In House Bill 772, the North Carolina General assembly moves to ban remote Internet hunting.

AN ACT to prohibit computer‑assisted remote hunting.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. Article 4 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

“§ 113‑291.1A. Computer‑assisted remote hunting prohibited.

(a) It is unlawful for a person to engage in computer‑assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility that allows others to engage in computer‑assisted remote hunting if the wild animal or wild bird being hunted or shot is located in this State.

(b) For purposes of this section “computer‑assisted remote hunting” means the use of a computer or other device, equipment, or software, to remotely control the aiming and discharging of a firearm or other weapon, that allows a person, not physically present at the location of that firearm or other weapon, to hunt or shoot a wild animal or wild bird.”

But, it turns out North Carolina is not the first state to do this. Main has, and Wisconsin is attempting to also:

If you live in Wisconsin and were thinking about logging on to Live-Shot.com to do a little Internet hunting, you’re out of luck. Or at least you could be soon. Maine already outlawed Internet hunting in response to the news that a rancher in Texas was offering a service where visitors to his website can shoot at deer, antelope, and wild pigs using a remote controlled .22 caliber rifle with a webcam mounted on it, and now a state rep. in Wisconsin has introduced a law that would ban hunting online.

And that’s not all:

So far, the Virginia Legislature has passed the first bill banning Internet hunting. Similar bills are pending in 10 other states, including California

Amazing:

According to news reports, the first victim of Live-shot.com was a boar, shot as an experiment by someone sitting at a computer in Germany. Another kill is planned for April, and after that Lockwood hopes his hunting innovation will be fully operational for any Internet user.

And from live-shot.com:

LIVE-SHOT is a new concept. You can challenge yourself and compare your skills to other members with our on-line target shooting. We have developed a system where you can control a pan/tilt/zoom camera and a firearm to shoot at real targets in real time

…

Currently, shooters will be able to fire 10 (ten) .22 caliber rounds at paper and silhouette targets. You may also have a DVD recording and/or the paper target from the session shipped as an option. Look for additional, varied shooting systems along with competitions to come online soon.

There has to be a good joke in this headline somewhere. Check out what Martin Weitzman is accused of.

A Harvard economics professor has been accused of neglecting the standard market practice of paying for goods and services by trying to steal a truckload of manure from a horse farmer.

Mr. Weitzman has a Ph.D from MIT, and I am wondering if his interest in manure has anything to do with his research.

Primary fields of interest:Environmental economics and economic theory.
Research Topics: Environmental economics, economics of biodiversity, limits to growth, green accounting, discounting and the economics of global warming

Or, maybe he was doing some further discovery for a paper he wrote (pdf, pages 4-8) back in June of 1974 for the Journal of Economic Theory, entitled “Free Access vs. Private Ownership as Alternative Systems for Managing Common Property.” That’s gotta be it.

Or maybe it’s for “The New Soviet Incentive Model,” written for Bell Journal of Economics, Spring 1976.

No, I know what it is. I bet he was doing an animal waste feasibility study to augment his paper, “The Noah’s Ark Problem,” Econometrica, vol. 66, no. 6, November 1998.

The Terri Schiavo case has brought this question to the forefront of the minds of thinking people in the United States. The answer is important - as we have seen, it is “life and death” important.

Lots and lots of material has been written, research done, time dedicated and energy expended showing the world the spider web of potential conflicts of interest found in Pinellas County, where Terri Schiavo was starved to death. Suffice it to say that a large portion of those who have truly educated themselves on this issue (both “liberal” and “conservative”) have questions about the outcome that was the result of multiple legal challenges and reviews.

And a woman has died.

If our legal system is capable of making such a grave error in the case of Terri, could it make such a mistake in other cases? Could other people die who shouldn’t?

And if the answer you give is “maybe” – how does this impact your perspective of the death penalty? The question I’m raising is not “Does a murderer deserves to die?” but rather “Could someone be wrongly convicted and subsequently be put to death?” If you don’t trust the legal system with Terri’s life, can you trust the courts with the life of a convicted killer and be logically consistent?

Admittedly, there is one enormous difference between the two cases: the jury.

But is it enough? Is a jury foolproof? Can a jury ever wrongly convict? Would you trust the legal system with your life?

Reasoned debate in the comments section is welcomed, with a couple of caveats. First, you can’t put a monetary value on life, so “cost of execution and appeals versus cost of life in prison” is not a valid consideration. Second, “all conservatives are hypocrites” is also not a valid argument, nor is “liberals don’t think rationally.”

As you may know, Nancy Pelosi has been all over Tom DeLay for his 2001 trip paid for by the Korea-United States Exchange Council (KORUSEC). She wants an investigation!

Well, it turns out that this may be one of those pot and kettle things. First, check out what Eric Pfeiffer in the NRO has to say:

However, buried in the 20th paragraph of last Thursday’s Post reporting was acknowledgement that a Nancy Pelosi staffer had taken a comparable trip with KORUSEC in 2003. What’s more, Pelosi’s office had failed to file the required financial documentation for the trip until the Washington Post came looking for it. Other Democrats took part in KORUSEC trips as well.

And then check out this story from the Washington Times (via Deacon at Powerline):

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi helped secure $3 million last year for a nonprofit organization, WestStart-CALSTART, whose president gave money to her political action committee. The organization also paid for the European trip of one of Pelosi’s policy advisers.

Where’s that Ethics Committee when you need them?

Matt Margolis agrees with this:

“Given the actions of the minority leader vis-a-vis the majority leader and other Republicans, I’m having a little trouble finding where the outrage is coming from these groups that continue to pound on Republican members.”

Aaron at Lifelike Pundits asks:

Now, to our liberal readers, no one is saying that DeLay is innocent of the charges, but why is he in the spotlight and not Nancy?

In response to Powerline’s “Where’s the Outrage?” - California Conservative responds:

It’s right here. And growing.

Boi from Troy weighs in:

Seems to be a pattern among San Francisco Politicians, although I am surprised the House Minority Leader was unable to get the 50% ROI as her former State Assemblyman.

And it looks like this may not be the first time Ms. Pelosi has had some questionable PAC involvement. This is from Roll Calls (10/17/2002):

Campaign finance experts and watchdogs are questioning the legality of twin leadership PACs that have enabled Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to double up on hard-dollar contributions she has given and received this election cycle.

The experts suggest that the use of the two committees, PAC to the Future and Team Majority, amounts to a probable violation of laws intended to prevent lawmakers from multiplying their leadership political action committees in order to defy contribution limits. The treasurer for the two committees, former California Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy (D), acknowledges that the PACs are identical in all but name.

La Shawn has an update from a volunteer pilot for the Minuteman Project on the Arizona/Mexico border.

Some excerpts:

Probably of more interest is what we decided NOT to bring. Sidearms. While I know that comes as a shock to some, I’ll explain why.

First - I think NOT being armed sends just as powerful as a message as showing up ‘loaded for bear’. This is a dangerous area, no doubt about it. However - the primary weapon needed to succeed, and stay out of trouble is located between my ears - not on my hip. By going unarmed - this should force us to concentrate on avoiding trouble, rather the following my natural instinct (so it seems!) to seek it out.

Second - We are pilots (or air controllers) Our job is ‘push tin’ and get aircraft around the sky - extra radio batteries are deemed far more useful then a sidearm.

Third - I’m so sick of the focus on “armed vigilantes” in the desert - it’s time to explore the possibly of being an unarmed vigilante. Much harder, but will certainly bring the level of play up a notch. I’m not even sure you can be a vigilante without a weapon. But - I will do my best!

…

And he was *very* happy to be found. This gent was from Guatemala, his guide had abandoned him 3 days ago, and left him to wander in the desert. He saw the lights of our operation, and simply walked toward the camp, and right up to Reno and Pecos at the front gate. Despite dire media predictions, he was not beaten, robbed, or lynched. He got fed, and actually asked Reno to call “La Migra” to come pick him up. Happy to oblige amigo!

…

I have to tell you - it was a sight for sore eyes. The section of the border we were working in was SHUT DOWN. The BP had over 100 jeeps on the 10 mile stretch, MMP folks had set up lawn chairs, sunshades, and coolers (for keeping soda cold) and were ‘watching’ the border. On the Mexican side -there was a small army of orange “Beta Group” trucks, warning people not to cross or they would be “hunted by criminals”.

Oh - and about 100 news trucks. Major circus.

If this was the case every day - we could pack it in and go home!