.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

I Hate Linux

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

What makes a resident a resident?

As far as I can tell, here in South Dakota we have no single overriding definition of 'resident'... in fact in order to be considered one (when one starts off not as one) the requirements tend to vary depending on what it is for.

In order to be considered a resident who is bidding on a public contract, one must have lived in the state for a year prior to the bid.

To be eligible to vote one must currently reside in the state and plan to continue to reside here at the time of registration.

For resident hunting permits they must live here for 90 days, have a South Dakota drivers license and have a motor vehicle registered... however the last two requirements are rarely if ever verified.

What does it take to get a drivers license? Nothing (in terms of residency).

For in-state tuition a student must have lived in the state for 1 year without attending school.

In order to be a South Dakota legislator one must have lived in the state for two years while in order to be a US Senator or Representative they must only be an inhabitant of the state when elected.

I have little doubt there are other measures out there, the above is intended solely to demonstrate that there are different measures today with different levels of enforcement.

Why does all of this matter?

Likely in response to some alleged shenanigans related to last years abortion battle, the South Dakota legislature is considering legislation that among other things, would require a signature collector to be a South Dakota resident... only one problem... how are they defining resident?

Unfortunately the answer is that they aren't.

This question came up this morning when I first learned about this bill while listening to the the Greg Belfrage show (who seems to now have a blog) on KELO AM and after a little on-air discussion I called in to ask if he knew the measure to be used... sadly he didn't. Later, after a quick look at the bill itself I realized that there isn't one.

While I support the bills intent, I am concerned about its enforcement... interpreting it by using the requirements to be to be a state legislator (2 years) seems a bit extreme as it would prevent many from participating in the election process who would still being able to vote... while interpreting it with the loose voting residence requirement would be far worse due to it's effectively change nothing as it would be trivial for out of state interests to come in, collect signatures and leave... all the while claiming that they were planning to stay but a short time later deciding otherwise... heck, nothing would stop them from getting a South Dakota drivers license for use only while here so as to appear more native when questioned about their residency.

A year sounds like a good requirement to me and while it is likely to late for such legislation this year, perhaps for the 2008 legislative session the South Dakota legislature should sit down and come up with a single definition of residency so as to avoid these kinds of issues and reduce confusion in future.

Anti-South Dakota Commentary

While doing a bit of searching for the text of a few bills before the South Dakota legislature I ran across this blog post that doesn’t seem all that fond of our fair state (emphasis mine):

Quick, call an exterminator. The South Dakota legislature has a major infestation of rightwingnuts. These malicious pests are doing what they do best: trying to make an end run around the will of the voters.

As you probably remember, last year the South Dakota legislature passed a law banning all abortions except when the mother’s life was in danger. By trying to turn the clock back to the Spanish Inquisition, the legislature begat this website. But the state’s voters redeemed themselves by signing a petition to have the anti-abortion law placed on the ballot. And the law was trounced by the voters last November.

And now the South Dakota legislature is back for another try. These Taliban wannabes are devoted followers of the Neurotic Creed: When you try something and it doesn’t work, keep trying the same thing over and over and over, and eventually you'll get the result you want.

The State Director of Planned Parenthood said “The people of this state told the government that they shouldn’t be involved in these intensely personal and very difficult private family issues.” She also pointed out that abortions would be reduced if these same lawmakers would support programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

There are few things I love more than seeing more than a complete disregard for rationality and replacing civility with venom spewing... It is a shame that there are those who honestly think that that kind of discourse is constructive.

Please be sure to stop by the quality site linked to from the post where you'll find quality content... content that is unfortunately too verbally graphic for reproduction here.

In either case... this is going to be another interesting legislative session likely followed by an even more interesting PR, court and ballot battles.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Deceits in the Referred Law 6 debate: Part 4

Due to a few personal issues I have been neglecting this blog and my abortion series over the last few months and with the recent news of the South Dakota legislature having once again drafted legislation to ban most abortions in the state... I decided I should take one of the nearly completed posts I wrote back in October and November, complete it and try to finish this series.

For those who are new, be sure to check out the previous parts:

... so without further ado... Part 4:



From where I sat in the recent battle over the South Dakota abortion ban, it had always seemed to me that the pro-abortionists were on the on the defensive from the get go as not only were they the ones trying to fight Washington... errr, Pierre, they were trying to defend the status quo against a population (both local and national) whose views on abortion have been changing over the years and slowly beginning to favor some degree of restrictions on access to it.

All the while the pro-abortionists would work hard to point out as many flaws as they could in the proposed legislation, things the anti-abortionists for the most part poo-pooed or answered... or at least would answer a similarly sounding question that wasn't actually asked but fail to address the underlying point… but more on that another time...

Before beginning I must state that I do not mean for the following post to be in anyway construed as another attack on the pro-abortionist side... instead I mean it for to pose a few honest questions that I have been unable to answer.

With many on the pro-abortionist side rejecting the SD abortion ban law because of its lack of provisions for rape, incest and the health of the mother... I'm forced to wonder about potential abuses under a ban similar to the recently defeated one but that included such exceptions and that carried the same penalties.

Rape


Would we see an uptake in the number of alleged rapes several months after the supposed fact in order to allow the woman the abortion? If this were a serious possibility, how could such a case be avoided?

One way to reduce the likelihood of such abuse would be to require the filing of a police report just as insurance companies require for paying claims on a stolen car or other crimes.

If the report were required, would we have woman doing so and risk jail time for giving a false report to authorities and risk being charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor that could see them locked up for a year in the county jail?

Of course if that were to happen and the woman was successful in getting the abortion, she would be guilty under the new law as a Class 6 felony, just as those involved in the procedure would be... despite the fact that they did not know of the false report at the time and all be eligible for up to 2 years in the state penn.

Granted, what I am saying says nothing about a 'woman's right to choose' or her general access to abortion on demand. I am simple pondering about how things would work under such a ban.

I should also pause to say that any comments that are along the lines of the 'it's her body' argument, or any argument for that matter that claims that a woman has an unequivocal right to an abortion will be deleted as this post is not talking about a woman's right to an abortion but instead about the legality of access under such a theoretical a ban.

Incest


In the case of consensual incest (because non-consensual is rape), would we really see the women involved reporting themselves and their family member's transgressions? Let's not forget that incest in South Dakota can be a class 3 or class 5 felony depending on the age of the participants and can range from 5 to 25 years in the state pen.

Health of the mother


While I've already discussed this previously, I am forced to wonder here too about potential abuses, after all, how to we define 'health of the mother' for one? With such an exception does the health of the mother include general comfort? Mental wellbeing? Threats of self harm?

While the previously proposed law is not specific, I would expect that under such legislation as well as any more permissive one, the ability to get an abortion would be treated similarly to ones ability to get prescription drugs... only by a doctor's order.

The one exception to this I suspect would be with a police report in hand stating under perjury that the pregnancy was the direct result of a rape.

Unfortunately under such a system, any doctor who would authorize an abortion for their patient would be opening themselves up to potential liability should they knowingly or unknowingly proscribe it for a woman who does not actually fit under the current provisions.


Once again I've got to ask the question, under an abortion ban that allows for it in the case of rape, incest and the health of the mother, short of repeal of the ban... how can the likelihood of abuse be reduced?


Please note that just like my previous posts on this subject, there will be an upcoming post where I examine some of the issues likely to be encountered under a ban such as the recently defeated one or the more permissive one now before the legislature.

I've also got to say real quick that I absolutely love the South Dakota Codified Laws page.

SD Abortion Ban: Take 3

Looks like it has begun.

Still no word though on if the previous attempt was a ploy or not.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Terror-Free Oil

I wonder if someone read my previous blog post on the subject.

Given that the station is is a good 3.5 hours from where I live, I can only hope that the idea spreads.

Now the big question... how soon until the terror-enablers at CAIR start to cry foul?

Monday, January 15, 2007

70-528 - Passed

After a multi-month hiatus, this morning got back to my test taking and took Microsoft Exam #70-528 Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 - Web-Based Client Development and passed it with a comfortable 788, now making me a Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist for .Net Framework 2.0: Web Applications.

Woot.

Next stop, 70-548 Designing and Developing Windows Applications by Using the Microsoft .NET Framework to complete a MCPD: Windows Developer, and then turning around for a bit more TSdom for Distributed Apps, and then finally an MCPD for Enterprise Applications.

Must hurry... only 158 days left.