Razing Wrigley

So I was reading an article on ESPN why Wrigley Field sucks:

For the 97th straight year, the Chicago Cubs will attempt baseball this season in Wrigley Field. It's historic, magical and covered in vegetation. Then again, so is Machu Picchu and nobody's trying to win baseball games there.

Um, okay, so we're leading to a non sequitur. For now let's just call this a red herring, to be polite.

I love Wrigley Field. But I'm not a Cubs fan. If I were a Cubs fan, I would despise Wrigley. I'd want Wrigley laid flatter than Wrigley gum.

So you love the thing you'd hate if you were a fan of the team... please, go on...

There's a reason the Cubs have never won a World Series at Wrigley. There's a reason they're 0-for-the-last-67 pennant races at Wrigley. The reason IS Wrigley.

I'm sure you'll give evidence to back this claim... right?

Wrigley isn't just the old family dog that needs to be put down. It's an old family dog that probably costs the Cubs about $73 million a year. That's three Prince Fielders!

Okay it's expensive. What does that have to do with them winning or losing on the field?

Where do I get $73 million? Start from the outside-in -- with the money-sucking rooftop mini-stadiums that metastasize outside the ballpark.

The owners of these annoying watchtowers sell tickets as though they were the Cubs themselves. They even sell season tickets! The city continues to protect these leeches, who pass themselves off as mom and pop entrepreneurs, but actually rake in an estimated $24 million a year, according to the club.

Of that, the Cubs get a paltry 17 percent, or $4 million a year. Any fair deal would give them at least half. (There's $8 million they don't get.)

So still on the money issue again. What exactly does that do to their ability to hit a ball where it needs to go? Where is the "Green Monster" that this causes?

Inside, the Cubs are prohibited from putting up advertising signs that could make them up to $30 million more a year (that would be $38 million) because the signs would block the views of the precious rooftop oglers and the city can't have that.

You talk about a business being in your business. Can you imagine this happening to any other business?

Hey, H&R Block! We're not going to pay you for your tax advice, but we ARE going to pocket the cash people give us to sit outside your window and listen to it!

If all this seems insane to you, you should talk to Bruce Springsteen. In the middle of a recent concert at Wrigley, he stopped, turned toward the rooftops and said, with a smirk, "Everybody up on the roof! Who'd you pay?"

So a musical concert doesn't like the venue for a BASEBALL GAME with traditions a mega-rich musician from Jersey doesn't like cutting into his bottom line. The hell does this have to do with the game again?

You say, "Well, the Cubs aren't really a business. They're a city treasure, a kind of living museum."

Fine, if they're a city treasure, then the city should help support them, the way it did for this summer's 30th anniversary of the Chicago Blues Festival, which received a $15,000 grant.

The Cubs pay 12 percent city "amusement" tax on every ticket (about $17 million a year -- we're up to $55 million), and yet the city doesn't give them a dime. Very unamusing.

Amen. But how does that help your argument that it's the stadium's fault they lose?

There's more. You can open the doors of your business pretty much whenever you want, but the Cubs can't. They're allowed to play only 30 night games a year. And they can't even pick the nights. When owner Tom Ricketts inquired if they might play a few Saturday night games this season, the local restaurants fumed, "It'll kill our dinner business!"

Got it. Everybody gets to compete for customers except the Cubs.

Any idea how much more the Cubs could get for a TV package with 55 night games, which is what many teams play and when most fans watch? Me neither, but let's guess $5 million. (We're up to $60 million.)

Actually it's a neighborhood ballpark that fought putting up lights in the first place to even have any night games. This isn't some strictly touristy district of some city designed for the sole purpose of bilking tourism dollars wherever it can. It's a stadium that continues to stand in spite of that crap while upholding traditions of the game, going through some of the worst periods of corruption, dumbed down commercialization of everything, and doesn't afford free starbucks coffee enemas for espn writers riding in on their high horse about our billboard. Wait, you were probably getting to that...

God forbid they'd want to put up a decent video replay board, which is ad gold for most teams and, by the way, a place where Cubs fans could actually tell the score of the game without having to do the inning-by-inning math themselves, as they do now on the old hand-lettered relic in center. ($7 million? Total so far: $67 million.)

It's baseball, not calculus. The hell is wrong with you?

Plus, can you imagine the frogs that would rain down if they tried to sell the name of the stadium? They could never do what the White Sox did, which is to sell Comiskey to U.S. Cellular for $68 million over 20 years. The Cubs could probably get $100 million. There's another $5 million a year. (That's $72 million.)

Money and the name? How does that affect the game play exactly? Busch Stadium is still Busch Stadium with all the commercialization. Comiskey got leveled and rebuilt and is still called Comiskey by fans. A rose by any other name... of course if you level it and build a commercialized dung heap, it doesn't matter what you call it, it'll still be a commercialized dung heap.

And forget about how long it takes you to get up and get a hot dog at Wrigley (two innings sometimes), or get to the restroom and back (often three). Hell, by the third inning, the Cubs are on their third reliever. No wonder so many people sneak food in. What's that total in lost concessions? A million? (We're at $73 million.)

They sell food and beer in the stands, you small bladdered pansy! The hell is wrong with you?

And that's just the money they don't get. Imagine the players they don't get -- because of their weird start times, their rotting training facilities, their wimpy weight room, their nonexistent in-game batting cage, their backachingly small clubhouse and their 104-year ringless streak.

My gawd, they might actually have to appreciate tradition and the love of the game? The horror!

Can you imagine what a genius like Cubs GM Theo Epstein could do with another $73 million a year? He'd be Theo, Unchained. He'd have the fourth-highest payroll in MLB instead of the 15th (2012). One of the biggest draws in sports shouldn't be 15th in anything.

So you wanna go from slave rebellions to "I'm rich, bitch!" The fuck is wrong with you?

The Red Sox finally stopped treating their little neighborhood park like it was a Faberge egg. They started putting up signs everywhere at Fenway, maxed out revenue anywhere they could, and won two of the past 9 World Series. You hear Boston fans complaining?

They did so without leveling the place or tearing down the green monster or turning it into half-ballpark half-mall department store.

And yet Ricketts doesn't want to raze Wrigley. He was practically raised on Wrigley. He lives close enough that he takes the "L" to most games. And because he loves it, he has offered to pour $500 million of the family's money into renovating Wrigley -- $300 million for fixing the joint and the rest into a proposed hotel/fitness club across the street.

So he's not hurting for money. What was your endless arguments about money about then?

And what does Ricketts want for plowing no government cheese into the Wrigley rat trap? Not a dime. He just wants the city to relax some of the restrictions that make the Cubs a kind of crippled Carnival cruise ship with foul poles. And STILL aldermen such as Thomas Tunney are gumming it all up. Tunney wants more parking, more cops and to extend the sleazy rooftops deal, all of which he doesn't want to pay for. "You're talking about one of the richest families in America," Tunney told reporters the other day.

Not at this rate.

Yeah, at this rate he still will be. And?

Epstein really didn't want any part of this column, but he did email to say, "We're focused on doing everything we can with what we have available to us now to make the baseball operation as healthy and successful as possible."

Too bad there's so little available.

Maybe people wouldn't want to have any part in this article because it fails to make its point and endlessly talks about razing one of America's most historic ballparks. Or maybe you're just a douchebag in real life too. Beats me.

It's simple, Chicago. You can either have your creaky, quaint, vine-covered crypt, or you can win. But you can't have both.

Do the math. You're used to it.

You failed to explain how that revenue will makes us "win" any more than now. The only relevant issue you brought up was schedule issues, which is a pain in the ass for any baseball player given all the away games, is minuscule. Everything else uses the game to sell shit instead of selling shit so we can have a game. Zero appreciation of the game, the traditions, or even a remote interest in the community.

How about this. Raze your own house to put up a billboard to help the homeless. Your family can live under it. Douche.

Give Something Anonymously

A few bucks to a cancer foundation, a few bucks towards one of the veterans or military organizations I've mentioned in the past, or whatever your heart desires. Buy someone's dinner at a restaurant or diner you frequent. But do it anonymously. No credit, no thanks, no tax credits, no recognition. Just do something good for your fellow man for no other reason than being a good human being among many human beings that could use a little boost to make their day better. Maybe it'll go to an asshole. Oh well. Maybe it helps that yahoo getting by a little bit more hopeful. Who knows?

A little more altruism in the world might not help, but it surely can't hurt. And though I'm not a believer, I can recognize wisdom: 1 Corinthians 13:

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

² And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

³ And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

⁴ Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

⁵ Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

⁶ Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

⁷ Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

⁸ Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

⁹ For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

¹⁰ But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

¹¹ When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

¹² For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

¹³ And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Loyalty

After years of loyalty to a politics channel on efnet... helping with flooders, spammers, trollers, and general moderation of people getting exceptionally uncivil, I had my loyalty questioned. That was insulting enough after all these years. But then I was outright called disloyal again after being met with conspiracy theories and things as petty as channel names that predated some personal crap someone else had. Apparently there was absolutely no trust in me after all these years. No loyalty back whatsoever. In some grand conspiracy I was a minion for someone else's alleged plot to carry out lord knows what with a hit list of targets I'd never seen.

So when the channel I was so loyal to for so many years has gone off its collective rocker, I can't be loyal to it anymore. I was loyal until it decided that loyalty meant having to be stark raving mad. I'm not. So I guess I'm no longer loyal. Thanks for the good years #efnet #politics. Good luck with stark raving mad.

Peace.

DOMA Military/Veteran Exemption

A petition for a step towards repealing DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) is now on the White House petition website. This could be a foot in the door for further legislation to repeal it entirely, but in the mean time also giving current military and veteran families access to benefits they've earned yet denied due to their sexual orientation. While various states may recognize their relationships and the White House is broadening benefits up to the edge of DOMA, there is still a lot of work to do. A full repeal would be, in my opinion, the best course. But the reality of politics doesn't always work that way.

So spread the word, whether or not you agree.

If you do agree, sign the petition.

Link:

Make an exemption to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in regards to military and veterans benefits for gay spouses.

On Gun Control

After a fairly long hiatus from blogging, the issue of guns has become a focus of a lot of political discussions. It seems worthwhile to comment on the situation.

My proposals:

• Yes, universal background checks. Every sale should go through an FFL. On top of this the FFL at the purchase point has to contact an FFL at the residence of where the purchaser lives to ensure the laws are upheld at both ends. It is imperfect, but would help reduce straw purchases.


• Follow up on gun purchase denials. If it's just a typo the cops can go on their merry way. If it's an illegal attempt to purchase (e.g. a felon claiming he's not a felon) the cops can intervene.


• Better health care access and intervention. ObamaCare is hardly ideal even according to liberals/democrats, but the access could be helpful. But we also need better reporting to the instant background check system for those deemed a danger to themselves or others. There would need to be an appeals process to ensure due process, however. One shrink's opinion denying you a right shouldn't alone be sufficient. 


• Enforcing the laws. The NRA, of which I'm a life member, has been hypocritical on the issue, but we really do need to shift our priorities from kids smoking weed to people attempting to purchase firearms illegally, in my opinion.


• As far as registering guns, which has historically been abused, I'd prefer registering those people who can't legally own them. Again with a due process ability to help change mistakes.


• Not treating all those with mental illness as if they are a danger to themselves or others. It not only adds to a negative stigma that precludes people from seeking help (which could in itself allow for complications and make their problems more severe), but it also unjustly lumps everyone with less severe mental issues, such as veterans dealing with trauma, with those who are actually dangerous.

On the pro gun control side:

• AWB was useless for 10 years and it will be useless today. Even the federal agencies note that they're a small part of the overall problem, most mass shootings use handguns, and given that even current proposals include grandfather clauses it would take generations for it to even start making a dent in availability.


• Get your terms straight. If you're going to argue about guns, learn the specifics. When you talk to someone about guns and don't know full auto vs semi auto, or have no idea that machine guns are already heavily regulated or banned, but think an AWB applies to them... you just sound like a moron.

On the pro gun side:

• There is no general gun ban proposal on the books. Even the current AWB proposals have grandfather clauses. Nobody is coming to take your guns.


• There is no proposed change to the background check system that would make it a back door registration. Background check data, by law, has to be deleted soon after sales.


• You can be pro gun without being a gun nut. Yes you have a 2nd Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms. But even the Constitution notes that the militia can be called up to put down rebellions. It's not a free license to revolution. A revolution against a tyrannical government, would be by necessity, an extragovernmental issue. Quoting the founders on their extragovernmental philosophy doesn't mean they formed a gov't that had an inherent rebellion policy. It specifically says they can smash you for trying.

Let's have some constructive policy. Let's get past blaming video games or movies from the 90s. Let's stop being totally ignorant about what a semi-auto is versus an actual full auto or 3 round burst military weapon. Let's stop the stupid and get productive.

Please.

Election 2012

Election time is near again. This poor neglected blog needs an update. As an independent with a focus on national security and Constitutional Law in a classical liberal tendency, I'm honestly mixed. I'm leaning towards Obama fairly strongly this year in spite of supporting McCain in 2008. This time the "unknown variable," imo, is Romney. I'm quite sure I still strongly disagree with Obama on fundamental philosophical issues on Constitutional interpretation. As far as pragmatic execution of his powers,... less so.

I've put up a new poll in the upper right hand corner for people to chime in on the general election. For people choosing "other" I encourage them to comment on who and why they are choosing choices from third parties to independents.

Most of the back and forth partisan arguments seem so rehashed given the 2004 election arguments that I'm pretty numb to the current debates, but if you have a complaint... feel free to share.

Pre-existing Post Rape Syndrome

Now I've blogged regularly about the military's propensity to discharge soldiers based on pre-existing conditions pulled out of their ass without proof. The basic gist is they develop mental conditions while in the service of the military, especially issues such as severe PTSD, and get kicked out without military benefits and long and often difficult fight with the Veterans Affairs Administration to get medical help.

At the end of this post is the posts on these related news items and demands my congress to address the problem. But right now I'm adding a new one to the list. Rape victims being kicked out of the military without benefits for having "pre-existing personality disorders" without any proof of such pre-existing conditions, conveniently timed after they've reported rape.

From CNN (Read the full article for individual cases they profiled):

CNN has interviewed women in all branches of the armed forces, including the Coast Guard, who tell stories that follow a similar pattern -- a sexual assault, a command dismissive of the allegations and a psychiatric discharge.

...

The latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM-IV, defines a personality disorder as a long-standing, inflexible pattern of maladaptive behavior and coping, beginning in adolescence or early adulthood.

That would mean women like Schroeder, Moore and McClendon had a pre-existing personality disorder when they joined the military. Someone with personality disorder tends to get fired from jobs, get in trouble with the law or at school or is unable to maintain relationships.

"It makes absolutely no sense medically for people to be diagnosed all of a sudden after being sexually assaulted as an adult in the military to say 'No, you've had this all along,'" says Bhagwati, of the Service Women's Action Network.

"These women have clearly been able to function. They've made it through basic training. They've made it through all the follow-on training. Many of them are deployed overseas in war, and they've done fine there. But, when they're sexually assaulted, and then report it, it seems very suspicious that the military would suddenly stamp them with a pre-existing condition that bars them from serving anymore."

Dr. Liza H. Gold, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University School of Medicine, says it's a rule of thumb among psychiatrists not to diagnose someone with a personality disorder in the middle of a traumatic experience like a divorce, litigation or the aftermath of a sexual assault.

The DSM-IV says: "When personality changes emerge and persist after an individual has been exposed to extreme stress, a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should be considered."

Also, by definition, a personality disorder diagnosis cannot be caused by another psychiatric condition, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Gold says.

After as many people were screwed over with PTSD and other psychological problems incurred and/or aggravated in the service being denied benefits, this is just a whole new slap in the face that appears to have been going on at the same time. The military's zero tolerance policy appears to be more about saving its own ass and money while they fuck over rape victims and other veterans.

If the military's practice of getting people fucked up and dumped onto the street without benefits after they've served their country honorably doesn't piss you off, you're reading the wrong blog.


Following up on these older posts:

Personality Disorder Scam...: ...becomes Multiple Personality Disorder Scam. Military changes tactics to avoid congressional investigation.

Widespread 'Isolated Incidents': About a stunning admission of a military doctor that they are being pressured generally to avoid diagnosing PTSD in returning soldiers... caught on tape.

Dr. Phil on VA Failings: Dr. Phil puts the spotlight on veterans and the bureaucracy that regularly fails them while the bureaucracy responsible pulls the 'isolated incident' routine.

Bombshell: The VA Shredder Scandal reveals a depressing peek into what lows the bureaucracy will sink at the expense of disabled veterans.

Pentagon Disorder Update: Finally some action to tackle the personality disorder scam to defraud veterans of their earned benefits.

Pentagon Disorder Update: Finally some action to tackle the personality disorder scam to defraud veterans of their earned benefits.

Pentagon Disorder: Part II: More of the personality disorder scam stories and a PBS special giving the issue more public attention. Still no action.

Shhh...afting Veterans: VA employee caught red handed suggesting that her staff misdiagnose PTSD patience in order to save money.

What's More Disgraceful?: New stories of the military misdiagnosing service connected ailments as a pre-existing Personality Disorder, and the denial of benefits that result.

Psychological "Friendly" Fire: Veterans struggling with the VA claims backlog and bureaucracy and how the misconceptions and deceptions pushed by the Pentagon are making it even harder for returning veterans to deal with the VA bureaucracy.

Pentagon Disorder: The Personality Disorder Scam. The DoD takes service connected disabled vets and says they have pre-existing mental problems that get the government off the hook for paying for benefits for their war time and service connected disabilities. A real travesty.

More Vet Funding But...: Some good improvements on Vet funding, but still no movement on the Personality Disorder scam being used to deny benefits to veterans.

Wednesdog Post

Because I felt like it and my glog has felt neglected:



The family dog can never decide which toy he wants more so he always tries to have his cake and eat it too.

Fareed Zakaria on Pakistan

Zakaria, author of "The Post-American World" and generally one of the few journalists left who doesn't just run some sort of infotainment show, had some interesting thoughts about why our policies in Pakistan are failing and why that has needed to change for a long time:



Text version of the article is available here.

Something Good for Those Who Serve

Click image for more details on the event or visit the local Toys For Troops website here.

Whatever our opinions are of the wars, our doubts, our fears, our politics... nobody carries the heaviest burden like our men and women in uniform and their families that have sacrificed so much for so many.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

A year ago TIME Magazine was asking what happens if we leave Afghanistan. At the time there were many people upset at the cover image. I blogged about it here. Behind every attempt to rationalize why we just simply can't keep our forces in play in this unforgiving land, is the haunting memory of what filled the void when the Soviets left Afghanistan two decades ago. A devastating civil war, a brutal theocracy taking control of most of the country, and a regime that became the state sponsor of a terrorist group that eventually gave us 9/11. The humanitarian crisis that existed in Afghanistan was no secret, nor is it just pessimism to expect some return of the Taliban and its brutality as we leave. In a recent article the BBC doesn't ask what if, but shows what has happened in an area where we've withdrawn:

The US pulled out of parts of Kunar last year, beginning the withdrawal process. What has happened in the province since then makes for grim reading.

The new roads are now pock-marked with craters left by militants who plant bombs targeting Western and Afghan forces.

The province is becoming more dangerous - UK aid worker Linda Norgrove was kidnapped on one of the main roads in Kunar last year and in the past few months an Afghan translator was also abducted from exactly the same area.

The stretch between Chaw Kay and Nur Gal has become a favourite haunt of militants seeking targets.

The Taliban now roam at will in some rural districts, ruling villages by night while the government exerts nominal power by day. Taliban radio stations broadcast daily and hypnotic chants exhorting jihad (holy war) dominate Kunar's airwaves.

...

"It is Taliban across the river," one elder said. "They are lying in wait. At the first opportunity, they will descend on the village to take their revenge," he said, refusing to give his name for fear of retribution.

At this point we may just be talking about the inevitable. The American public has lost the stomach to endure much more of this never ending tit-for-tat stalemate we've run into at the Pakistan border, possibly more so since the incursion that killed Osama bin Laden and left al Qaeda an organizational and perhaps toothless mess. But what we've learned from our once reluctant ally of Pakistan is that the real power players were never Musharraf or the elected government that came after him, but the military and ISI upper echelons. The same allies of the Taliban and supporters of terrorism as a tool of foreign relations are in play, orchestrating everything from the Mumbai attacks, to looking the other way in the hunt for Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, to possible direct support... all while crying foul at any attempt by the US to bypass their obstruction.

The sad fact is we chased the war to the Pakistani border, where it languished while we failed to come up with a way to complete it. As we leave the same ideological forces that pushed into the vacuum of post-Soviet Afghanistan will be there to do so again. The humanitarian crisis that results will only be tempered by how much or how long the Afghan forces who oppose the Taliban resurgence can hold out. If there are any good options, the window for them has almost certainly passed. If there are options to minimize the horror that looms on the horizon, I'm all ears... but aren't we all?


Background:

Since the 2008 election, when almost every candidate with the exception of some fringe candidates who did not get much public support, was campaigning on 'winning' in Afghanistan, it's become an unintentional yearly habit to note how our war effort there has only continued to become more bleak (as if it wasn't bleak enough with Bush at the helm).

2010: Losing Afghanistan - "For me the situation is no longer just dire. We're losing Afghanistan. The problems are hitting a critical mass that there may be no coming back from. It breaks my fucking heart."

2009: America's Slow Surrender - "Unfortunately it currently seems likely that this war is going to be treated like it is generally presented to the public, as a television show that has jumped the shark. They're bored with it and they just want to change the channel. The ramifications of which we'll unfortunately not be able to just click off."

Pakistan Pushes Back

Quick aside: If you're interested I put up a poll on the right column for those who want to express who they support in 2012. Comment if you feel other names should be added for the next poll or other poll question suggestions. Back to business:

We continue to fight and chase down insurgents, sometimes with fuck ups, along the AfPak border. Right now though we have a massive nightmare of our supply lines through Pakistan being bottlenecked and halted in the old nightmare scenario that left them vulnerable to insurgent attacks before.

We have political candidates openly talking about covert operations in progress and as proposals that are having effects on current relations on our relationship with Pakistan. We have military and covert assets in harms way, more than ever attempting to achieve the goals set out for them in spite of the American Idol electoral system we've established in spite of our electoral system. We're putting the lives of some of our most dedicated agents, assets, and operatives in danger over politics... with lives being lost and lord knows what else in the shadows.

The current candidates in the GOP need to heed the warnings of their more experienced peers, including Jon Huntsman, and not put their campaigns above the lives of operatives and assets in the field. As much as many conservatives may despise Obama, their political disagreements do not justify trading votes for the lives of those who fight in the darkest and most dangerous trenches the war on terror has to offer in covert operations.

Just sayin'.

Let's Help Doom SOPA!

The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Senate version PROTECT-IP Act are ruffling some feathers across industries and political aisles. I'm strongly in favor of looking at the resources below and then making up your own mind about the issue. Afterwards: Contract Your Elected Officials! Let your voice be heard, even if seems so futile by itself, these campaigns do have the possibility of push back against interests that represent more money than actual votes.

Wikipedia actually has a fairly neutral outline of the various information about the bill and how the support and opposition is breaking down. More importantly it has a great deal of references so that you can verify what was some biased guy's edit or credible information.

Last I heard both these bills are sitting in their respective judiciary committees, so starting out searching for your Rep and Senators for whether they're on those committees to let them know how you feel about these bills would be a good start.

Also worth knowing some of the business interests involved: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/11/17/which-tech-companies-back-sopa-microsoft-apple-and-27-others/

Here are the co-sponsors of the PROTECT IP bill in the Senate (S. 968): http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@P

Here are the 24 cosponsors of the SOPA (formerly E-PARASITES) bill in the House (H.R. 3261): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261

You'll probably have to click a link for it to show the co-sponsors to see if your Rep or Senator is among them.

I'm in opposition to these bills for some fairly basic reasons. I believe the language is far too broad which could, whether intended or not, open up the statues to abuse or unintended consequences later. All this while poorly dealing with the issues of copyright/piracy they claim to be at the heart of their concerns. Read through it, make up your own mind. Bug your Representatives and Senators and give them an earful.

Thanks to IamKing for the links. Will update later as this bill either continues to be a problem or, hopefully dies in committee.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Is it doomed? It passed the house, but can it pass the Senate and Obama's veto pen? Will we finally end the oddball mix and match honoring of this state license in that state or vice versa rules? According to the NRA it appears to at least be a possibility.

The New York Times also seems to think it is an issue worth looking into if it has a chance of passage. The NRA article delves deeper into the various poison pill and other amendments that attempted to weaken the bill... the NY Times article gets more into general concerns of the possibility of weakening restrictions on concealed carry permits in states with high restrictions by allowing people with other state permits a way around some of their rules.

Overall this bill doesn't seem to be as ground shaking for or against expanding guns rights or intruding upon regulations. Only one State (and the District of Columbia) outright ban concealed carry and they'd be unaffected. For the other 49 states it would certainly simplify the registration process to something more on par with the DMV along with its legal recognition.

One complaint coming from those groups who either overtly or subtly oppose most gun rights issues up for current legislation... they actually tried to pull a "states rights" cards on something Republicans consider an issue that the 14th Amendment incorporation holds against the States, as with free speech and others. It was a bit of a due process twilight zone. It's sad that the opposition to this bill comes from how well it might play among the masses after decades of being misled or just plain ignorant about what powers the federal government has, which are reserved to the states, and how rights protected under the 14th Amendment play a role. It leads to a lot of partisan flip-flopping, but in this case a pretty dramatic one as one local paper makes clear after my U.S. Representative attempted to make the bill apply even to those areas without a concealed carry bill:

But one of Johnson’s congressional opponents as well as the director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the amendment was politically motivated.

“While I support concealed carry, I think it’s the job of the Illinois Legislature to bring it to fruition. I don’t think it’s something the federal government should impose on Illinois,” said David Gill, a Bloomington physician seeking the Democratic nomination in the 13th Con­gressional District. “It sounds like Mr. Johnson and I agree on the issue. But in his desperate attempt to overcome a 20-point deficit in this new congressional district, he’s attempting to pander to voters by making promises he can’t get through Congress.”

Mark Walsh, head of the Chicago-based anti-gun group, said concealed carry is a state’s rights issue, and that Johnson and the other Illinois Republicans are pushing the measure to energize their base.

...

A second Democrat running in the 13th District said he had not read Johnson’s legislation.

“I’m a hunter and a Second Amendment proponent. I believe the Second Amendment provides a constitutional right to bear arms and I would defend that in Congress,” said Greene County State’s Attorney Matt Goetten. “I have not read Congressman Johnson’s amendment, so I can’t comment specifically on that.”

In his letter to colleagues, Johnson noted that some may view the amendment as an infringement on state’s rights.

“(H)owever, the 14th Amendment explicitly protects against infringement of all rights in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Indeed, Congress has even passed a law that allows former law-enforcement agents to have CCW. Why can these citizens be allowed to guard their home, person or family while the remaining law-abiding citizens of Illinois cannot?”

Food for thought.