KVNU's For The People

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES REGISTRATION ACT

Tim Carter — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:11:16 +0000

I don’t know why we didn’t think of this earlier…… From South Carolina

(1) “Subversive organization” means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means;

(2) “Organization subject to foreign control” means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or other organization, composed of two or more persons, which comes within either of the following:

(a) it solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans or support of any kind directly or indirectly from, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof, an agent, agency or instrumentality of a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, a political party in a foreign country or an international political organization or

(b) its policies, or any of them, are determined by or at the suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, an agent, agency or instrumentality of a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof, a political party in a foreign country or an international political organization;

(3) “Foreign agent” means any person whose actions, or any of them, are determined by or at the suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, an instrumentality or agency of a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, a political party in a foreign country or an international political organization; and

(4) “Business” includes, but is not limited to, speaking engagements.

Make them fill out a form……Check. $5.00 dollar filling fee……Check. O.K., your Jihad is good to go!

SECTION 23-29-60. Registration of members of subversive and foreign-controlled organizations.

Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means, who resides, transacts any business or attempts to influence political action in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State on the forms and at the times prescribed by him.

What???? You didn’t fill out the form?? What do you mean you didn’t have the $5.00 processing fee? Ignorance is no excuse…

SECTION 23-29-90. Penalties.

Any organization or person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both fine and imprisonment.

Monday AM Linkage

Jason Williams — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:21:33 +0000

- The legislature (and the Sutherland Institute), still bitter about school vouchers, just doesn’t like citizen initiatives. No other way to say it. And I mean really don’t like them.

- Financial reform talk drives Wall Street donors from Dems to GOP.

- Eric Holder’s War.

- Ketchup makers are finally listening!

- Remembering the fun: Video of Chaffetz’s August 09 Health Care Townhall.

- Elections Matter.

- Wayne Niederhauser wants to out-message-bill Rep. Carl Wimmer. It’s a Grandstand-Off!

- Legislature opens door to garbage as an energy source.

- Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal ‘Synthetic Organisms.’

- Poll: Rating Utah’s Elected Officials.

Nuclear Power Welfare?

Jason Williams — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:02:37 +0000

Amidst all the excitement over the future of Nuclear energy, this little nugget often bypasses consideration:

Obama’s budget, as Sheppard reports at Mother Jones, is upping funding for nuclear plant development, even though previous nuclear projects have run wildly over budget. The president has always supported increased nuclear production. As an Illinois Senator, Obama had Exelon Corporation, the country’s largest nuclear operator, in his constituency. The company continued to support him as a presidential candidate. The proposed funding runs in the neighborhood of $54.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear projects. That’s good news for an industry that’s in need of cash. As Sheppard explains, without governmental backing, these plants would have little chance of being built.

“Even as public opinion toward nuclear power has warmed, projected construction costs for new plants have soared, with a single reactor now estimated to cost as much as $12 billion,” she writes. “In fact, the outlook for nuclear plants looks so dire that even Wall Street banks have balked at financing them unless the government underwrites the deal.”

Our own legislators, as far back as 2007, have attempted to fast track development of a facility — “if feasible” — in Utah.

Logistical (water requirements, waste storage, etc) concerns aside, other questions remain. If the cost of development remains too high for investors and developers to buy in, will the state subsidize the effort (could we even afford to, on our own?), or support dependency on federal funds or underwriting (while complaining about federal funds at the same time, of course) to back development and construction of a facility?

Public support remains consistently high, and even green energy advocates are intrigued by the “nuclear option.” But its in no way as simple a path to development as our elected officials would lead us to believe?

Do Utah Fiscal Conservatives support ‘Pay as you Go’ legislation?

Tim Carter — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:17:04 +0000

Seems like a no brainer. Of course our ‘conservative’ representatives will voice our ‘fiscally responsible’ Utah values. Hmmm.

While Democrats in both chambers instituted pay-go rules in 2007, lawmakers have ignored them when taking up costly legislation. The Democrat-controlled Congress waived the pay-go rules to pass a $288 billion farm bill in 2008 and to pass the $787 billion stimulus in 2009.

A pay-go law, which was stronger and harder to waive than the current rules, was in place during the Clinton administration, but Republicans in Congress and the George W. Bush administration allowed it to expire in 2002. The next year, Republicans pushed through a package of tax cuts and the Medicare drug benefit without paying for them.

From here: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/76561-senate-to-vote-on-paygo-to-clear-way-for-debt-debate

Weekend AM Linkage

Jason Williams — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:41:44 +0000

- Tea Party Convention kicks off with some good ol’ fashioned crazy. And comedy.

- Sen. Urquhart on implementing a two-track sex ed system in our schools.

- Utahns for Ethical Government weighs in on House Ethics Reform bill and Constitutional amendment.

- Republican Senator holds up entire Senate to demand his earmarks. (See his ransom note — no joke — here.)

- Adding to the already large list of “Books I Want to Read”: The Strategic Presidency.

- Flexible schedules often lead to happier — and more productive — workers.

- People voted for this guy? Quote: Sometimes when we don’t know the answers to the questions out there, we need to have the courage to do nothing.

- Why bipartisanship is a futile, pointless, gigantic waste of time (which leads to bad bills getting worse).

- More people should be listening to James Galbraith.

- Some guy is trekking Antarctica, and blogging about it. It’s surprisingly interesting.

2/4 FTP: Lil’ Timmy Tebow, Jails goin’ broke, and “Forgotten Man” author Amity Shlaes

Jason Williams — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:04:38 +0000

We’ve avoided it, but finally, tonight, in our first FM broadcast, we’ll attempt to make sense of Tim Tebow and his Superbowl ad. The keyword there is attempt.

An ethics bill was passed! An ethics bill was passed! But what does it mean?

Utah Association of Counties says if jails don’t get more money, felons will go free. Assuming we don’t have any more money to give them, how do we decide who gets out?

And in the 5pm hour we’ll speak with author and commentator Amity Shlaes, best known for her book The Forgotten Man, providing a history of FDR’s post Great Depression policies some call illuminating, others call rendition. We’ll get to the bottom of it, and find out what brings Shlaes to USU tomorrow. (Hint: speaking tour!)

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and past shows are available here.

UT Legislature: Not all sex and violence

Jason Williams — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:10:04 +0000

From the Senate Site’s “Floor Action” updates:

House Bill (HB26): Brine Shrimp Royalty Act Amendments

Just a reminder. Behind the controversial, sponsored-by-Carl-Wimmer headline grabbing, sexy bills, the legislative process overall can be very, very… boring. But it all still needs a-doin’, and these people deserve a lot of respect for doing it.

UPDATE: Not these two. These two should be mocked indefinitely.

Bob Lonsberry & FUBO

Tom Grover — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:02:08 +0000

Perhap’s you’ve heard of the “FUBO” campaign initiated by Clear Channel’s Bob Lonsberry:

I was trying to think of a way to show that I wasn’t happy. That I was tired of bailouts. That I didn’t want to pay my neighbors’ mortgage. That I didn’t want to live in a socialist country. That I didn’t think the government should take over the banks. That I didn’t want a White House committee running the car industry, or putting a union consultant in charge of the process. That I didn’t think throwing 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan without a clear objective was a bright idea.

Basically, one month in, I’ve already had a bellyful.

Sure, on Inauguration Day I was all hope and change. He wasn’t my candidate, but he was my president, and I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Then he went on Al Arabiya.

And stole the census. And decided my confidential medical records had to be in a federal database. And tripled the deficit in three weeks while condemning George W. Bush for doubling it in eight years.

Basically, I got a bad attitude.

….

And when I should have been listening to Ron Chapman, I got an idea.

I was sitting there in the studio, waiting for him get done and my turn to come, and a word came to me. A newly coined word. Four letters. Pronounced “foo-bow.” Like in “food” and “bow and arrow” – “foo-bow.”

So I googled around a bit and found a bumper sticker company. They had a template for those little oval stickers people have. The ones with some sort of abbreviation in there. I think they come from Europe.

Anyway, I found a template for one of those and I typed in my new word – “foo-bow.” I liked how it looked so I put it in my cart and proceeded to checkout. I ordered 20 because I got a good price.

And right about then, Ron Chapman was done and my microphone came on and I told the producer, Nick, what I had done.

I told him I had made a bumper sticker. I described the oval – black background with white letters – and my new word – foo-bow – spelled FUBO.

It took him about five seconds.

Then the phones lit up. Dozens and dozens of people called. They wanted a bumper sticker just like mine.

….

Basically, people either love the idea, or hate it, or stare blankly at me saying, “I don’t get it.”

Don’t know what “FUBO” stands for? Still don’t “get it”?

Here’s a little context:

I’m sure Bob means “fetch.”

Bob, that is a great question.

Driver’s licenses for the Internet?

Tim Carter — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:15:28 +0000

I thought this was pretty interesting:

“What Mundie is proposing is to impose authentication. He draws an analogy to automobile use. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a license (not to mention an inspection, insurance, etc). If you do something bad with that car, like break a law, there is the chance that you will lose your license and be prevented from driving in the future. In other words, there is a legal and social process for imposing discipline. Mundie imagines three tiers of Internet ID: one for people, one for machines and one for programs (which often act as proxies for the other two).

Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be reality. Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide scream go up: “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the Internet!” Really? Are you? Why do you think that?

from here: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/

I think they tried this in China:

Chinese bloggers will not have to register their real names online, after the government backed down over plans to enforce the proposals.

With more and more stories surfacing regularly about web censorship, China’s estimated 20 million bloggers will be pleased with the news that they will not be compelled to register their real names.

from here: http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/china-backs-down-over-blog-id-proposal.asp/3781/

Security is a big deal on the internet:

“Digital artifacts may be collected from live systems (traditional computers, personal digital assistants, and/or distributed information systems such as ‘cloud computers’), from wired or wireless networks, or collected storage media. The format may include electronic documents or software (to include malicious software – malware).

The Cyber Genome Program will encompass several program phases and technical areas of interest. Each of the technical areas will develop the cyber equivalent of fingerprints or DNA to facilitate developing the digital equivalent of genotype, as well as observed and inferred phenotype in order to determine the identity, lineage, and provenance of digital artifacts and users.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/26/cyber_genome_project/

http://www.thinkdigit.com/Internet/The-Cyber-Genome-Project–pieces-of_3985.html

But I think for some, anonymity is essential to the free flow of ideas. For many, that is what the internet is.

The Autonomous Region’s Public Security office has stated, for using the Internet and tools such as mobile messages to make up and disseminate harmful information, the Public Security department will investigate in full and punish according to the law. At the same time calling for everyone to make a unified and stable Xinjiang, and a good environment of public order needs to be sustained by everyone. They hope that the different ethnic groups and people of different circles will not believe the rumors, will not spread rumors, will not create rumors and use the Internet is a civilized way. They will automatically reject bad mobile messages and when discovering an Internet or mobile message that contains harmful information, will report locally to 110 in a timely fashion.

On January 17th, Ma XX sent text messages with content about splitting the country to numerous mobile phones. After sending the text message, he received a notice from China Telecom rejecting the spread of harmful information. But Ma XX did not take note and continued to send text messages to other people containing writing about splitting the country. The Public Security department, after receiving reports from the masses, quickly caught Ma XX. At present, Ma XX is in criminal detention. The case in being investigated further.

From here: http://www.danwei.org/crime/xinjiang_text_messaging_spread.php

It’s a brave new world on the internet :

The world’s largest Internet search company and the world’s most powerful electronic surveillance organization are teaming up in the name of cybersecurity.

from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057.html?hpid=topnews

Don’t Rely on the Altruism of Baby Boomers

David Miller — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:00:10 +0000

David Brooks must have thought yesterday was April Fools Day – that or he thinks he’s getting old so he decided to pen a column painting a rosy picture for seniors by coming to a senile conclusion. In The Geezers’ Crusade he comes to this wildly impossible conclusion:

It now seems clear that the only way the U.S. is going to avoid an economic crisis is if the oldsters take it upon themselves to arise and force change. The young lack the political power. Only the old can lead a generativity revolution — millions of people demanding changes in health care spending and the retirement age to make life better for their grandchildren.

He arrives there from this bit of data:

One of the keys to healthy aging is what George Vaillant of Harvard calls “generativity” — providing for future generations. Seniors who perform service for the young have more positive lives and better marriages than those who don’t. As Vaillant writes in his book “Aging Well,” “Biology flows downhill.” We are naturally inclined to serve those who come after and thrive when performing that role.

The problem that he identifies is that:

The odd thing is that when you turn to political life, we are living in an age of reverse-generativity. Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.

Second, they are taking freedom. In 2009, for the first time in American history, every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs, according to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute. As more money goes to pay off promises made mostly to the old, the young have less control.

Third, they are taking opportunity. For decades, federal spending has hovered around 20 percent of G.D.P. By 2019, it is forecast to be at 25 percent and rising. The higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth and fewer opportunities. Already, pension costs in many states are squeezing education spending.

So his conclusion is that the problem is reverse-generativity and that the only people who can stop it are those who have the most to gain by perpetuation or even accelerating it. Why do I find that hard to swallow?

Along the way he offers this tortured logic for his conclusion:

I used to think that political leaders could avert fiscal suicide. But it’s now clear change will not be led from Washington. On the other hand, over the past couple of years we’ve seen the power of spontaneous social movements: first the movement that formed behind Barack Obama, and now, equally large, the Tea Party movement.

Spontaneous social movements can make the unthinkable thinkable, and they can do it quickly.

. . .

Old people now have the time, the energy and, with the Internet, the tools to organize.

The examples of spontaneous social movements were both driven primarily by younger people. He offers no evidence that this older generation will suddenly stop doing the things that helped them amass their political power in favor of taking the route that their grandchildren are pioneering – especially in an effort that would diminish their political power and rob them of their spare time.

Altruism and performing service is much easier and more immediately rewarding when it is directed at friends and relatives than when it is directed at an anonymous society.

The fact is that it really is clear that change will not come from Washington – it will have to come to Washington in the form of new voices and new leaders who have the ability to look past traditional divisions and traditional ideas and push through some new ideas using new alliances to bring about the kind of transformational changes that could actually avert eh looming economic crisis that virtually everyone agrees is on the horizon.
Originally published at Pursuit of Liberty.

2/2 FTP: Margaret’s Gun Law, The Mero Moment, and Safer Canyon Driving

Jason Williams — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:07:56 +0000

The libertarian in Jonathan is giddy over Sen. Margaret Dayton’s firearms exemption bill — which would release firearms made and used here in Utah from federal regulations. But lawmakers, including our own Sen. Lyle Hillyard, feel the bill is just a lawsuit in waiting. What do you think?

It’s Tuesday, which means it’s time for Sutherland Institute President Paul Mero’s latest contribution of conservative pontification in the latest installment of the Mero Moment. On what? You’ll know as soon as we do… we haven’t received it yet. That’s how we roll here… last minute, seat of the pants, completely dependent on using the latest technology, even if it doesn’t work!

And yesterday there was a tragic accident in Sardine (Wellsville) Canyon. We’ve seen additional barriers in the canyon, but can we be doing more to increase safe travel in our canyons? We want to hear from you.

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and past shows are available here.

2/1 FTP: Prop 8 at Sundance, Cell Phone Bans, Planned Parenthood, and What Legislation Should You Be Watching?

Jason Williams — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:53:17 +0000

My first day back from the Sundance Film Festival. Tyler and I will discuss the controversy (that wasn’t) over 8: The Mormon Proposition which premiered at the festival, and my reaction to the film.

(Video of the crowd reactions on opening night posted by IndieWire were almost more interesting than the film itself)

And Utah is now a finalist for the 2010 GOP Convention. What would this mean for Utah, and what does it say about the direction of the GOP? We want your thoughts.

A SL Tribune poll shows public support for an outright ban on cell phone use while driving. Would this seriously improve driving conditions in our state?

And finally, we’ll hear from Planned Parenthood on their upcoming Chocolate Festival fundraiser, and thoughts on two controversial pieces of legislation moving through the state capitol this session regarding reproductive rights. We’ll discuss, and touch on other bills up for consideration this session, and ask listeners to jump in with anything we’re missing. What are you watching this session?

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and past shows are available here.

Monday AM Linkage

Jason Williams — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:17:47 +0000

- Putting a human face on cuts to services.

- Utah Senate Media Q&A stream at 11:45am daily. (via The Senate Site)

- Christopher Hayes explains the rationale behind Obama’s spending freeze.

- State Dept. slams US corporations selling surveillance equipment to China.

- GOP leadership backs deficit panel, until Obama endorses it.

- Make a Snuggie You’d Be Proud to Wear.

- White House aims to scrap $36.5 billion in subsidies to oil and gas producers.

- GOP Senator calls on Holder to resign for upholding the Constitution.

- When Is a Terrorist Not a Terrorist?

- Kim Jong-il’s regime is even weirder than you thought.

Constitutional Literacy

Tom Grover — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:23:12 +0000

We are all extremely blessed to live during the Information Revolution. Information once available to only the powerful and the elite is now available to all of us. And of course information is power.

One area of information that is now open to everyone is Constitutional Law. Prior to the Information Revolution, if you really wanted to study and know Constitutional Law you essentially had to attend law school. Now, there isn’t a reason why any person willing to take the time to study Constitutional Law cannot become as constitutionally literate as a practicing attorney.

I want to share a few resources that are available that have the potential to help everyone learn more about the Constitution.

Before I share the resources, however, I want to highlight a few things.

First, Constitutional Law is complex. That is not to say that it cannot be understood, but rather, reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the Constitution. Too often ideaologues and partisans insist their dogmatic approach to reading the Constitution is the way. This is not intellectually honest and does not serve the public very well. As we read Supreme Court opinions in the area of Constitutional Law, we will inevitably run across opinions we disagree with. Though we disagree, we should recognize that those interpretations are reasonable and have merit. We should also recognize that our own interpretations have limitations and flaws.

Second, in the Information Revolution it is important that we read the relevant documents ourselves. Those relevant documents include the Constitution itself, historical documents surrounding the ratification process such as the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, and of course the Supreme Court opinions that interpret and provide meaning to the document.

There are many partisans and idealogues who sponsor Constitutional lectures, websites and books who will be happy to do the thinking for you. Of course, in their synthesis they put their own spin on how to interpret the Constitution in a way that serves the agenda they seek to advance.

Now, the resources.

1. The Constitution itself

2. Life of a Law Student Podcast

The title of this podcast does not accurately describe its purpose and function. A few years ago, a law student decided to make podcasts covering the information he was learning at law school. His purpose was to help other law students review the material taught, but also to make the information available to the masses. It is a great resource. There are a series of podcasts covering core legal topics like Torts, Contracts, etc. He has also created a series on Constitutional Law. These podcasts are similar to the lectures you would be given in law school (sans being Socratized). (NOTE: There are two different series, Constitutional Law I, and Constitutional Law II which correspond with two different semesters).

3. Google Scholar

This is a resource that launched only a couple of months ago and represents a major milestone in the Information Revolution. Until a few months ago when Google Scholar launched, the only way to access a broad collection common law opinions was through owning a massive library of hundreds of thousands of volumes or paying exhorbitant fees to LexisNexis or Westlaw. Both represented major barriers to access information. Though Google Scholar doesn’t have all of the resources and tools of Lexis and West, it has everything necessary to study the Constitution. Every major Supreme Court case on Constitutional Law is available. Google Scholar even has features to show the precedent of an individual case as well as the progeny of your case. Pretty awesome.

4. Wikipedia

Before reading a Constitutional Law case, sometimes its helpful to read the Wikipedia article on the case. Usually, there is one. This helps provide background information that isn’t always clear in the opinions.

So if you really want to learn about the Constitution, and essentially have the same experience you would have in law school, you can. Here’s how to do it using the above resources. Each episode of Life of a Law Student covers a couple of cases. First, look up the Wikipedia article on your cases. Read them. Second, go to Google Scholar and read the actual opinions.* Third, listen to the podcast. Basically, this is the same as having homework reading and attending class. Except it’s all for free and you don’t have to leave the comfort of your own home. If you were to follow this process through all of the podcasts, you would essentially have the same experience as if you had attended a Constitutional Law class in law school. Pretty awesome, huh?

Most importantly, you will come out understanding the Constitution better than before. You’ll understand the various means of interpretation and different viewpoints.

And that will make you a better person and better citizen, which will make for a better country.

Enjoy!

Jason Chaffetz grilling Obama

Christopher Hendrickson — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:09:24 +0000

Did anyone else catch Congressman Chaffetz posing some very candid and honest questions to Obama today in the little Republican Pow-Wow today ?

I was rather impressed with Mr. Chaffetz’ rational and candid comments to Obama, calling him out on his failed campaign promises, and expressing honest disappointment. It was a refreshing divergence from the other Republicans who got in front of the mic, VERY aware that the cameras were rolling.

Kudos to Mr. Chaffetz.