So, yesterday an Illinois Appellate Court rules that Rahm Emanuel was thrown off the ballot for the Mayor’s office vacated by Richard Daley for not meeting the residency requirement. Now, I’m not a resident of the city of Chicago so I don’t have a vote in the matter. However, it’s no secret that I despised many of the actions of Mayor Daley and I’m also a fan of small government and adhering to the law.

With that said, I seem to be in the minority of people who are happy about this.

First, some background if you’re not familiar with the story. Rahm served as an advisor to President Clinton from 1993 to 1998 and was a Representative for one of Chicago’s districts in the House of Representatives since 2003 through 2008. He left that position to move up to serve as Obama’s Chief of Staff until October, when Richard Daley announced that he won’t be running for reelection. Clearly, this guy is a career politician… and I subscribe to the belief that anyone who has what it takes to rise to the ranks of power at the federal level, they have to compromise their integrity many times along the way. I believe in a smaller and simpler government and vastly prefer those running our government to not be beholden to those that helped them get elected or those that will abuse their power to try to force people to live in a certain way. I truly believe in freedom, but with that comes the responsibility that nobody is there to look out for you or take care of you when things don’t go well.

Now, I don’t know Rahm all that well… he might be a great guy… but the point of the residency requirement is to make sure that you’re aware of local issues. Yes, Rahm grew up around here, but he was clearly busy with federal issues and all of the politics that goes on in Washington D.C., and the most damning thing against him is that he turned his home in Illinois into a rental property. This means that he didn’t live there anymore. Congress isn’t a year-round job, and when they aren’t in session… those Senators and Representatives return home so that they can meet with their constituents and be aware of what’s going on in the area. As Chief of Staff, Rahm likely had a home in the Washington D.C. area and either remained in D.C. or traveled the world on White House business. The point is.. he didn’t have his ear to the ground here in Chicago.

So, after enduring Mayor Daley’s tyranny… the last thing I want to see is another big government guy from Washington D.C. come in and try his hand at running the Machine that Daley left behind. If I was able to vote for someone, I’d look for a local candidate who wants to dismantle much of that machine and return the City to focusing on eliminating waste and improving efficiencies. There are MANY issues I’d like to see the City focus on.. but I won’t get into them here. In my opinion, any fair minded individual should be able to hold the office and do a very good job.

I’m saying.. let’s give someone a chance.. and Rahm… if you are really dedicated to run this city… there’s another election in 4 years… take two years off.. then come back here and buy a house and you’ll be just fine for the next election. The last thing I’d want to see is a special exception made because he appears to be the most qualified person for the job (or is liked by the people or has raised the most money). Sure, its great… but we have rules for a reason. If you don’t like those rules.. change them (and they only apply to the NEXT election cycle… you can’t change the rules of the game during the game!). I mean… its like when California was in good shape a few years ago and the rumor was that Arnold wanted to run for President, but since he is not a natural born citizen, he’s not allowed to. At least he was talking about amending the constitution to change that requirement. But in hindsight… seeing what’s happened to California under his watch… It would be frightening to find out what would have happened to the country under his leadership.

Of course… this is going to go to the Illinois Supreme Court… knowing Illinois politics, I wouldn’t be surprised if they just push him through and put him on the ballot and right into the Mayor’s office. I at least will be watching this!

So, I live in the State of Illinois. And, I’m an Amazon Affiliate, even though I think in the 10 years or so since I’ve signed up… I’ve earned about $0.04… total. And, my political interests have waned… more due to apathy and more interesting things in the tech world.

However, today I got an email from Amazon, warning me about this new Internet Sales Tax that has passed the Illinois Legislature and may be signed by the Governor within the next 90 days.

On the surface, it looks like a sure money maker for the State, however I think if its signed into law it will do far more harm then good!

First of all, a Supreme Court decision from 1992 establishes a precedent that State’s don’t have the authority to collect sales taxes from entities from outside the state unless they have a business presence within the state. That single case has been one of the few things protecting us from having to pay additional taxes to buy things online. Thank you Quill! (and they are headquarted less then 10 miles from my home!)

So, being an Amazon affiliate, I received notice that if this were to go into effect, Amazon will be forced to terminate their affiliate agreements with me. That Supreme Court decision states that affiliates acting on behalf of the company represents a business presence. So, the first problem with this bill is the fact that the single largest Internet retailer that would no doubt makes up a large portion of the estimated $153 million in new tax revenues (PDF). That report states that the “missing” $153M represents merely 2.2% of the Illinois General Fund Sales Tax collections. The fact is, the State of Illinois won’t collect a dime in taxes from Amazon as all they have to do is terminate their affiliate agreements with those that live in Illinois and they are no longer compelled to collect state income taxes.

Furthermore, while I don’t fare all that well as an Amazon affiliate, I’m sure that there are some people that derive a large portion of their income from affiliate programs. A quick search found that there are certainly people who do quite well with Internet Marketing. Also, there’s bound to be many people who rely on that income to make ends meet. But even if that income isn’t vital to their survival, any extra income for residents is a Good Thing™, not only for them, but also for local businesses and even the State!

Yes, that’s right, even the State benefits from Amazon affiliates earning money. Not only are the payments from Amazon considered taxable as regular Income, but when they spend that money within the state of Illinois, those transactions are also subject to sales taxes. Take away the amazon affiliate program, and there’s less money coming into the state to be taxed.

So, how is it that this tax bill was able to sail through the legislature, passing the House today with a 88-29-0 vote? You’re talking away income streams from Illinois residents (losing State Income Tax revenues as well as Sale Tax receipts when that money is spent) and causing additional hardships for Illinois residents that are likely already struggling. And for what? I only hope that our faithful public servants in Springfield have simply bought into the idea that they will be able to collect 6.25% on every Amazon sale to Illinois, but Amazon has shown their hand (and has done the same in many other states as well) in that they will merely terminate their affiliate program in Illinois and sidestep the tax completely.

Where does that leave Illinois? Still in serious financial trouble, with reduced income and sales tax receipts, and potentially pushing more Illinois residents to needing aid from the State as at least a portion of their income is being removed by this legislation.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that this is a net loss to the state. Am I missing something? If you agree with me that is really a silly idea, it can’t hurt to contact the Governor’s office and express your opinion!

I really want to know how product recalls work. I want to know how much budget the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission gets every year to spend to “protect” us as consumers. And, if you can put a dollar on it, I’d love to know how much businesses have to spent to comply with needless regulations.

First off, let me say that we all agree that death is tragic, especially the accidental death of a child. But, the world isn’t perfect… horrible things will continue to happen no matter how carefully you live your life.

With that said, you may have heard of the recent product recall of 2.1 million cribs. I expected these to be the equivalent of bag of broken glass (Grr NBC for not allowing classic SNL clips to be on youtube, but that’s a different rant!), but come on. Let me point out some facts about these “death traps”.

• 2.1 Million of these items were sold.
• Only 4 deaths are linked to this crib.
• This Deadly Device was on the market for 17 and a half years before anyone noticed.
• The crib is only harmful when its improperly assembled by adults who don’t follow the clear warnings in the instructions!!

Many of these were used by multiple children within one household, and many were likely sold to other people, so there are MANY more then just 2.1 Million children who used these cribs. So, a conservative estimate with round numbers would be, 4 deaths in 2 Million uses over 17 years. That’s a 0.0002% failure rate with one death every 4.25 years.  Really?! Keep in mind that the chance of being struck by lightning is 0.000357%. So, you’re twice as likely to be struck by lightning then to die in one of these cribs. (Many assumptions in those calculations, but you get the point.)

I have no doubt that the people who are crusading to protect us innocent consumers think that they are doing nobel work, but really!? I mean come on. I’d love to be able to follow the money further to see where their salaries are paid and how they choose what products to go after. A “non-profit” organization was on Chicago’s news coverage of the story… I’d love to find out how much they receive in donations and how much of that goes to pay internal costs, like salaries.

Good to know that our government is busy trying to keep us safe. They even have a twitter account. I really feel sorry for the poor soul that has to do that for a living (and how much are they paid to do that?).

I recently came across an interesting book,
The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It. (Yes, you can buy the book from Amazon, but the entire book is under a CC liscense and is available for download at the books website). It provides an interesting retrospective of how the Internet got to where it is, and what may happen to it in the future.

What’s really interesting is the point made in this really well written review:

In passing, I love the brutal critique by Gene Spaford of the $100 laptop. He likens its projected impact–exposing millions to the bright side while not fixing their poverty, water, and disease–to subsidizing pet rats for every household just prior to the Black Death plague. My friend Lee Felsenstein is an equally virulent opponent of the $100 laptop, for different reasons. Me personally, I think the cell phone (but not the iPhone) is the only way to educate 5 billion people fast and with day to day relevance to their needs.

Wow… I never really thought about it, but I think its completely accurate! The One Laptop Per Child initiative has a noble goal of providing inexpensive laptops to poor children around the world as well as ensuring internet connectivity. I can’t argue with the educational aspects of the projects and it certainly would provide much more opportunity to many that the world has ignored for far too long.

However, its always been presumed that those opportunities are strictly positive. They may be overwhelmingly positive, but I’ve never considered the negative effects, nor the things it will have little to no effect on.

The Internet is NOT a safe place. This is obvious but most people forget this. Also, when most people think of the dangers of the internet, they think of either an Internet stalker or identity theft, typically an unrealistic fear of intercepted e-commerce transactions. However, there are far more dangers that are often ignored both by those that are new to the internet (who typically aren’t aware of the dangers and are overly trusting) as well as by those that are quite experienced and are aware of at least some of the dangers (ie, they know what a Trojan is, and why they shouldn’t blindly run untrusted programs).

Whatever platform gets widely deployed will quickly endure a trial-by-fire in which it’s security is tested, for if there are any security holes which allow the laptop to be exploited to send spam or access their personal information, which is a time bomb waiting to happen. As much as I support open software, I’ll be the first to admit that it isn’t perfect and can be exploited. Microsoft certainly has a large target (and with saner software it might not be so easier to exploit), as will any other widely adopted software. As Zittrain says, “People rob banks because that’s where the money is”.

Does this mean that these projects should grind to a halt? Certainly not! However, I hope someone over there has thought long and hard about the security and privacy side of things. It isn’t listed in the Criticism section in OLPC’s Wikipedia page, but that either means it has been addressed sufficiently or it hasn’t yet occured to anyone to make any noise about it yet.

The other completly ignored aspect is how providing internet access won’t do a thing to help with other more important things. Sure, there’s a wealth of information available on the internet, and the education is valuable, but without clean water, medical supplies and political freedom to act on their new information, there really isn’t much one can do, other then realize just how bad they have it in comparison to the rest of the world.

Certainly some thing to think about.