Read an interesting editorial on the current argument over net neutrality over on CNN.  The writers are certainly biased in favor of the corporate interests, but their point about the First Amendment and government censorship is very valid.  They don’t really address the issue I have with giving up on net neutrality, or allowing corporations who provide content and/or access to the ‘net, to determine who gets the bandwidth (usually based on who’s paying the ISPs for preferred speeds).  That gives them far too much power to dictate the conversation (and when I say “conversation”, I mean all forms of traffic) online.

Of course, people have been up in arms the last couple of days over allegations that Google and Verizon have been working together on same back room deal regarding net neutrality.  Of course, Google and Verizon have been working together on net neutrality for a while now, so the fact that they’re talking again now shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.  What people were getting worked up about was the rumor that these companies were hashing out a deal that would allow for traffic on Verizon’s pipes to get precedence for a fee (one assumes Google’s traffic).  Both companies deny that’s what they were doing.  Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, insists that he’s trying to work to find a new solution that will give the FCC some real power and still allow companies to keep their networks free of massive congestion (from things like BitTorrent and P2P programs).

Of course, Google has been on the side of net neutrality for years, and once asked users to fight FOR net neutrality.  Are they trying to do an end-run around net neutrality by forging some kind of deal with Verizon?  I don’t know.  Schmidt claims that people don’t understand the issue.   Google is trying to present it’s case for seemingly changing positions, but insists that they only want to define restrictions based on the type of file being sent (a video, bittorrent traffic, gaming, etc.), not who’s sending/receiving the file.  Is that reasonable and acceptable?  I urge you to read all about it and make up your own minds.

It is always entertaining (in the “so funny I want to punch someone” vein) to watch a bad idea be continually proven to be a bad idea, but yet everyone keeps plodding forward with said bad idea.

“The lesson here is an old one: The law is a poor way to regulate private human behavior.”

- Tom Keane from his article in the Boston Globe Magazine

Wired.com has posted an article discussing the ACLU’s recent study that illustrates how many states are detaining people for doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights.  Studies like this remind me of that classic quote from Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

In yet another example of my current state’s incessant nannying, Governor Patrick passed a law in April, just a little slip of a thing really, that, according to the ACLU, “imposes severe restrictions on the distribution of constitutionally protected speech on the Internet.”  Effectively, this is a perfect example of the well-intentioned mindset that leads to the repression of free expression.  This state is friggin’ painful.  And in this instance, the ACLU gets my full support.

Even The Atlantic has picked up on the problems with MassCare and the way in which people are gaming the system, costing the state, or more appropriately its citizens, millions. Problem is, MassCare is the model on which national Health Care Reform is based. Imagine the costs there when the nation starts gaming the system. Sigh.

After celebrating the landmark win the McDonald case, two years after the landmark win in the Heller case, I started reading some sober commentary regarding the dissenting opinion. The Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece taking a look at the decision and some of the logic. What’s scary is that the dissenting opinion attacks the validity of the the McDonald ruling, despite it being a logical next step after the Heller ruling, which in effect means that they would prefer to, in the words of Justice Alito:

“…treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.”

So how do the dissenting Justices get to this logic? They question the validity of the Heller decision. As the WSJ editorial states:

“All of this suggests that the liberals have decided to bide their time and wait for a fifth vote so they can overturn both Heller and McDonald.”

As the Washington Times reported in an article on their site:

“The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”

But wait a second, Justice Sotomayor supports this? Wasn’t she only recently nominated, like right after the Heller decision? What did she say then? The same article reminds us that Sotomayor testified to the Senate that:

“I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.” And, “I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.”

She also referred to Heller as “settled law” multiple times in her confirmation hearings, but she is now questioning it as settled law, looking to overturn the Heller decision? So she basically lied in her confirmation hearing, as evidenced by her actions and opinions in the McDonald case. Yeah, that’s what we want in our SCOTUS Justices…liars. This is what happens when you tarnish the Supreme Court by appointing not the absolute best, most impartial Judges and Constitutional Scholars in the land, but instead appoint politically-motivated activists with little or no Constitutional Law experience. I don’t care if the Liberals or the Conservatives do it, and they both do, it’s just plain wrong and a perversion of the mission of the SCOTUS.

Sadly, these Justices are hoping to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right. They are checking their impartiality at the door and trying to treat one amendment differently that all the others because of personal feelings and opinions. They don’t want to afford it the same privilege that other amendments to the Bill of Rights have. As the WSJ article states:

“Over nearly a century of cases, the High Court has extended to the states most of the rest of the Bill of Rights including part or all of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. It would be passing strange for the Second Amendment to be the lone outlier.”

And I agree, it would be odd. A decision like that would be a decision prompted not by precedent, or an understanding of Constitutional Law, but by personal motivations. And that is, or should be, anathema to a SCOTUS Justice.

In their recent ruling (what I assume will be called the McDonald decision, but who knows), the previous being the Heller decision, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right that is protected by the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights, thereby insuring that States can no longer ban law abiding citizens from owning firearms. It’s a great step forward, though it will have little impact on states like mine and their insane gun-grabbing laws that only strengthen criminals and weaken law-abiding citizens, but it’s a battle worth fighting.

I’ve already posted about the MA Probation Department and how it’s yet another haven for patronage-appointees to sponge off the taxpayer. I’ve already mentioned how insane it is that our legislators are undermining the integrity of our justice system so they can have another place to generate jobs for their campaign sign-holders. And now the Boston Herald is reporting that employees of the MA Probation Department took over 11,000 days of taxpayer-funded sick time last year. That averages to 12.5 per person. I dunno about you, but here in the private sector I don’t see anything like that much sick time…unless I burn my allotted vacation time too. Must be nice to suck off the teat of the taxpayer. Perhaps we ought to be a little upset…because, you know, it is, after all, OUR FUCKING TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR THEIR DAYS OFF. Nah, let’s just keep voting the same hacks back into office. This state is filled with morons. Are there any states out there that aren’t? I guess with the state of public education, it’s a moot point anyway.

Oh good. Despite the fact that surveillance systems haven’t proven to prevent or even help solve crime, we’re still desperate to try and make sure no one is unwatched at any time. The latest? Turns out the DHS has a HD surveillance system that is, effectively, a chandelier of HD cameras pointing in as many directions as possible with software that stitches the images together in real time to form a massive field of surveillance. And it’s already in use…in Boston, at Logan Airport. Why doesn’t this bother the average citizen?