mikesoh.com

You know what really grinds my gears?  Being ‘green’.  ‘Environmentalists’ cloud their hatred for globalization in being green.  Most global warming ‘facts’ are ill-researched and when pressed on the issue, these people will turn to emotional responses, not ones laid in truth or even science.

What I’ve noticed is how little research these environmentalist actually do into anything they are saying.  One of the popular ‘facts’ I’ve heard is that the east coast will be flooded and will disappear because the oceans will have grown.  Another ‘fact’ is how were losing hundreds of species everyday and we’ll lose 50% of animals by 2050.

All of these ‘facts’ were produced (read created) by computer-generated models.  Not history, not facts.  Computer models that can be manipulated to show ‘worst-case scenerios’ and not reality.  But despite these non-truths, people still spout them because it sounds alarmist and gets people fired up.

People like me, who don’t think the world is going to end, are taking advantage of these gullible people by selling products that are more expensive because being ‘green’ is more expensive.  Of course, no one on the environmental camp has complained about this.  Why is that?  Do they even do research on whether these products are actually ‘green’?

I’m convinced that you could sell polished poo to these people and call it ‘green fudge’ and they’d by it by the masses.

I just saw a report where Obama blamed the Bush administration for creating the largest federal deficit. In the same speech, he says we need another economic stimulus package because people are “one letter away, one pink slip away” from economic disaster. Mr. Obama, do you not realize that this would increase the deficit? But I guess a lack of mathematical comprehension is a prerequisite to being a democrat these days.

Why is it that Obama as well as other democrats don’t like to encourage people to save? Instead, he wants to take money out of my pocket to give it to people who are going to waste it?

In fact, almost all laws that they introduce takes responsibility away from people and gives it to the government. Health insurance, mortgage bale-out, and even voting has gone from personal responsibility to government hand-out.

There is no incentive for people to save money. Why is this? The average American doesn’t have a savings or if they do, it’s less than $1000. We live in a culture that encourages us to spend way more than we make, using credit cards like they are free.

I don’t understand why people think that giving more responsibility to the government will make things better.  Everybody has been to the DMV.  If the government can make that more efficient, than I’d be more than happy to give the government more responsibility.  Until then, I’ll keep my money.

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.