Bent Targets and All

2003 Area 1


Last Saturday we went to an IPSC Club Match on the rainiest March 26th in Fifty Years.

No, this picture isn't from that match. The sky is too clear, and the targets are un-bagged . . . and in better shape.

But it serves to illustrate how necessary it is to take special precautions during 'inclement weather'.

You'll notice that most of the target stands have sandbags holding the legs down; this is so the wind doesn't blow them over.

Also, the cardboard targets have been warped by the moisture they have absorbed.


This is hardly an extreme condition; we saw what 'extreme conditions' can do to cardboard targets last weekend.

This is nothing new to those of us who compete in IPSC matches in Oregon year 'round. When the air is excessively humid (as during a constant drizzle, which we experienced Saturday), the cardboard absorbs the moisture and curl, as you see here.

More important, when the rain is allowed to fall on the targets, they become so saturated that it is difficult to keep the tape, which covers the bullet-holes caused by previous shooters, to stick to the surface.

One solution (sorry, pun not intended) is to 'bag' the targets. That is, clear plastic bags are pulled over the targets to keep the rain away. And of course, stormy weather typically includes wind, so the target stands must be either staked down or held down with sandbags, rocks, extra target stands, or whatever heavy material is available to help resist the efforts of sudden gusts to tip the targets over. (When targets are tipped over, the bags often are blown around so that at least some of the target is exposed to the rain, so they quickly become soaked.)

Unfortunately, when the targets are bagged it's hard to see the hits ... shots through the bags often leave dark grease-marks, so it's necesssary to lift the bags to determine which dark marks are new bullet holes.)

And taping the bullet holes becomes particularly difficult, as the person doing the taping needs to lift the bag to reach the holes, then carefully smooth the plastic down over the target. Sometimes an impatient taper will cut or tear a slit in the bag, to facilitate access to the surface; this slit can be opened by the wind allowing rain to soak the target.

In this particular match, the Match Director had made careful plans to avoid as much as possible the conditions which would slow down the match, or make it difficult to accurately score the targets.

All targets were bagged before the match began. All target stands were either weighted with sandbags (or rocks, etc.) to prevent their tipping under the influence of the expected wind. Extra targets were made immediately available at each stage, so if a target became too saturated with water it could be replaced with a minimum of disruption to the match. (Staple Guns and new bags were stored at each stage, also, so the targets could be replaced quickly.)

However, the weather was so windy and rainy that the advanced planning sometimes proved less than completely adequate.

First, not all targets were fixed firmly to the ground. During the walkthrough, we found that all of the targets on one stage had been blown down by the wind ... all of the targets had to be replaced before the match even started.

During the match, we discovered that the stage construction crew, in their drive to prevent the bags from blowing off the targets, had placed the bags over the targets before stapling the targets to the supporting wood sticks. This met their goal, but it made it very difficult to tape. In frustration, some squad members applied their own Gordian solution by tearing the bags covering the front of the targets. This allowed them to easily tape the bullet holes, but the rain quickly soaked the targets ... and it wasn't an unusual occurance for bullets striking the wet targets to blow tape off previous bullet holes, making it difficult (or impossible) to determine which hole had been made by the current shooter.

We were thankful that extra replacement targets and were available on the stages, but the frequent need to replace targets soon exhausted the supply. By the last half of the match, everyone seemed to be so tired that few squads made the extra effort to find a member of the hosting club to find out where new targets could be found. The last couple of stages were sometimes very difficult for Range Officers, tapers and competitors.

There was two other situations which slowed down the match. First, the classifer which had been scheduled for this match was CM99-14, "Hoser Heaven". In this stage, there are three strings ... and the targets must be scored and taped before each string. In retrospect, the need to disrupt the stage twice for each shooter greatly increased the stage-clearance time, and delayed the match significantly.

Second, because of the weather some out-of-state competitors didn't arrive at the range until after the match had started. They joined the squad which started on the stage just before the classifier stage, changing the size of the squad from 11 (which was the approximate size of the other four squads) to 17. Apparently, this was their own arbitrary decision; the Match Director wasn't informed until that squad was half-way through the classifier. One person left early in the match, the rest split up into two squads . . . but not before the back-up on the classifier stage had become impossible to resolve.

I realize that this this litany of events may seem critical of the pre-match choices of the host club, but in retrospect there were few decisions which didn't seem reasonable at the time. The INTENT was to have all targets bagged, staked, and replacement targets allotted on all stages.

Unfortunately, the weather was so inclement that the events strained all prior planning. The extenuating circumstances are that Oregon had, for the previous two weeks, experienced an unseasonably warm and dry situation which looked more like early summer than late winter / early spring. We had become complacent, not least because the media had been predicting the worst draught in 60 years because so little rain & snow had fallen over the winter.

There are two lessons which might be learned from this experience:
(1) During seasons which are typically inclement, plan for the worse, marshall your reserves . . . then double it!
(2) It might have been a good idea to have a "Mr. Fixit" roaming the range during the entire match, to spot potential trouble-spots before they became critical.

This last measure, while prodigious of limited personnel, may have resolved many unforseen situations which eventually delayed the match.

In an all-volunteer sport, it's difficult to forsee the worst possible scenario and provide the staffing needed to counter it. However, if the goal is to provide a safe, enjoyable match to the participants, it may be necessary for the host club to schedule some non-competing personnel to insure the goal is met.

Cowboy Blob's Five Question Grenade

I love tests!

I even take tests in magazines. Well, except for the "compatibility tests" ("Is Your Man Man Enough For You?") in the Cosmopolitan Magazine that my ex-wife use to force me to take. Maybe that's why she's my "ex".

Not too long ago, I took Frank IMAO's "Who The Hell Do You Bloggers Think You Are?" quiz. I failed miserably. Like Robert B. Parker's "Spenser for Hire", I wasn't as funny as I think I am. Except I don't look as good slurping up a spaghetti noodle.

Perhaps that's why I'm girding my loins here to take the Cowboy's Five Question Grenade. I'm looking for redemption here.

Are you with me?
Let's see how we do:

1. Multi-part question: Marilyn Monroe or Grace Kelly? Sandra Bullock or Marisa Tomei? Nicole Kidman or a slice of pepperoni and sausage pizza and a Heineken?

Definately neither Marilyn Monroe OR Grace Kelly. They once looked good, but they're a little yucky now. Dead, you know.

Sandra Bullock or Marisa Tomei? That's a hard choice. I thought Tomei looked great in "My Cousin Vinny, but maybe that was only because she was always in the same scenes with Joe Pesci, and Fred Gwynne. No contest there.


On the other hand, Sandra (Sahn-Drah?) looks good in everything she ever did, even in what appears to be the first movie she ever made .. "Hangman". The movie was a dog. Twenty-three year old Sandra hadn't lost her baby fat, but she had "Personality", y'know. (H/T - The Sandra Bulock Picture Site)


"Nicole Kidman or a slice of pepperoni and sausage pizza and a Heineken?"

Another tough one. I think I could survive the pizza and beer, but could I please substitute Abby's Linguica Pizza and a Blue Boar Ale?

2. What was the crowning achievement of your professional career?

That had to be 1990 when I was the "Data Security Officer" for Freightliner Corporation, and I secured all IMS transactions using the ACF2 Data Security software.
"Implimation Day" was a day that we agonized over for weeks. Management expected a LOT of problems when workers attempted to access online forms. I had spent six weeks setting it up, but the Pointy-Haired Managers assigned me 3 workers to handle the phone calls and I was there from 6am to midnight to field help-desk phone calls from people who couldn't access the information they needed to do their job.

We had not one single phone call. Everyone who needed access, had it. The people who weren't authorized to, for example, remove $10,000 diesel engines from the inventory ... couldn't.

It was a "non-event", which is the ultimate accolade for a Geek installing new software.

3. What was your low point?

Oh, that one is easy.
That would be April of 1991, when I was one of the 20% of all Freightliner employees who were laid off. They didn't need a dedicated Data Security Officer. I had done my job too well.

4. You're going to spend six months on the International Space Station as an amateur mission specialist. Besides members of your family or close friends, pick three non-astronauts to join you.

Oh great! This is an easy question.
They would be Sandra Bullock, Marisa Tomei, and Nicole Kidman.
(SWMBO is going to kill me for this one!)

5. It's your stage...every broadcast, cable, and satellite TV network in the world has the feed from a camera/mike in your living room for two minutes. What do you say?

"I suppose you are all wondering why I called you together for this meeting ...."

(Damn! I blew it again, didn't I?)

And this, too, is The Police

Yahoo! News - Most Emailed - Photos

Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo. A federal judge rejected a request from the parents of Schiavo to order her feeding tube reinserted, dealing a blow to attempts by the U.S. Congress and the White House to prolong her life. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Ten-year-old Gabriel Keys was not the only juvenile arrested today, according to the Mercury News:

About a dozen people, including some children, submitted to arrest after making the symbolic gesture of carrying water toward the hospice.

'Jesus said, `Whatever you do to the least of men, you do for me,' '' said Josie Keys, 14. ``I'm a little nervous, but I think this is what God wants me to do.''

Also arrested were her brothers Cameron, 12, and Gabriel, 10.

I'm thinking there must be some very embarassed police officers in Pinellas Park, Florida, tonight.

This .. is the police!

Yahoo! News - AFP Top Photos




Haute Couture, Hair Curlers, and a Heater.

"I'm out of estrogen, and I've got a gun. Don't mess with me, Fellows".

No terrorists were injured during the filming of this fashion show!

Yahoo! News - Minnesota School Shooter Wore Bullet-Proof Vest

Yahoo! News - Minnesota School Shooter Wore Bullet-Proof Vest

EMIDJI, Minn. (Reuters) - A 16-year-old boy who killed nine people and then himself on a Minnesota Indian reservation was wearing a bullet-proof vest when he chased a teacher and fellow students into a classroom and gunned them down, the FBI said on Tuesday.

As much as I dislike quoting Yahoo, Reuters or AOL, this is confirmed by at all three sources:

The boy accused of killing nine people in a shooting spree first shot his grandfather and his companion, then donned the man's police-issue gunbelt and bulletproof vest before heading to the high school, where he shot students and teachers at random, authorities said Tuesday.

AOL has used the above cherubic photo to headline its news item, and Yahoo has specifically captioned it as "Jeff Weise" although neither AOL nor Yahoo has stated that it is a recent photo.

FBI agent Michael Tabman gave the first official account of the worst school killing in the United States since the Columbine massacre in 1999 in which two teenagers killed 13 people.

Tabman told reporters that Weise started by shooting dead his grandfather Daryl Lussier, 58, a sergeant in the local police, and Lussier's companion Michelle Sigana, 32.

The teenager took his grandfather's police bulletproof vest, gun belt and police car, "and drove to the school, driving up right to the door," Tabman said. He was armed with the handgun, another .40 calibre handgun and a shotgun.

There he was confronted by two unarmed security guards. Weise shot dead one of them, Derrick Brun, while another fled inside.

Inside the school Weise fired at a teacher, Neva Winnecoup-Rogers, 62, and a group of students in the corridor and followed them.

"He pursued them into a classroom. It is there he opened fire, killing a number of students and the teacher. Shortly after that, Mr. Weise continued to roam through the school, firing randomly," Tabman said.

One of the dead students was 14 and four were aged 15. At least three were girls.

Weise fired into the door of other classrooms where teachers and students barred the doors to stop him getting in.

A student, Sondra Hegstrom, heard shooting from an adjoining classroom, she told the local newspaper, The Pioneer.

"You could hear a girl saying, 'No, Jeff. Quit! Quit! Leave me alone. Why are you doing this?' Boom, boom, boom, and then no more screaming," she said.

"I looked him in the eye and ran in a room, and that's when I hid," she said. "I called 911 from a cell phone and they said, 'Just sit there and wait until the cops come.'"

The Pioneer quoted another student as saying the killer pointed his gun at a boy, changed his mind, smiled, waved and shot somebody else.

The police and fire departments received several emergency calls from students and teachers trapped in classrooms.

Four police arrived, Tabman said, and one opened fire at the gunman who shot back.

Weise then withdrew to the classroom where he had killed the teacher and students and took his own life, the FBI agent said.

This young maniac ("Mr. Weise"!) presented his armed self to two (unarmed) security officers and a number of teachers, and nobody was able to defend either themself or the students whose safety was entrusted to their care.

This resulted in " ... the worst school killing in the United States since the Columbine massacre ..."

Columbine was six years ago, and what have we learned from it?

Nothing.

Our country is still determined to forbid armed teachers and security officers ... or anybody else .. access to school property.

Even though we KNOW that students can be bullied to the point of desperation, we are still unwilling to take common-sense measures to defend the general body of students, and faculty and staff, from deadlyl assault.

This, after September 11, which taught us terrorists need not be home-grown to be deadly.

This, after the Russian school shootings which taught us that police are powerless once terrorists have established themselves in a school in a hostage situation.

This, after Columbine, which taught us that if non-mainstream students are ignored, if their derision by their fellow students is ignored, their anger and adolescent angst may cause them to lash out in the most extreme manner,

Instead of addressing the root-cause of these attacks, instead of being on the lookout for these 'children left behind', our leaders have decided to resolve the situations by limiting the ability of responsible people to defend themselves and their charges.

It's a sad day when teachers in our schools are unable to defend their students. The consequences are, now, predictable.

We wonder who is responsible for this kind atrocity. The Brady People say it's our national leaders, because the Federal Government is unwilling to apply extreme measures of Gun Control. They have said that the only American Citizens who should possess firearms are the military and the police.

But this boy killed the police, and stole the firearms from the 'governmental agency' which even the Brady People say should possess them.

When we are all unarmed except for the military and the police, and criminals resort to taking firearms from the military or the police, what does that make of the rest of us?

Lambs ... to the slaughter.

I don't want to be slaughtered. And I don't want my children to be slaughtered. It seems that my choices are to be either an armed criminal, or an unarmed victim.

I'm not happy with my choices.

What do you think I should do about it?

I work on a college campus, and I am required to NOT carry firearms even though I have a CCH (Carry Concealed Handgun) permit. If I do carry a handgun, I can be prosecuted and I can lose my job ... even though the laws in this grey-area are vague.

I sure hope someone else in my work area has more courage of his convictions than do I, because I'm too concerned about keeping my job, and maintaining my non-incarcerated status (I won't say "Liberty" or "Freedom") to carry a handgun on school property. For my survival, I rely on the good will of any random person who may or may not choose to walk onto the school grounds and start killing people.

This is probably ... nay, apparently ... not a good bet. And I'm not proud of myself for caring more about preserving my job than for preserving the lives of the people around me.

Personally, I think that the best solution to securing the safety and well-being of people is if everyone who was able to be 'vetted' as a responsible person (the mechanism has already been established, in the CCH licensing process) to openly carry. I believe this would not only send a message to potential attackers that they would not be able to carry out their warped plans to murder innocents, but also provide the means to stop the predations of those who are too sick, too angry, or otherwise too fanatic to be warned away from our children.

Albany Democrat-Herald : Olson Against Firearms Bills

.: Albany Democrat-Herald :. Archives

Olson against firearm bills

By Hasso hering
Albany Democrat-Herald

More than two dozen bills dealing with firearms are pending in the Legislature, and Albany's state representative takes a dim view of most.

"The bottom line, the way I look at it, is that I don't want bills just chipping away at the Second Amendment," Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, said in an interview Friday.

According to his count, 14 gun-related bills have been introduced in the Senate and 15 in the House.

Except for a couple, Olson said they would all be heard by the House Judiciary Committee, on which he serves.

Among the bills Olson said he would oppose is SB 335, which would allow school districts to prohibit persons with permits to carry concealed weapons to carry them on school property.

He called the bill a "solution looking for a problem."

Olson spent his career in the Oregon State Police before he retired and later ran for office. He said he had not heard of any firearm-related problems caused in schools by people with concealed-weapons permits.

Olson also spoke against proposed bans on so-called "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines.

"I'm opposed to that," he said. "These are not automatic weapons we're talking about."

The guns targeted by the proposed bans don't often figure in crimes, according to him.

"The majority of time suspects use handguns," he said. "They want to keep them concealed."

If any of the Senate bills make it to the House, Olson predicted that most of them would be opposed in House Judiciary.

Our congratulations to Rep. Andy Olson, who is willing to stand up and say :

"I'm opposed to that," ... "These are not automatic weapons we're talking about."

Well, yes. As far as he gies in his opposition, that's true.

Currently it is not a CRIME for a person with a Concealed Carry Handgun (CCH) in Oregon to possess a handgun on school property. This includes a person who is a CCH holder (as I am) who workes on the premises of a State University (as I am) and, for example, places said handgun in the trunk of his car preparatory to going to work at, and parking on the premises of, a State University for the purpose of having it immediatelly avaliable for the purposes of driving immediatelyl to and off-site location to engage in practice. (Which I have, of course, never done and will never in the future do! Even though I would not be in immediate control of the handgun, I have moved said handgun to a location within the confines of a University, which is a School ... wheter or not I recognize that this constitutes "A School" and which is not, at the moment, a felonious crime.)

Hwever, SB 335 is a bit more far-reaching than evern Rep. Olson has noticed.

Note here some details of the proposed Oregon Senate Bill 335:

  SECTION 1. ORS 166.370 is amended to read:
166.370. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or
unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous
weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction
be guilty of a Class C felony.

Note the differences here? The title of the bill seems to involve only a "firearm", but the actual text of the bill includes "...any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon ...".

This opens up an entire other can of worms.

First, let's back up and talk about "firearms" and "Concealled Carry Handgun Permit Holders:

  (d)  { + Except as otherwise provided in subsection (5) of this
section, + } a person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and
166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.
(e) A person who is authorized by the officer or agency that
controls the public building to possess a firearm or dangerous
weapon in that public building.
(f) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
(A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited
from possessing the firearm; and
(B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.
(4) The exceptions listed in subsection (3)(b) to (f) of this
section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating
subsection (1) of this section.
 { +  (5) A school district board may prohibit persons licensed
under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 from possessing firearms in or on a
public building that is a public school or the site or premises
of any student program or activity that is sponsored or
sanctioned by a public school.

Yes, that's right. Subsection 5 says that even if you hold a CCH license, you can't posssess a firearm at a pubilc school, or on the grounds of a public school or even at a place where a school-sponsored activity (such as an unannounced field trip to a park!) is taking place.

That is, if a school decides to schedule a field-trip to a park, and you live next to that park, any firearms in your place of residence are ipso facto grounds for charging YOU with violation of state firearms control law, even if your guns are locked up in your gun-safe.

But wait, it gets better~

So, what's about this "dangerous weapon" stuff?

Within the context of the bill, this term is actually defined THUS:

    { - (5) - }   { + (6) + } 'Weapon' means:
(a) A firearm;
(b) Any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slingshot, metal knuckles or
any similar instrument or a knife other than an ordinary pocket
knife, the use of which could inflict injury upon a person or
property;
(c) Mace, tear gas, pepper mace or any similar deleterious
agent as defined in ORS 163.211;
(d) An electrical stun gun or any similar instrument;
(e) A tear gas weapon as defined in ORS 163.211;
(f) A club, bat, baton, billy club, bludgeon, knobkerrie,
nunchaku, nightstick, truncheon or any similar instrument, the
use of which could inflict injury upon a person or property; or
(g) A dangerous or deadly weapon as those terms are defined in
ORS 161.015.

Okay, this may seem relativelyl innocuous.
Except that some of the terms in sub-subsection (f) aren't defined.

Why should you care?

Consider a hypothetical:

Assume that you are living in a 'university town' such as my current residence community, Corvallis Oregon, home of Oregon State University.
Assume that you have a family with 2.5 children, and one of these children is an 18-year-old girl who has registered to attend classes at OSU.
Assume that you live further than 'walking distance' from the University, so your daughter-the-student consideres it too far to walk to school ... so she buys a parking permit and parks on campus while attending classes.
Assume that your daughter is aware of the current lawless state in Corvallis, where expensive bicycles are stolen daily and automobiles are stolen less regularly, but on occassion.

Is it not reasonable that your daughter considers her personally owned transportion, being subject to theft, could better be protected from theft by means of a device which locks the steering wheel so it cannot be used to drive said vehicle away by a person who has no permission to used said vehicle?

What's one common way to protect an automobile from theft?

That's right: The Club!

The Club ... made of metal and used to prevent automobile theft by virtue of its abiltiy to fix a steering wheel in place ... is (other than the fact that it is made of metal rather than of wood) is the typification of the term "knobkerrie".

<>Being admittedlyl club-like in nature, and having a"'knob" (or reasonable facsimile thereof) at one end, "The Club" is readily construed as either a "club" or a "... knobkerrie". As such, it is
" .. [a]. truncheon or any similar instrument, the use of which could inflict injury upon a person or property... "

You don't think so?
If you were drafted to jury duty, and were specifically required to define "the Club" in terms of a weapon, how would you rule?

Albany Rifle and Pistol Club!

Albany Rifle and Pistol Club

'This is not going to be terribly interesting to most of you.

Looking at my statistics, I have readers from Texas, Washington, New Jersey, Florida, New Zealand, France, England, Hong Kong, Nigeria, The Phillipines, UK, UAR, and 431 hits from the U.S.A. alone.

This suggests to me that I'm not read only from Benton County, and most of you don't really care that the Albany (Oregon) Rifle & Pistol Club has a website describing activities which are not specifically related to IPSC shooting.
But I'm feeling a littly giddy tonite. It's not only Saint Patrick's Day, but this is also the day when I've receive over 2500 hits since last December, when I started this Blog-thing.

So first of all, thank you for visiting my IPSC related blog. I received an email today from a reader who stated that he enjoyed my writings because I discussed not only RKBA=related issues, not only firearm-specific related issues, but I was the only one who talked about "gun games". (Thank you, Cowboy Bob!)

[I admit, I would be writing less about RKBA issues, and more about IPSC, had I received more feedback about ... well ... IPSC issues. But that's just me. I need feedback to learn what people are inerested in, and I don't quite get enough from The Unofficial IPSC List.]

Second, even though you are probably not really interested in IPSC shooting in Oregon, the website mentioned above DOES give you a pretty good idea abou the kinds of activites at ARPC. There's a bunch of pictures, which is always popular. Several photos of people shooting Full-uto (including at least one which appears to be am M2 .50 caliber machine gun.) There's a photo of a guy who is obviously shooting a CAS stage, and a CAS group-photo.

To my egocentric interest, there are two photos of SWMBO, and one photo of The Geek, shooting eiher IPSC or Speed Steel stages. You can tell which they are, as these are the only pictures of people shooting pistols.

I'll let you do the exploring. The photos are in a 'slide-show' format, and they're not very big so they don't take long to load.

Go check 'em out.

Also, if you live in the mid-Willamette valley area, you might consider going to the Albany Rifle and Pistol Range to shoot.

It's probably one of the best ranges, for the money (membership fee) ranges in the country, considering the amenities which they offer.

Do check out the photos.

Blogmeat! (March, 2005)

I've decided to intersperse my all-to-frequent rants with the type of eclectic notices we see demonstrated on many popular weblogs. I think I can restrain my rant-reaction as frequently as once a month, if I apply myself. Brace yourself, here is the Blogmeat Post for March, 2005.

Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Looters systematically removed tons of equipment from Iraqi weapons facilities, including some with components capable of making parts of nuclear arms, in the weeks after Baghdad fell in 2003, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

(Hat Tip to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweller)

This, after the NY Times had assured us that there WERE no WMDs in Iraq.

Will wonders never cease. The NYT manages to be both all-right, all-the-time, by taking both sides of an issue. I wish I could be as flexible.

This reminds me of the "All Elvis, All the Time" radio station here in Oregon.
Nobody listens to them, either. Heaven only know where they get their advertisers; one assumes a body of rich sycophants.

I wish I knew a few rich sycophants. If you are a rich sycophant, please email me. Better yet, just send me lots of money, and I'll write whatever I want anyway. It seems to work for the NYT, and Reuters.


McCain/Feingold
The US Congress is supporting their supporters by attacking the Blogosphere by applying the McCain/Feingold bill to Bloggers. The M/F bill requires 'professional public media' to desist from campaining FOR a candidate or issue within x days of an election, and the definition of 'professional' is based on $50 or more invested in the publication process.

SEC. 304. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $50 OR MORE.
Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act at 1971(2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A) is amended--
(1) by striking `$200' and inserting `$50'; and
(2) by striking the semicolon and inserting `, except that in the case of a person who makes contributions aggregating at least $50 but not more than $200 during the calendar year, the identification need include only the name and address of the person;'.

...

(2) FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITY-`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `Federal election activity' means:
(i) voter registration activity during the period that begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the date of the election;
(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office also appears on the ballot); and
(iii) a communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is express (sic) advocacy).

Let me see, I have ... uh .. zero dollars invested in my blogging effort. But I suspect the burdon of proof is on me, not congress.

And the bill SEEMS to specifically reference people who either (a) spend over $50, or (b) over $200 for the privilege of naming a federal candidate. It doesn't matter if these people actually 'advocate' the candidate, it's enough that they MENTION a candidate.

Oh, sure, I spend almost $24/month on AOL, which is my IP. Blogspot is free. I can use IE as my browser, which comes with the compter and XP/Home (which I bought for non-blogging purposes and before I started blogging.)

Congress could conceivably count the >$600 I spent on the computer as publication expenses, and kick my butt for mentioning, say Gerald Ford as a candidate in the 2008 Presidential Elections. Not that this is likely to happen, but if I happened to mention Jerry in late 2008, my ass is grass.

If you have any interest in protesting this bizarre application of the bizarre McCain/Feingold law, you can sign a petition here. Not that it will do any good, one way or the other, but there are currently over 2500 signitures there and you might as well get in on the ground floor.

I KNOW that the Bill of Rights states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

... which suggests that McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional.

I'm PRETTY SURE that I've not received any contributions from a political party to support my free expression of opinion, or for any other purpose (when was the last time a political party pestered you to RECEIVE contributions?)

And I THINK that it would be difficult for the Department of Justice (?) to make a case that I was paid by the Republican Party to endorse Gerald Ford for president. In the first place, it would Be Just Wrong!

On the other hand, it's hard to tell how this law should be applied to non-MSM (Main Stream Media) sources of opinon.

Think about it.

Television will kill you!

Tell me about it. I disconnected my cable in 1996. Well, there was that thingie about not having paid my cable bill for several months ...

The Bible Will Save Your Life

... or a reasonable facsimile thereof ....

Note: this article is "403 Forbidden".
I'm sure this means something. I'm just not sure what.....

The GOP will throw your butt in jail!

During an address by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, members of the AIDS activist group ACT-UP staged a protest on the convention floor, Perez said. Traslavina, a vice president of his school's Honor Society and editor of the school newspaper, began taking photographs of the skirmish between ACT-UP members and security personnel when he was "whisked away by a Secret Service agent," Perez said.

Despite protests to authorities by ACT-UP members and an adult leader of the Junior Statesman Foundation Symposium that Traslavina was not part of the demonstration, he was taken into custody and eventually arraigned on charges of felony riot, his lawyer said. He was held in custody for a total of 28 hours before being released on his own recognizance, Perez said.

Security Cameras Will Not Save Your Life!
(And neither will the Sheriff)

ATLANTA — A surveillance camera captured Brian G. Nichols' surprise attack on a Fulton County sheriff's deputy, but no one in the control center noticed the assault and sent help, said a law enforcement official who viewed the security tape.

The camera, one of more than 40 stationed through the Fulton County courthouse, showed 6-foot-1-inch Nichols overwhelming Deputy Cynthia Hall and escaping with her gun. Hall was escorting Nichols to a holding cell before his rape trial resumed.

Moments after the attack, which occurred before 9 a.m. Friday, witnesses say Nichols made his way through the courthouse and gunned down a judge, a court reporter and one of Hall's fellow deputies. Hours later he killed a federal agent.

Hall remained in critical condition with severe head injuries at Grady Memorial Hospital.

"It's not just horrible, it was preventable," said Senior Superior Court Judge Philip Etheridge.

Where's Big Brother when we really need him? Apparently, the cameras were installed for the purpose of catching jay-walkers, or some other class of misdemeanor-causing citizen. Who would ever have imagined that they could be used to see and stop a murder in progress?

Of course, it's illegal for citizens to carry firearms in a courthouse. That law is to prevent someone from using a gun to kill judges, court reportes, and Law Enforcement Officers. It's a good thing that law, and the cameras, were in place. Otherwise someone could get hurt.
[/sarcasm_mode OFF]

On the other hand, if it was legal to carry concealed in the court house, a pistol-packing private citizen might have been able to stop the mother-raping murderer before he started killing helpless non-combatants.

Can you tell I'm upset about this one?

Credit Cards Will Kill Your Cred-ibility!

More than 40 members of the House reported carrying at least $10,000 in credit-card or charge-card debt in 2003 and parts of 2004, according to a survey of financial disclosure reports conducted by The Hill.

The findings come as the House is poised to take up a bankruptcy-reform measure that would give banks and credit card companies expanded powers to seek repayment from debtors who file bankruptcy.

Opponents of the bill drew hope from the data, suggesting that lawmakers who nurse high-interest debt might be more likely to sympathize with indebted consumers. High credit-card debt is often a factor in the decision to file for bankruptcy, although the root cause is usually related to a life-altering event such as a divorce, illness or the loss of a job, experts said.

"Members aren't that much different than regular Americans. Some run up high credit-card bills when they shouldn't. One would hope that it would make them more sensitive to regular Americans earning far less money that are threatened by this bill," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director at the Consumer Federation of America, which has opposed the bill on the grounds that it favors credit-card companies at the expense of average consumers.

Yet the 43 members identified in the survey were as likely to have voted for the bankruptcy bill when it came to the House floor in 2003 as were members without credit-card or similar revolving accounts.

Don't we elect these people for their integrity? No? Then, tell me again why we need them.

Speaking of Credibility, the UN falls far short ....

Mon Mar 14, 1:58 PM ET

GENEVA (AFP) - The United Nations (news - web sites)' human rights chief, weathering heavy criticism of a body that itself contains many rights abusers, acknowledged the world has "fallen short" in protecting civil liberties.

AFP/File Photo

Opening the annual session of the UN Human Rights Commission, Louise Arbour added that UN member countries were too selective in responding to rights abuses.

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said the meeting of the 53-nation forum, which was scheduled to continue until April 22, was a "do or die" test of the credibility of the commission.

They said half the members of the commission, which is meant to scrutinize respect for fundamental freedoms and condemn abuse such as torture and disappearances, were themselves human rights abusers.

Peruvian Foreign Minister Manuel Rodriguez-Cuadros said the commission should be scrapped and replaced by independent experts. At present, he said, member states were both judges and parties to disputes leading to "the selectiveness or the political use of human rights."

Obviously, these people are not elected. It doesn't seem to matter. Integrity is a little thin on the ground there, too.

But some of the Supremes think the Death Penalty is appropriate for Kids .....

( ... And maybe they're right ...)

WASHINGTON -- Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.
"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."
"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Why is this important?
Well, for one thing, the gang-bangers in our culture will now find it even easier to recruit munchkins to do their drive-by shootings for them, because they absolutely know that the death penalty will NOT be applied.

But Scalia's point is, of course, much more fundamental. He says that the job of the Supremes is to determine the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to an enacted law. In this case, the constitution is not considered or referenced. There's just a bunch of old men and women deciding that "there oughta be a law" and, because of their power and prestige, they set out to make one.

You probably already know that it's the job of the Legislature to make the laws. We assume that the Supremes know that, too. After all, they must be some kind of 'Constitutional Scholar' if their job is centered about the Constitution. But because there are no checks on the power of the Supreme court, they can make a 'ruling' and it is now law even though the Legislature may never have considered, let alone enacted, the law. They've been doing that a lot, lately.

It's an old story. As the ancient Roman poet Juvenal asked, Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
Don't worry about it. It's not just the Supremes. It's also policemen, the military, and the bureaucrats who are 'making laws' because they have the power to do so even if they don't have the authority.

On the other hand: " ... Let God Sort 'Em Out"

Teen wins lawsuit about dress code

Judge found that the policy was “overly broad” and should not have prohibited Marine Corps creed.

From wire, staff reports

Fort Wayne Community Schools officials violated an Elmhurst High School student’s free-speech rights when they suspended him for wearing a T-shirt bearing the likeness of an M-16 rifle and the text of the Marine Corps creed, a federal court ruled Friday.

The district suspended Nelson Griggs in March 2003 for violating a provision of the school dress code that prohibits students from wearing clothing depicting “symbols of violence.”

Kewl. The ghost of "Zero Tolerance" raises its chain-draped head, in a manner reminiscent of Jacob Marley.
I just love it when the NEA barges into the room, don't you?

Or ... let the Air Traffic Controllers sort 'em out

Air traffic controllers jailed over crash that killed 118

JEREMY CHARLES IN ROME

FOUR Italian air traffic controllers were jailed yesterday after being found guilty of multiple manslaughter following a plane crash that killed 118 people - including two Britons.

Were they worried about the two Britons, or the 116 other people in the plane?

The trial came after a SAS MD80 jet bound for Copenhagen collided with a private jet in thick fog at Milan’s Linate airport before ploughing into a baggage warehouse and exploding in October 2001.

In the investigation that followed it emerged that the ground control radar at Linate had been switched off pending proper installation.

So, was it the ATCs who turned off the radar? We can't tell from the article, presented by the good folks at The Scotsman.

Perhaps the ATCs were being punished because they didn't understand the situation, and reacted inappropriately:

There was outrage when a tape emerged of air traffic controllers at the airport laughing and joking after hearing the dull thud of an explosion - unaware of the drama that was unfolding yards from them.

(Emphasis added)

Yup. Those guys should have been mind-readers. Maybe they were. In that case, they are clearly guilty of ... something.

If that doesn't work, let AOL sort 'em out ...
AIM Conversations Are Safe

March 14, 2005
America Online quells public criticism of changes to its AIM terms of service, insisting the controversial privacy clause does not pertain to user-to-user instant messaging communication.
"Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content.
You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the content or to be compensated for any such uses," according to the AIM terms of service.

Let me see if I understand this.
AIM is an "Instant Messaging Communication", developed to facilitate communications between AOL subscribers and someone else, who may or may not be an AOL subscriber.

But if you're an AOL subscribe, and something ... anything! ... you say over AIM results in or contributes to a marketable commodity (such as a book), then AOL owns your work. They can publish it, and are completely entitled to any and all profits generated by their publication of that work.

Have I got it right?
So, whatever happened to copyright law?

UPDATE March 15, 2005:
Okay, I couldn't resist turning 'blogmeat' into an extended rant.
Maybe I'll try again next month.

Ford to again put Thunderbird on hiatus

Ford to again put Thunderbird on hiatus - Mar. 11, 2005

Some of you may recall when I discussed "The Curse of American Automobiles" on December 14.

Well, things are looking up! Another Ford "Bites the Dust"!



I can't say I'm sorry. I've always referred to this particular (and I use the word advisedly) as "The Dove Beauty Bar Ford" because of its convex profile.



I admit, though, to a certain disappointment. The Ford Thunderbird was ever a sporty looking car



(I even liked the boxy four-passenger model.)



[sigh!]

But Ford got away from its roots. Sure, they went back to the 2-passenger runabout concept, but they forgot to make it sexy. Instead, the best you could say for the latest model was that it was "cute".

What kinda guy wants a "cute" car? My best guess is that Ford was trying to compete with the Honda Del Sol , which was the Compleat Chick Car.



(Although, with the venerable 289 CC engine, the T-bird was far from wussie in performance.)

The good news, if you have to buy a Ford, is that the Mustang is back ...




... in a style which hasn't seen since the egregious Mustang II.

Northwest Challenge 2005 - Survivor

Northwest Challenge 2005 - Survivor



The NorthWest Challenge has a hard-earned reputation of being a GREAT IPSC match.


If you expect to be anywhere near the Upper Left-Hand Corner of America at the end of July, this is the place to be. Sixty bucks buys you ...





SWMBO and I WILL be there!

Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, Report Finds

The New York Times : Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, Report Finds

ASHINGTON, March 7 - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

The New York times has once again resorted to fear-mongering to support their Liberal gun-control agenda.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

The operative word here is "suspected". There is nothing present, nor was any clause proposed, in the Brady Bill to deny the rights of any person who is only "suspected" of violating the law.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

On the contrary, a 'terrorist' is not permitted to purchase a firearm. Nor is a felon.

However, a person is not a felon until he/she is convicted in a court of law of felonious activities. If you are suspected of a felony, you may be charged, tried and convicted.

Until you are convicted of a felony, you are "presumed innocent", and retain your full rights as a citizen.

Who is prevented from buying a firearm under the Brady Bill (Title 18)?
Convicted felons, juveniles, insane people, non-citizens, and "Terrorists".

What is a "terrorist"?

It is a person who is engaged in "terrorism":
(22) ....

For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``terrorism'' means activity,
directed against United States persons, which--
 (A) is committed by an individual who is not a national or
permanent resident alien of the United States;
 (B) involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which
would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction
of the United States; and
 (C) is intended--
     (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
     (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
 or coercion; or
     (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination
 or kidnapping.

Okay, we've established some basic definitions according to Title 18. Let's look at the concerns reported by the New York Times:

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation "could better manage" its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

(Emphasis added)

Let's look at two cogent phrases:

",,, gaps in the law..."

and
"...hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records ..."

First, there are no 'gaps in the law'.

The Brady Bill was designed specifically to prevent felons, juveniles, madmen, etc. from possessing firearms. This is clearly demonstrated in the fascinating essay "Battle Over the Brady Bill".

Title 18 performs the purpose for which it was designed. When a firearms dealer performs a background check, the Federal Government and their POC's (Points Of Contact) have the opportunity to prevent the sale. The burden of proof that a prospective purchaser is not eligible to buy the firearm is not on the dealer, nor on the purchaser. The burden of proof is on the federal government, which must prevent the transaction based upon clearly defined guidelines. If the purchaser is someone who is legally not permitted to buy a fun *, the POC has the opportunity and the responsibility to to say so in a timely manner. Again, "suspician" is not one of the guidelines. In fact, "suspician" is grounds for arrest, but arrest and even arraignmenton on the charge of a felony is not grounds for denying the purchase. Only a conviction, or proof tha the purchaser is demonstrably among certain other groups (juvenile, madman, etc.) is grounds for denial.

Second, the FBI (according to the article) contends that they are "hamstrung" by the law.

Well, yes. they are 'hamstrung' since the law (Title 18) specifically prevents them .. or any other agency .... from using the NCICS system to record who has purchased a firearm. Abuse of the system in this way (specifically forbidden by the context of the cited law) is registration. The Brady Bill may have been intended by its original drafters to impose registration, but that clause was quickly stricken down and was history before he bill was accepted. Somebody out there was paying attention to the Second Amendment.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

Question: How does the FBI know this? Administration of the NCIC system is the responsibility of the BATF. Are they sharing data with the FBI? You may think this is a good idea, but it is not legal.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

That's the way the system is suppose to work. Do you suppose the NYT doesn't understand that?

The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official said.

"... sought for questioning ...? These " ... gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list ..." and the FBI did nothing? The article doesn't provide any details, but one wonders if these the situation was (a) the FBI didn't really care enough about the 'gun buyers' to go out and pick them up when they knew where they were at the moment, or (b) they didn't get the word from the ATF to apprehend them at the site.

Your guess is as good as mine, but it's an interesting question. Maybe, the FBI wasn't as 'interested' in these people as the NYT article would leave us to believe.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who requested the study, plans to introduce legislation to address the problem in part by requiring federal officials to keep records of gun purchases by terror suspects for a minimum of 10 years. Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year. Mr. Lautenberg maintains that the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.

This dog won't hunt.
"Terror suspects", in accordance with the tone of this article, will be whomever Frankie the Fink choses to label as such. What do you want to bet that the bill, if/when it is finally introduced to the Senate, is deliberately vague on the definition of "terror suspects". This means that it could be you, or me, or anyone ....

"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Mr. Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy."

He blamed what he called the Bush administration's "twisted allegiances" to the National Rifle Association for the situation.

The "twisted allegiances" which Lautenberg refers to is the "twisted allegiance" to Federal Law, as it was composed and accepted by the U.S. Senate.

Frankie's just mad because the other boys and girls didn't want to play his game.

The legal debate over how gun records are used became particularly contentious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, had blocked the F.B.I. from using the gun-buying records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. Mr. Ashcroft maintained that using the records in a criminal investigation would violate the federal law that created the system for instant background gun checks ....

This is typical of the Liberal Gun-Grabbers. They can't get the law written to suit them, but after the bill becomes Law they try to re-interpret it in their own warped context. Ashcroft was right; current federal law is NOT a registration scheme.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 states:

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

... but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.

One wonders whether they Justice Department lawyers bothered to read Federal law.

F.B.I. officials acknowledge shortcomings in the current approach to using gun-buying records in terror cases, but they say they are somewhat constrained by gun laws as established by Congress and interpreted by the Justice Department.

In other words:
'We (in the FBI) only enforce the laws you passed. You don't like it? Deal with it.'

UPDATE:
* "FUN" ... the word probably should have been "GUN". A friendly reader graciously suggested that this was either a typo or a Freudian slip. Actually, this was a test. I slipped it in to see if anyone was paying attention. JD passed the test with flying colors. Thanx for the feedback! jB)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Waiting for Documentation

This is a story in the Salem (the Oregon state capital) Statesman-Journal, published in the Sunday edition of March 6, 2005.

Nearly 2,000 people converged on McKay High School on Saturday to obtain services from the Mexican government.

Excuse me? Seeking to obtain services in Oregon from the MEXICAN government? They're living and working in Oregon. Why aren't they seeking to obtain services from the AMERICAN government?

They came seeking documents, information and help.

They came seeking assistance in finding a job, a place to live and securing a driver's license.

There were stories of unpaid wages, workplace discrimination and missing family members.

Oh. Okay, I get it now. These folks came to America with no prospects for work, no documentation, no authorization from their host country, and now they are upset because they can't legally drive an automobile in America. They are convinced that if they can acquire a "matricular consular card" from Mexico, they can resolved their problems. They have arrived in Oregon illegally, and now they discover that they don't have access to the same resources as have ... well ... American citizens.

Now, they're not seeking legitimization from America; only from Mexico.

As far as I know, Mexico has no special arrangement with America which established the same citizenship rights for Mexican citizens as do American citizens.

I'm pretty sure that Canada doesn't have this kind of agreement with America, either. On the other hand, most Canadian citizens who wish to move to America seem willing to jump through the bureaucratic hoops which allow them legally to reside and work in America. Likewise, American citizens who wish to move to Canada must apply for permission under a specific non-resident worker status, and must wait until the Canadian government grants them permission before they move there.

Citizens of Mexico, however, seem to assume a special status which is not codified under American law. When this assumption does not automatically result in full American citizen rights, when a job is not immediately forthcoming (when they discover that they cannot legally drive an automobile) they assume the mantle of an "underprivileged American Citizen" and demonstrate no compunction about complaining that they are the new downtrodden.


Coming to America" may have been the best idea they ever had, but they face an arduous journey in their struggle to make an living in a foreign land; a country in which opportunities are many, but they aren't legally allowed to take advantage of these opportunities.

We can sympathize with them, but one wonders what they expected when they illegally entered the country. Did they not know that it is illegal to enter the country without permission? That doesn't sound reasonable.

If I had found myself in the same situation, I would probably feel discriminated against.

Whose fault is that?

Y'ever read about a Canadian immigrant complaining that he/she can't get a driver's license?
No?
Why do you think that is so?
Could it be because the Canadians, when they choose to immigrate, actually ... 'immigrate'?

You don't hear about Canadian Migrant Workers.
American newspapers don't print stories about how "Canadian Migrant Workers" are unable to find jobs, cash checks, or acquire drivers licenses.

Why is this?

Could it be because Canadian immigrants apply for permission before they "migrate" to another country?

Curiously, the cited story never makes it clear that the "... nearly 2,000 people [who] converged on McKay High School on Saturday to obtain services from the Mexican government ..." are people who never bothered to apply for permission from the American government to immigrate.

I wonder. If these people were a valuable asset to America, why didn't they apply for a visa?

Many countries require a visa to live and work there. (Australia is one of them!)

For example, Australia has many categories for a visa:

• SKILLED VISA
• BUSINESS VISA
• RETIREMENT VISA
• FAMILY VISA
• STUDENT VISA
• VISITOR VISA
• WORKING HOLIDAY VISA

Does it seem curious to you that Australia lists no "unskilled labor" visa requirements?

However, under "skilled visa", the Australian website mentions:

• Skilled Visa Basic Requirements
• Eligible Occupations for Skilled Visa
• Skilled Occupations in Demand
• Skilled Visa Entitlements
• Application Cost & Processing Time
• Applying for Skilled Visa
• Advanced Migration Service for Skilled Migrants
• Premium Migration Service Skilled Migrants
• Face to Face Consultation with a Migration Agent
• Jobs for Skilled Migrants
• Government Welfare

Skilled Visa Basic Requirements
In order to satisfy labour market shortages, the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) has set specific basic requirements for people who are interested in applying under the Skilled Migration Stream.

To qualify for skilled migration, you (or your partner) must be able to satisfy the basic visa requirements and meet the current pass mark. The basic visa criteria require you to meet specific age requirements, English language ability, minimum qualifications level, selection of a nominated occupation and recent work experience.

In addition to meeting the basic visa requirements, you are also required to satisfy the current points test. Points can be claimed for several items including skill, age, English language ability, specific work experience, spouse skills and other bonus categories.

That seems clear enough. Doesn't American have similar requirements?
Yes. In fact, the requierments are much more lenient than are Australia's.

What about this bizarre requirement of eligibility for Australian "government welfare"?

Government Welfare

Generally, permanent residents have the same right to claim social security benefits as Australian citizens. However, in most cases, you must meet certain residence and eligibility rules. There is a two-year waiting period for newly arrived residents - this starts from the date of arrival in Australia.

This means that once you arrive in Australia on a permanent visa, you will have to wait two years before you can claim social security payments.

Huh.

So ... it appears that it's not entirely a new idea for immigrants (NOTE: not "Migrants") to bring something to the table when immigrating to a new country.
Why is America so different? Could it be because the Rio Grande is not so grande as the Pacific Ocean, and it's just physically more difficult to move from Mexico to America than it is to move from Mexico to Australia?

...

You may say: "Hey, Geek! Where do you get the idea that the people who the Salem Statesman - Journal are talking about are 'undocumented immigrants?"

Granted, it's not intuitively obvious from the original article. However, even a Liberal Rag like the Salem Statesman-Journal can't get away with completely obfuscating the facts. Perhaps that's why, on the same page (c0ntinued on Page 3) it offers this companion article:

This is a story about a Mexican "migrant" who is searching for her sister.

Statesman Journal
March 6, 2005

The plea came from a petite woman, eyes brimming with tears.

"Can you help me?" she asked sheepishly in Spanish. "Please help me."

And then she began.

It has been five months -- five months of sleepless nights and anguish-filled days since Ilse M. Lopez last spoke to her sister.

The siblings were separated five years ago when Lopez, 28, left their home state of Chiapas, Mexico. They were to be reunited last fall in Salem, but 40-year-old Aide M. Lopez never arrived.

Aide had saved her money to hire a smuggler to get her to Oregon. But according to reports from acquaintances on the journey, Aide sprained her ankle somewhere in the Arizona desert. The injury slowed down the group of illegal immigrants she was traveling with, and she was left behind.

Whoops!

... had saved her money to hire a smuggler to get her to Oregon ...

Damn! What an unfeeling, inconsiderate country America must be, to force her to save her money to hire a smuggler. And when the smuggler didn't perform as expected, whose fault is it?


Ilse has lost her sister.It could happen to anyone.
I've lost pens, sun-glasses, money and my virtue. Somehow, I've never quite managed to lose my sister.

Whether Ilse's sister is hospitalized, incarcerated or dead is anyone's guess.

And when Ilse Lopez heard that the Mexican Consulate would be in Salem on Saturday, she showed up to see what options she had.

"I love my sister," Lopez said, tears rolling down her cheeks. "She left three children in Mexico with our parents."


This is like buying a used Chevy Citation, financing it through GMAC, and suing the USA when the the car goes 'missing'.
America holds the warranty.

Lopez wrings her hands, imagining the treacherous journey that her sister embarked upon last fall.

Returning to Chiapas to seek help is not an option financially for Ilse Lopez, so she reached out to the Mexican government here.

"Financially" not an option? What are the priorities here? At least Ilse has the grace to wring her hands. (So did Pontius Pilate.)

" Luis Elias, head of the department of protection for the Mexican Consulate, urged Lopez to provide a photograph of her sister so he could request an official investigation from the consular offices in Arizona."

In the midst of all this negative commentary on Ms. Lopez's attempts to find out what happened to her sister, it appears that something positive may occur after all.

I'm confused by all of this ... comentary ... from the Statesman Journal. Ilse Lopez seems to be a caring, loving person. She is worried about her sister, understandably so.

But what about the conditions which are so hopeless that the mother of three feels the only opportunity she has is to illegally enter a foreign country ... at great risk of her own life? I'm sure that Aide struggled to find an answer which would allow her to stay with her children. It must have been a difficult decision for her to make.

Who's the villain here? It doesn't seem to be either of the two sisters, who are only trying to make a decent living. It can't be America, which only wishes to preserve the integrity of its own borders (an even more vital consideration, in this age of terrorism.)

We're running out of candidates for villainism here. The only one I can see is the Mexican Government.

Sure, they're willing to set up a booth in Oregon where their citizens wait all day for a minimum of help.

Where were they when their citizens found themselves in such mean circumstances that their only hope was to leave their families, their children, and risk their lives in a venture which, under the most benign turn of events, will require years of separation and hard work before they can be reunited?

I have a great deal of respect for Mexican 'migrants'. Those whom I've met are hard workers; honest, decent people who only want to make a decent living for their families.

But there are 'the other kind' as well. Predators, who find the pickings much richer in a richer land. How is America to sort them out?

It's not Mexico's problem. The Mexican government is perfectly willing to export both their indigent and their predators, and then to criticize the U.S. government for the way we deal with their emmigrants.

There are no good solutions here. But if there were, the best would be for Mexico to take care of its citizens ; to provide jobs, a decent standard of living, and the kind of social welfare for which it seems to prefer that America accepts the responsibility.

Even More Blogmeat!

Y'know how, every now and then when you're surfing the web, you come upon articles that you find interesting and you want to save for later reference? Sometimes, you actually go back and read them again. Usually, though, they end up being ignored for no better reason than that there's always something new to be read.

One advantage of a personal web log ("blog") is that you can preserve them for quasi-posterity, and even share them with others. These oh-so-interesting websites thus graduate from the status of "interesting things I have read" to "BLOGMEAT!"

I keep the URL's for these websites in my 'favorites' folder (which, by the way, is HUGE!) and from time to time I share a random selection here. Some folks do this all the time, and it constitutes the bulk of their blog. But I keep them just so I can parcel them out pusilanimously, reviewing them fondly in a manner reminiscent of orgasmic dribbles, so I can share the best of the best. That is to say, even if YOU don't appreciate them, I find them fascinating.

Well, it's my blog and I can do anything I want.

It may not be The Best Of The Web, but I like it!

Top of the list today, The Geek is mentioned by Resistance is Futile! (a Eugene, Oregon RKBA Blogger) in his Carnival of Cordite #3. (Note the link to this website on this sidebar.)

The Los Angeles Times sucks up to the Dear Leader (or whatever he demands to be called) in a recently blogged-to-death article titled North Korea, Without Rancor. Didn't we forgive CNN for proselytizing Sodom Hussein for the sake of "access" in such a manner last year?

From New Scientist:

The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture.

Malaysia News Online introduces a five-year-old boy who walks, runs and plays with other children his age even though he is no bigger than the stuffed toys I give to my grandchildren.

Arizona Central, one of my favorite news sites, quotes USA Today in describing the latest ID Theft problems of ChoicePoint. This kind of data-abuse affects even such blogosphere luminaries as Andrew Sullivan. We're all vulnerable to this abuse of confidence, and it doesn't matter who you are when the ID coyotes raid the chicken coop.

"Working For A Change" offers sage advice on how to "Argue Like A Conservative".
(NOTE there is no link in the sidebar for this website. We'll show you how to argue like a Liberal!)

The San Diego Union Tribune , offers a poll which opines that:

A majority of Mexican migrants living and working in the United States would be willing to participate in a temporary-worker program, according to a recent nationwide survey, even many of those who say they would prefer to stay in the country indefinitely.

Uh, well ... yes. Considering that this includes a large number of 'migrants' who are in the U.S. illegally, it stands to reason that they would be in favor of a 'temporary-worker program", since this might legitimize their illegal residence in the United States.

More on this later, in a subsequent essay on migrant workers in Oregon.


"Bootfinder" is a new system being used in Conneticut to randomly search automible license plates and match them with 'tax delinquets'. When a car is found to belong to an owner who has not payed all current taxes due to The State, then The State knows where to find ... and confiscate! ... the car.
Big Brother is not just an Orwellian fantasy. He's alive, and well, in Connecticut


Oh. You're already familiar with Orwellian fantasies? Well, it is about to come to the Web.

FEC to extend campaign-finance to Web
Commissioner warns of threat to blogs, online punditry

Be afraid.
Be very afraid.