee on Science

I like this clip of Huckabee.  He won't be President -- but I like his views on this topic.

Star Wars Guide to the Candidates

Wicket Huckabee

Wicket	Huckabee

Obi-ron Paul-obi

Click here for the full guide.

Californians May Decide If Winner Still Takes All

 I really like this proportionality rule being proposed.  I can assure you that my vote is ready to be cast in support of this proposition.  Although we don't have a direct election of the President (I'm all in favor of that, but it would take a Constitutional amendment), I do think that the voices of thousands of people get drowned out by the winner take all system.  Why should all of the votes be cast for one person who wins only by 50% plus one?  This is how you end up with a presidential winner who didn't get the most votes. 

Well, that plus the electoral college that favors small states.  A voter in Wyoming has more power than one from California.  Wyoming has 3 votes for 450,000 people (6.667 x 10^-6 votes per person).  California has 53 votes for 35,000,000 people (1.514 x 10^-6 votes per person).  Doing the math, the voter in Wyoming counts for 4.40 times more than the voter from California.  That means that a Californian has to get four other people to vote with him/her in order to be equal to the vote of the person from Wyoming (are they called Wyomingans?) .

It needs to be one person, one vote.  That's the fair (and currently un-American) way.

Community College Politics

I attended Pasadena City College, lately famous due to Kerry's bad joke, and served in the student government. I saw many things I disagreed with - nothing in particular was wrong, either ethically or legally - I happened to be on the other side of the political spectrum as some (almost most) of my colleagues. I spoke out and made a difference. As was my duty - I was elected to do so.

But, as someone who served a few years ago in PCCs student government, I can say that the actions of Orange Coast College's student government are nothing new. Our meetings (unlike the Board of Trustees) did not include the pledge of allegiance. A few of the student body VPs had Che Guevara T-Shirts on display in their office.

The trouble was not that the students were less educated, like Adam Carolla likes to say. The trouble is that most of the students at the school could care less about the student government and that conservatives are vacating the area. Out of 30,000 students we would get no more than 700 to vote. I happened to be one of only three conservatives who served in student government - and the other two decided not to run again. Without regular people caring to run or vote, "radicals" will be the only ones running the show.

If anyone needs convincing that not enough people run, this year's PCC student government only had two positions that had more than one candidate. At least when I ran, I had two opponents.

To be fair, most community college students are there to get an educuation and get on with their life. Taking the extra time to serve in student government is expensive - it does affect your grades and ability to take enough classes in a timely manner.

So why the blog on Community College Politics?

I'm really glad that we had several people voting in this mid-term election. I didn't vote (because I didn't register in time for overseas balloting -- I was busy and lost track of time, I know I know, poor excuse) so I can't say much about turnout. I can, however, say that for all those people who are disappointed with the candidates running for office, perhaps they can evaulate if THEY want to run. While the money surely is an issue, perhaps voters would like to see more choices for candidates. I'm sure you could even run a grass-roots-style campaign in '08 that would be based on leaflets/pamphlets that direct voters to internet blogs where they could interact with the candidate and help decide what issues to campaign on.

The minimum ages for national positions are: 25 for the House, 30 for the Senate, and 35 for the President (and native-born).

Pastel California and Air Shower

Pastel California

A LA Times editorial on why California is not Blue or Red, but a pastel mix that is similar to the NRO article from yesterday's post.

Air Shower

An Australian company, while not the first, offers an ingenious way to save fresh water -- use less by taking an "air shower."

California and the 2006 Election

Some may be licking their wounds from this election and others may be celebrating their gains. One thing is clear, lots of people turned out to vote for a mid-term election. That is a very good thing.

I saw two very good articles on NRO that I thought should be read. One is The Left Coast’s Right and the other is Marriage Wins.

Enjoy.

Stocks, 3D Maps, & Elections

Stocks
So I've finally found a brokerage with decent fees and no minimum purchase. I'll share which one after I can get credit for recommending someone. I'd get $50 if you signed up, but I have to wait 30 days before I can recommend anyone. I will, however, share my stock picks. I can't yet purchase because my ACH is still processing. Two companies that are relatively new and cheap to buy (penny stocks, folks) but I really like the companies' ideas.

One is APWL - Advanced Power Line. They are building high-speed internet connections through the electrical lines. It's still a work in progress, but I see that taking off -- high speed internet anywhere there are power lines in your home/office/etc. If that could be combined with a Vonage-type connection (Vonage has a portable VOIP telephone service that will follow you wherever you plug into high speed interent) to do charges, the portability would be nice. Some might argue that wireless is the way of the future, but lots of people still get DSL and cable internet. This would replace those types of connections.

The other stock pick is ITPD. ITPD is a company that is investing in medical-care facilities in Wal-Marts. The goal is to have a low-cost clinic in every Wal-Mart. Each facility would be staffed by nurses and groups of clinics would be managed by a doctor. Only two clinics have been opened so far.

Disclaimer: These are companies that I will be investing in... I make no guarantees on how they will do. Investing involves risk and should be a carefully managed part of your portfolio. I do not advocate "day-trading" or other get-rich-quick schemes.

3D Maps
We've all come to know and love Google Earth and the satellite images of Earth (and yes, they have Google Mars, too). Microsoft, not wanting to be left behind, also started its version with "bird's eye views" that had a closer image for certain cities. But it has now announced its three dimensional views of a few cities. It will be adding more in the future. It appears to be a composite of its earlier views, but combined it with a three dimensional frame and wrapped the photos onto the frame. I can't get any good views yet, but I think that's due to my current connection.

Will someone try and check it out for me? Thanks.

Elections Tomorrow
The 2006 Mid-Term Elections are tomorrow. I am not voting this year (yes, shame on me) because I failed to register in time -- the elections snuck up on me. It will be interesting to watch the results -- not the returns (the tally of who won) but how the country changes and in which direction it goes. These next two years are really pivotal for us.

As a side note, I prefer a divided government (control of Congress by one party and the presidency by the other). I think that best preserves the interests of our country. Only when the two sides work together is anything done and the excesses are limited (but not eliminated).

Until next time...

Sliding closer toward the mark...

Of the beast:

"The surveillance society has come about us without us realising", adding: "Some of it is essential for providing the services we need: health, benefits, education." -Source

RFID is useful - I've used it for transportation and work on multiple occasions. I do not like, nor will I use, implanted chips.

Elections - Comparing 1994 & 2006

I wrote this just before the 1998 Congressional Election. Now that we are facing the 2006 Congressional Election, I find it interesting to look back 8 years ago and see the paralels to the modern day. Are we facing another realignment (the last one taking place in 1994)? I stated, and I still stand-by that premise, that a realignment cannot me observed over two elections. The Republican grip on Congress has been slipping, especially with the War in Iraq. Looking back, the election of 1994 was a realignment -- Bush was elected in 2000 and the Republicans have had control of the House and Senate ever since getting it in 1994. But also looking back we see that my conclusion still holds:

"One other major factor is for the Democrats [to] show how they could run America better. Even if the Republicans are not running America well, if the Democrats do not show how they can run it better most people would stay with the current Congress...Whoever wants to win this election should show how they can make America better."

We will see next month.

---

AP Government and Politics
4^th Period
Mr. Behrend
10/26/98
Village Christian

Elections Essay

The 1994 election alone cannot indicate the beginning of a critical electoral realignment. Because of the many factors involved (campaign money, low voter turnout, etc.), a single election or even two elections cannot accurately predict a realignment. For a realignment to take place, the citizens have to switch their allegiance to the Republicans.

The Republicans, after winning in the 1994 and 1996 elections, have had four years to direct the Congressional proceedings. The critical election will be on November 3 this year. This election will give a clearer picture if there is a realignment. If the people believe that Republican control of Congress has been good for the country, then the Republicans should stay and continue to be in power. If the people believe that the Republicans have not accomplished enough, then the Republicans might loose some seats, if not the control of Capitol Hill.

For the Republicans to maintain control of Congress, they need to show what they have done that a Democrat Congress would not have done. They need to show that a Republican controlled Congress is good for America. Otherwise, there is no reason why not to switch back to the Democrats controlling Congress.

One other major factor is for the Democrats not show how they could run America better. Even if the Republicans are not running America well, if the Democrats do not show how they can run it better most people would stay with the current Congress. Whoever wants to win this election should show how they can make America better. If they do not and their opponent does then most likely their opponet will win.

Bush Assassinated

Entertainment News: Bush assassinated? New film depicts it

While it may be in poor taste to make this a movie, because it entails acting out an assassination of a sitting president, the idea behind it is very valid. Many people have tried to liken the War on Terrorism to one of the world wars. Both times the wars started, there were "small" wars currently in progress, but something happened to cause the rest of the world to get involved and take sides, save the few "neutral" countries. In World War I it took the assasination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand for everyone to "line up." As such, if we are in a "small" war, what would it take to plunge us into chaos? Are we the precipice of a major catastrophe? What would it take for us to get pushed over the edge?

It's probably better to leave the "what if" games until after the person in question is no longer capable of experiencing the "what if" -- especially since there are those who might want the president dead.

Given that, I stilll would like to see how the movie depicts the situation. If it glamourizes it, I don't support it at all -- but if it's a fair treatment of the situation, it might be educational.

The best history books are written after the passion of the issue is gone, or at least diminished; "modern" history does have its place, though.

Revolt against anticipated, rather than actual, tyranny

This is from a test I did in my senior year of high school. This particular item came from a review question that was at the end of the first quarter.

---

Mac

AP US History

Monday, October 4, 1999

Throughout the events preceding and during the Revolutionary War, the cries of "no taxation without representation" stirred up popular sentiment and created a common cause for the divided colonies. Many Patriots aligned themselves with Patrick Henry and his "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech; it was "Common Sense" to take off the shackles of tyrant King George III. Although the Founding Father’s and fellow Patriots were wanting to throw off the chains of the "absolute tyranny" of England and become free, the Americans were revolting against the tyranny they anticipated, rather than actual tyranny. The Americans had just as much representation as most of England, paid less taxes, had less interference than other British colonies, were the freest people in the world, and yet they still felt they were rebelling against tyranny.

The trouble between the British government and the Americans on the issue of representation was the misunderstanding of what representation meant. Most of the common people in England did not have the right to vote for representatives in the Parliament. They did, however still feel as though they were politically participating and that they were represented. Although not many people could vote for the members, the House of Commons and, to a lesser degree, the House of Lords were believed to represent everyone, even those in America. This became a problem when combined with the American belief about representation. The people in America were traditionally used to direct and equal representation. This contrast caused the Americans to believe that they were not being represented in the British government. They perceived representation to mean they had an equal voice in the legislature, which they did not, and therefore believed that they had no voice. Hence they felt they were being oppressed and under tyrannical authority when, in actuality, they had a greater voice than most of the people in the Mother country. Although there was no tyranny, this situation did have the possibility of opening up the Americas to tyranny from the British government.

The issue of taxation was closely related to the misunderstanding on representation. Because the Americans were used to not having to pay taxes to England (the very few tax laws that existed were usually ignored) when Parliament decided to actively tax their colonies they people revolted. The taxes themselves were not tyrannical. The Sugar Act was seen as worse than the previous Molasses Act (which no one revolted to) because it was in principal a taxing measure, not a way to regulate trade. The dreaded Stamp Act was already in place in England and it was a fair way to distribute the tax burden and could easily be collected. It was also a relatively low tax. The British government felt that because the colonies were British citizens, received British protection, and were British colonies they should share in the burden of paying for the government; the Americans disagreed. To the American the government was trying to take away the hard earned money. America was prosperous, the government wanted its portion (just as it receives its portion from all other industries and colonies), and this was the grounds for a battle. The colonists did not pay many taxes, yet they felt because they could not completely stop one tax, nothing could prevent an unlimited number of taxes from being forced upon them.

These misunderstandings between the Americans and the British caused the initial struggles between them. Not because they were under tyranny but because the Americans saw that they could be put in the chains of tyranny they revolted to the simplest measures of control the British put on them. Then, just as with humans, the Mother country started to react to the Child’s tantrums with more control. More control led to more rebellion, which led to more control. This cycle was broken with the "shots heard ‘round the world;" by then the damage was irrevocable and the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Bibliography

Garraty, Thomas. The American Nation. New York: Harper Collins publishers, 1995.
Ward, Christopher. The War of the Revolution. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1952.
Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books. 1993.
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper Perennial. 1995

Open Letter to Saddam RE: Between the Anvil and the Hammer

Saddam,

If the U.S. could not listen to it's first leader, George Washington, in avoiding foreign entanglements how do you expect Syria to listen to you? However, you may be more true than you realize. Who, besides yourself, has experienced the face-off with the rest of the world and been stuck with no less than two major wars? Surely you don't like Iran -- you fought them, too. Is that why you don't want Syria to join them?

Or is it that you "are [so] convinced that the Iranian and US agendas have met in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world" that you fear for the rest of the Arabs you have influence over?

One thing is true... they really "are now placed between the US-Isreali hammer and the Iranian anvil."

I don't think this is Armageddon, yet. Too many people still need to hear about the love and grace of God, before His judgement and wrath comes. However, the lines for THIS battle is being drawn -- WW III. Every major war from A.D. 70 onward has been thought of as the prelude to Armageddon. But not until Christ is on one side fighting His enemies is it time for Armageddon -- many more people still have to suffer.

Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places.

All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Matthew 24

The beginning... not the end.

But take heart, for the winner has already been decided... and, although you are on a hunger strike and possibly near death, you can still join that team!

Another near-war in the Middle East

Airports being bombed, political party headquarters being attacked, cities having missiles launched indiscriminately into them. Those are all the makings of a war.

I really don't want to see another, but I know that they will come. No peace is possible until the Prince of Peace comes. Sometimes wars break out because people don't listen to the full story -- only the part that appeals to them. We in the US are in danger of just that -- not getting the complete story. I guess I serve as part of the problem and solution. I focus on issues that interest me and leave the rest alone. But at the same time, I like to think I bring up alternate sides of the story. Yet when soldiers are being killed or kidnapped then sometimes the information doesn't matter as much as the emotions stemming from the situation.

Suposedly if we were to get attacked here in the states, FEMA has a new system to let us know. I'm very curious as to how it will work. How will they contact all of the internet computers? What port/service will they be using. And how/why isn't it being used to spam everyone right now? Only time will tell.

The Dodgers lost in the bottom of the 14th. At least my (softball) team won today. I went 3 for 3 and additionally reached on an error. So not only did we win, but I ended my hitless streak.

Until next time...

Bad and Good News

Bad News:

The U.S. is out of the World Cup. I think that it is time to re-evaluate who is on the team and the style of play used. For as a large as a country as we are, we should be able to field a better team. That being said, congrats to Italy and Ghana for advancing.

Good?? News:

Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq At least something has been found in Iraq.

However, I think they should have eliminated the fax numbers before releasing this report.

Scary Ultra Right-Wing Governments

I recently saw "V for Vendetta." I didn't really like the movie. The first previews I saw for the movie looked pretty good (I was out of the country when i saw the previews), the premise of the movie seemed sound (Bad Government needs to be overthrown - "In the course of human events..."), and it starred Natalie Portman. (In the words of one of my friends, "she's quite a looker").

However, after reading Focus on the Family's review, I knew that it wasn't a good movie for enjoyment. So why did I still go watch it? National Review, among other newspapers/magazines, ran a critique of the movie because the hero (of sorts) was a terrorist. I wanted to see what kind of government the hero was to take on. Why would we make a hero out of a terrorist? What is the difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary?

The way I see it, a terrorist can never be a suitable hero. A terrorist is one who uses violence on civilians for political gain. A revolutionay uses violence on the established government for political gain. Clearly, George Washington and the other Founding Fathers used violence for political gain. However they did not target civilians - hence not being terrorists.

I disagree with Mr. Suderman that "V" is a terrorist. He does not explicitly target civillians, rather he goes after government leaders and buildings. Yet at the same time, I do not see him as a revolutionary, because he did not fight a defensive battle, but one of offense. This may be too fine of a line to destinguish, so, as always, I welcome debate on the issue. My initial position is that "V" is not a suitable hero but also not a terrorist.

The primary reason for my seeing the movie was to see what type of government was portrayed as evil. While I shall save my theory on the political spectrum to another time (I don't like the idea of a spectrum, but rather a wheel), the evil English government was a like the Westboro Baptists Church members became in charge. (See my blog entitled "Disgusting Choice for Utilizing Free Speech") Yet, in the movie, it appears that the movie makers made them equivalent with ALL Christians.

I find this to be a not-so-veiled attack on Christianity. The logical pattern being a form of a straw man fallacy:

This (very extreme right wing) is what a country would look like if we let the Christians be in charge. We don't want this to happen. Therefore we don't want any of them in charge.

I find the only way to refute this is to deal with the Big problem. The problem is that we have too many Christians walking around preaching ideas and not enough Christ-followers showing the love of God.

Disgusting Choice for Utilizing Free Speech

While I support free speech, which is why I like the way in which this situation is being dealt. The Patriot Guard Riders should be applauded for attempting to protect the families. The best circumstances would have the Westboro Baptist Church members to protest in other places than funerals. Public political speech is important, but funerals are not public affairs. Nor are the families public officials and subject to more intrusion on their private lives.

I totally disagree with the speech of the Westboro group. I wish they wouldn't say what they say -- it puts a bad name on all Christians. But I can't support preventing them from speaking. So I'll support the counter group. Good job, Patriot Guard Riders!