Google is probably the biggest advocate of the net-neutrality cause.  With their “Don’t be evil” mantra, Google has used its mighty power to shame ISPs who want to “shape” their networks.  Their stance is that no one should restrict or filter internet access.

However, as time goes by, it seems that more and more people are accepting the idea of proprietary access.  Slashdot and many others have posted a storyabout how portals like Yahoo can delete user’s content without any question.  The heart of this is the Terms of Service that users agree to when they register for an account.  The ToS states that Yahoo has the authority to do what they want with the data that’s on their servers.  They own them so they should be able to do what they want.

This relates to net-neutrality because ISPs are already filtering out what you can and cannot access.  The biggest perpetrator of this is Comcast, which is blocking most BitTorrent traffic.  Comcast contends that they are not blocking anything, but reports and tests say otherwise.

People SCREAM that they want net-neutrality but does their behavior dispute that opinion?

With the release of hulu.com, many people have hailed it as the next-generation TV station.  NetFlix, Apple iTunes, and Amazon all offer online videos to rent.  YouTube garners so much traffic that many companies block it.  Same goes for MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter.

The sad thing part is that sooner or later, hulu and the link will unable to sustain themselves with ads alone (read dot-com bubble).  They will eventually want to make it subscription-based.  Heck, most people are willing to pay money to keep from seeing ads!  In order to accomplish this, we will probably have to give up net-neutrality.

Why? If more and more people start going to hulu for television, ISPs will have a lot of traffic going to that one URL.  While it won’t cost them more, they will want to get money from it so why not charge extra for “faster access”?

I support net-neutrality.  But at some point, I have to ask myself what is it that I really want.  To be honest with you, I’d rather have faster hulu.com access than have everything the same speed.  This, of course, assumes that this is how proprietary access would work.

Net-neutrality is important because it gives the little man the same voice as the big corporations.  It gives everyone a fair chance to reach their audience.  Can you imaging typing in http://www.amazon.com and instead being directed to http://www.bn.com?  From there, you’ll be greeted with a window offering you lower prices for the item that your looking for.  If you stillwant to go to amazon.com, you’d have to hit another button to continue.  But then your browsing comes to a crawl.  But then you go back to bn.com, and everything is fine again!

We want net-neutrality, but we may be beating a dead horse.  At the very least, we’re saying one thing and doing something else entirely.

Yesterday, SCOTUS ruled against Washington, D.C. and said that their law against handguns in the home violates the second amendment. They also held the lower court’s ruling but also extended the ruling to extend the protection against disassembled rifles in the house.

There are many things that the Bill of Rights protects. What is abundantly clear from those oh-so-important amendments is that the Rights guaranteed to all persons. Scalia poignantly states “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” Just like you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded building, laws can be written to prevent the mentally ill or felons.

The entire case can be summed up simply: “the right of the people” reflects individual rights, not corporate rights.

The case was not only important for the general defense of home and country, but it was important to validate all other amendments that refer to the right of the people.

The ruling does a great job of explaining the history and nuances of the law, which I won’t bother getting into. I’ll, instead, reflect on the importance of “the right of the people” and then dive into the false facts that people have spouted.

What I find amazing is that the decision was 5-4. This made common sense to me that any reasonable person could read “the right of the people” to mean “individuals.” The first amendment states that “the right of the people” to petition the government, say whatever you want, or peaceably assemble “shall not be infringed.”

Very few people argue that the first amendment only applies to the press, or to a group of citizens. But it is only understood as such because of the cases that have honed and polished it. Now, the Second Amendment is going through the same refinement and much can expected for future cases.

But then there are some people who completely missed the point of the ruling – even the dissent!

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said this:

Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.

What Senator Lautenberg missed is that the majority opinion did cover this. States have the right to restrict sales but no government has the right to ban guns as a whole.

What people like Senator Lautenberg don’t realize is that guns kill people in the same way that cars kill people. There are so many fuzzy-logic statistics that it’s worth clearing up:

• Guns are responsible for crime: No, they’re not. The logic behind this is understandable. Many violent crimes are committed with guns. However, there is a statistical flaw in this relationship: Correlation does not equal causation. You’ve probably read the bumper stickers that say, “Gun kill people just like how forks make people fat.” By that logic, we should ban all forks to cut down in the horrible obesity rate in this country. Just because guns happened to be used more often in violent crimes does not mean that having a gun will cause that person to commit a violent crime.
• Guns are more likely to kill a family member than actually be used in self-defense: This is a true statement, but again, because of a missing variable. If you have a gun, it is likely that it will hurt someone. In fact, it is likely that it will hurt someone in your home. And since most homes are filled with family members, the connection makes sense. Here’s the same argument but under a different subject: A person is more likely to be car accident than they are if they didn’t have a car. The very fact of having a gun makes it more likely that you’ll use it to kill. Just like having a car makes it more likely that you’ll get into an accident…just like having a knife makes you more susceptible to cuts.
• Allowing more guns will create an atmosphere of violence and murder: When gun laws are passed, most well-intentioned politicians write it in the hopes to cut down on crime. In fact, you create more crime. Follow my logic here for a second: Let’s say we create a law that says that it is illegal to chew gum. I know it sounds absurd but it’s worth seeing at face-value. The very act of creating that law increases crime because you have now made it a crime. The answer to decreasing crime has little to do with creating more laws. The answer to decreasing crime is to enforce the laws already in place. By creating a law against owning a gun, you do not stop criminals. Politicians make the assumption that everyone follows the law. Obviously, this isn’t the case. Creating more gun laws only restrict law-abiding citizens from getting guns.
• People don’t feel safer sitting next to a person with a gun: This is true. But I only bring it up to prove a point.

As long as entities like the Brady Campaign indoctrinate people that cars kill people, pens misspell words, identity theft is caused by the Internet, and guns kill people, sure, people are going to be afraid of guns. Most people’s fear of guns is irrational. I don’t say that to be insulting but using the clinical definition of irrational. Allow me to give you an example from my life. I am afraid of bugs. All bugs, big and small, no matter how cute, I hate them and fear them with my life. Yes, I know it’s irrational. The fear is based on the fact that I was stung on my eyelid when I was a kid. I’ve gotten over it but I still flinch when I see a spider or a bee. Even though it’s irrational, it doesn’t make it any less real. But I have to be willing to admit that I’m scared of nothing.

Consider this quote:

“This decision’s going to say to these guys that it’s OK to have guns _ that’s the message the street gets from this … If you take this ruling the wrong way, everybody and their mother’s going to go out and get a gun.” — Tio Hardiman, of the Chicago violence prevention group Cease Fire.

The irrational fear here is that as soon as someone gets a gun, they are going to run up and down the street, having shootouts at every corner. Crime is going to go through the roof so the likelihood of you being a victim increases. People like Tio use that fear to continue their addenda. But just like me, we have to realize that just because I’m afraid of bugs should keep others from having them as pets.

I’ve written well more than I wanted to but I hope I get the point across. The Supreme Court ruling was the correct ruling for many reasons. The dissenting opinions, if read in context of the whole, illustrate the problems the justices had with the petition. While they do point out that DC’s laws are acceptable, recognizing that “the right of the people” is protected to all people is a great outcome. The first and fourth amendment, in light of this ruling, further protects people from the government. It was about time the second amendment caught up.

Quotes from WTOP Comments section.

The next 4-6 hours holds the future of gun control and gun rights in the United States.  Washington D.C., having a handgun ban, has appealed to the Supreme Court to ask for their ruling on the 2nd Amendment.  Legal scholars have all had their expectations.  Many expect the court to rule that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment, much like the 1st, protects individuals.  In fact, I believe the Bill of Rights protects individuals, not organizations or state-sponsor groups.

I am betting a 6/3 split in favor.

As I continue to split the two sites, I’ll be converting mikesoh.com to using WordPress.  I’ve found Geeklog (my current blog software) to be a bit cumbersome as I’ve upgraded and personalized each page.

I’m hoping by the end of this month, mikesoh.com will hold political articles and linuslive.com will hold my personal blog.

Please stay tune

I have successfully migrated/mirrored mikesoh.com to linuslive.com!

In the next few weeks, the two sites will look exactly similar…with the exception of the site name of course.  The articles will even be the same.  But I’m hoping by the end of July, the seperation will be complete and mikesoh.com will host my political and editorial blogs.

So why did I decided to seperate the two?  I didn’t want to confuse the message of Christ.

Many people in fact read my blog (even though they don’t leave comments, HINT HINT).  As I’ve gotten more active politically, I’m finding it important to seperate my political articles from my spiritual articles because they both have unique tones and focuses.  This is not to suggest that my political views aren’t shaped by my beliefs.  On the contrary, I have my political views BECAUSE of my beliefs.

The focus of linuslive.com is to be more personal and reflective, verses challenging and confronting.  I felt that those voices are best heard under different venues.

Take the time now to update your bookmarks.  If you enjoy reading my personal thoughts and my bi-weekly Christian essays (crosswords), please bookmark linuslive.com.  If you want to read my political editorials and essays, continue to visit mikesoh.com.  Or, if you want both, visit both!

Well, some of you know me as Mike.  Some of you know me as Linus.  Right now, there’s only one site: mikesoh.com

After much confusion, I’ve decided to split two sections of my site:

mikesoh.com will contain my political and editorial blogs.  My new site (website URL TBD) will host my personal blog entries, crossword articles, and pictures.  Both sites will run announcements.  The two sites will be incredibly different.  For one, mikesoh.com will probably run on blogger software instead of geeklog.

I’m hoping to make this change around June-July.  I’ve got to sift through a lot of articles.  I actually passed the 100 point!  Until the site is set up, please keep visiting mikesoh.com for everything!

With election season in full swing, it’s a good idea to have a refresher on the Constition.  Answers follow in the full article:

1. The President has the power to do all of these EXCEPT
   1. introduce a bill
   2. create a health care plan
   3. reduce taxes
   4. the President can’t do any of these things
2. Congress has the ability to
   1. dismantle the military
   2. borrow money
   3. decides who should be the next supreme court judge
   4. make the President to whatever they want
3. Politicians make promises that they know they can’t keep because
   1. it sounds good to people who don’t know any better
   2. they know they can blame someone else when they can’t live up to their promises
   3. "change" sounds good
   4. all of the above

Answers:

1. D
2. B
3. D

Surprised?  A lot of people are.  I would actually like to ask how many people have actually sat down and read the Constitution.  I’m guessing very few because of the large number of people who just believe everything that the candidates of saying!

The one that upsets me the most is "Mr. Change" Barack Obama.  Senator, as President, you won’t have the power to create health care.  You can’t.  You can’t "cut income taxes" for working families.  You can’t "reform bankruptcy laws."

The same goes for Mrs. "Health care for everyone so that I can tax them later" Hilary Clinton.  You don’t have the power to create health care.  You don’t now and you won’t if you become President.

Where do you guys get off?!  Yes, this all sounds good to the average person…but it’s only because you’re taking advantage of their stupidity!  Now, granted, there are a lot more stupid people in this country than there are smart educated people…which, I guess that’s why you want to appeal to them.

Hell, you should promise people a BMW in front of every house and a turkey on every table because your ability to do that is just as probable of you actually "changing" anything.

All a President can do is sign a bill, execute a bill, and manage the military.  (Obviously, this is over-simplified.)  The most you can do is ask Congress to create a bill; but that is no guarantee that you’ll get what you promised.  Well, I guess you know that you can always blame them for not doing what you wanted.

This past election, all these democratic candidates for the House and Senate promised "change" and to "withdraw" the troops.  They don’t advertise that their approval rating is WORSE than the Presidential approval rating.

Here’s the funny thing about both Barack and Clinton: They would have better power as legislators than as President to do what they propose.  As President, they would be stripped of this power!

Why is it America doesn’t get this?

When I was a sophomore in college, I had to learn how to cook, primarily because I had to at least once a week for my roommates.  The first meals I started to cook were based primarily on a recipe, especially ones with pictures.  I did this so that I could see if I were on the right track.

I’d get all my ingredients together, and start cooking.  For the first couple of months, I would be really nervous.  No matter what I cooked, and no matter how many times I had already cooked it previously, sometime within the middle of the cooking time, I would get worried because the dish cooking in the pot didn’t even remotely resemble the picture.  (One recipe in particular sticks my mind.  I don’t remember what I was cooking, but the cookbook showed the meal as being a bright reddish orange, while my pot was green and yellow.)

I kept telling myself, "It’s okay.  It’s okay.  You’re not done yet.  It will hopefully look right in the end."

I pressed forward in fear because I had to feed five people in 15 minutes and it was already too late to do anything else.

In the end, the meal turned out perfectly!

So why tell a story about cooking?  Frankly, I think our politicians can learn a thing or too from this story.There have been many debates about the war in Iraq.  I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard democrats saying, "The American people want an end to the war!"  I don’t know about everyone else, but I don’t!

Harry Reid, Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, et al…You do not speak for me!

Yes, I still support the war!  Yes, I still think we’re there for a good reason.  And yes, I still believe that we should have gone in when we did.

In the last month, there have been growing reports that the latest troop surge is working, that both civilian and military deaths have significantly decreased.  In fact, more and more reports are showing vast improvements about the conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But democrats, even facing these reports, still demand that the troops be brought home because the Iraq war is wrong.

It occurred to me last night that democrats are like me when I’m cooking: they are stuck in the recipe with 15 minutes left and they are panicking because the meal doesn’t look like the pretty picture.

I’ve asked this before: why does it seem that the democrats can’t see pass the present?

The District of Columbia is appealing a lower court’s decision that ruled that the laws banning handguns is illegal.  I’m always amazed when liberals what all these freedoms, yet when it comes to the second amendment, they are surprisingly conservative.

The question at hand is: Does the second amendment apply to individuals or to militias?

The argument that DC is making is that the Constitution explicitly states that militias are to be the only ones that have guns to protect states from the federal government.  Let’s look at this amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let’s ask the scientific question, "For what reason would the Founders include this right after the amendment that guarantees the right free speech, right to petition, and the right to congregate?"  If you look at the history of the Revolutionary war, it wasn’t fought by organized armies.  They were fought by farmers, countrymen, and bakers.  Many of these citizens where angry that an oppressive government would force down edicts without a way to legally appeal them.  These citizens were forced with arms.

The security of the United States was not won by a militia; it was won because a community of people said, "Enough is enough" and stood their ground, prepared to die for what they believed in.

The Founders saw the need to protect the citizens from an oppressive government.  The Founders were, indeed, well educated and very bright.  They understood that men could be corrupted by power or greed…or even both!  The Founders included this amendment for one purpose: to allow the people to overtake the government in the event that it became too powerful and oppressive.

This amendment is not about hunting as many people seem to believe.  No, this amendment is about giving people the protection and the tools they need to protect themselves should someone decide, "You know, I don’t like democracy.  We’re going to be a dictatorship."  The amendment even says so: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…"

What’s clear through the Constitution is the balance of powers: not just between branches of government, but between the government and the people.  In fact, the Bill of Rights’ sole purpose is to outline which rights shall be guaranteed to every citizen!

One of my favorite quotes is, "It will be a dark day when only the police or the criminals have all the guns."

Some people argue (like DC) that because the word ‘Militia’ is in the amendment, the right is, therefore limited to just them.  If one examines the second half of the amendment, this argument simply cannot stand: "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  If we accept the argument that "the right of the people" refer to Militia, we must also examine all other amendments.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment XV: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Isn’t interesting that "the right of the people" in these amendments refer to individuals, not groups like the press, or people who only live in houses, or people who are in political parties.

Now, I’m sure some (like DC) will argue that banning guns has helped decrease violence.  Let’s simply ignore the fact that DC’s homicide number for this year is likely to exceed last year’s number.  But this simply is not a good argument for one reason only: There is no constitutional basis for this argument.  The Supreme Court isn’t dictating policy.  That’s the legislative branch’s job.  The Supreme Court is to look at the Constitution, look at the law being questioned, then decide whether it holds up.  There should be no argument regarding violence rates simply because this is not at question.  While I could prove this wrong statistically, logically, and sanely, there is no need to because the question isn’t "do guns cause violence."  The question is, "Is DC’s gun ban unconstitutional."

This isn’t legal mumbo-jumbo.  It’s plain common sense!

This week, two leading researchers have found ways to create embryonic stem cells from skin cells.  This is great news to both the Christian community that believe that harvesting embryos for stem cells is morally wrong and the medical community that wants to use those stem cells to create cures for diseases.  However, it leaves one group out: The pro-abortionists.

For years now, those that support abortion have put people like Michael J. Fox — who suffers from Parkinson’s Disease — in front of the media saying that aborted embryos provide stem cells that could, in essence, cure anything.  I’ve always seen this argument as misleading and analogous to the salesmen of the 1940’s that sold snake oil door-to-door.  Regardless, without embryonic stem cells, research into other fatal diseases would be halted.  Let’s step aside from the fact that stem cells from embryos has not provided any results while those derived from fatty tissue and umbilical cords have.  Now, that there is a way to convert skin cells into embryonic stem cells, the pro-abortionists just lost their biggest gun.

So what to do now?  It will be interesting how they handle this research.  On the one hand, if they denounce it, it will show that they really don’t care about debilitating diseases.  On the other hand, if they say the research is viable, they no longer have the argument that aborted embryos can be used for science.

Catch 22.