Another new hobby?

Went to the local shooting range with the missus to try out something new. I’ve had a little experience with rifles and shotguns before but none with pistols. While I can’t say I can justify the $3000 price tag right now, I did quite enjoy the Nighthawk Custom 1911.

Arguing the wrong point

Over at Borepatch yesterday there was a post about Democrats being creepy because they build an app that uses public data to show where registered Democrats live. I left a comment which was misunderstood so I’ll expound here instead of putting a long comment there. Mr. Borepatch’s comment notwithstanding

This simply makes my skin crawl.  We know that there are people who are willing to target their political opponents.

This is not a problem with the Democratic party using publicly available data. Do not blame them for using the tools available to them. If you think your party affiliation should be kept private – DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO COLLECT IT. Go get them to change the rules.

I looked at two different voter registration forms today California and Texas (that should provide a good spread, right?) California has a box marked “Choice of Party.” Texas does not. If the government is requiring the collection of information then it is going to be public information more often than not. And that’s a good thing. And if I can’t fill it out, you can’t build an app that shows the data. I’m not a “registered anything” because there isn’t even a place for me to declare it. (Although if I go vote in a primary for a party they take note of that)

FWIW, I built a similar app as a proof of concept 4 years ago when I discovered the political donation info was readily available. Want to get creepy? Map out everyone on both sides who donated with big $$$ based on how much they contributed.

The real issue here is that the state’s directly support the two party system by actually managing the process for them and registering you with them. There is absolutely no reason for the state to provide ballots or procedure or anything to the private organizations known as political parties. The state recognizes the 2 parties officially and keeps the current system in place which is good for the incumbents. (Now when it comes to what the party does with its own data – same story; its on you to know that they are going to use the info to their advantage unless specified otherwise)

You want transparency in government? Then live with that transparency.

p.s. Borepatch, surely in your field you can’t have been surprised by the availability and use of data like this.

Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t totally suck!

When explaining why he is not jumping on the “Mayors that want to ban chick-fil-a” bandwagon, New York Mayor Bloomberg gets it exactly right

You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city. You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit. That’s just not government’s job.

I’ve been completely stunned that a number of large metropolitan mayors and councilman have gone on record that they are actively trying to prevent a restaurant from opening in their jurisdiction without any evidence (or even claims) of discrimination happening in their businesses.

Given his history, I was even more stunned that Bloomberg not only wasn’t right there with them, but he actively spoke out against it.

Way to go Mikey! (on this one at least) Now can I have a large soda with that?

SCOTUS did not give free reign for obscenity on TV

A lot of posts/tweets this morning have been suggesting that the SCOTUS ruling against the FCC in FCC v. Fox means that we are going to see lots of swearing and nudity on TV. That’s not the case. All it means is that the FCC can’t change their rules willy-nilly or whop you with a massive fine without prior notice that the behavior you engage in will whop you with a massive fine (prior notice meaning “its in the rules”). They specifically called out that they were not even considering this a first amendment issue and that the FCC is free to adjust their rules to be more precise in what is or is not allowed.

From the ruling (my emphasis)

It is necessary to make three observations about this decision’s scope. First, because the Court resolves these cases on fair notice grounds under the Due Process Clause, it need not address the First Amendment implications of the Commission’s indecency policy or re- consider Pacifica at this time.  Second, because the Court rules that Fox and ABC lacked notice at the time of their broadcasts that their material could be found actionably indecent under then-existing policies, the Court need not address the constitutionality of the current indecency policy as expressed in the Golden Globes Order and subsequent adjudications.  Third, this opinion leaves the Commission free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest and applicable legal requirements and leaves courts free to review the current, or any modified, policy in light of its content and application.

Thanks for clearing that up, Indiana!

My biggest concern for the Castle Doctrine laws has always been what happens if the police break into your house. What do you think would really happen if the police charge into your house by mistake or illegally and you shoot one of them. Stories of mistaken addresses, misserved warrants or unlawful entries are not uncommon.

The Indiana state Supreme Court ruled last year that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” Seriously. That was the decision.

Indiana now has a new law on the books that specifically allows

residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property.

Maybe this will be a trend that forces police to reevaluate the use of “show of force” SWAT operations and starting knocking on doors politely again.

Its too complicated. So just leave it as is?

Yet another argument in favor of limiting the size of Congressional bills

The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that.  A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress.  They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform.  The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.

Argument recap: A lift for the mandate? : SCOTUSblog

When No One Is Watching

Character is what you do when you think no one else is looking; or in this case, when you think your microphone is off.

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Obama Asks Medvedev for 'Space' on Missile Defense - 'After My Election I Have More Flexibility' - Yahoo! News