Double Double Standards

I mentioned a case of double standards yesterday. Well either there were no approved comments on that link or they weren’t showing up for me but either way I have a continuation of this article now. I just want to point out the slew of stupidity going on:

See Anne, the article author, apparently hates guns and no amount of logic will dissuade her from her apparent goal to ensure money is not given to organizations trying to fight breast cancer. Seriously she thinks the source of the money is important and gun manufacturers are bad. So user LC Scotty posts the following:

Woman shoots violent, home invading ex boyfriend.

http://blog.al.com/live/2009/10/burlgar_shot_and_killed_tuesda.html

I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, but these sorts of stories crop up all the time.

Seems legitimate enough. A story about a women defending herself with a gun. Here’s Anne’s reply:

Isolated, anecdotal cases can always be found to justify or defend most anything.

Anne Landman

She’s also right. That’s why I present and entire blog soley about people defending themselves with guns. Choke on it! Of course an anonymous poster makes the usual, although very accurate, car argument:

What if a car manufacturer donated money for breast cancer awareness? I bet cars are involved in the deaths of many women. Oh yeah, but you don’t have an irrational fear of cars.

But Anne shows us that she’s consistant:

There’s already a breast cancer awareness Ford Mustang!

Never mind how the pollutants from the exhaust contribute to disease!

Anne Landman

Oh wait never mind:

Guns are designed for that purpose. Vehicle manufacturers have been developing and incorporating features into cars for decades to make them safer: seat belts, air bags, back-up warning alarms, sensors to detect movement behind them, etc.

Anne Landman

Of course user commander makes a good point:

Smith and Wesson has been building pink-accented “Lady Smith” guns for years now. Why is it suddenly a bad thing that they’re donating some money from the sale of those guns to cancer research?

So this isn’t something new for them but Anne is all of the sudden offended because the M&P Smith and Wesson are auctioning off is for breast cancer awareness is all of the sudden bad. Of course Anne tries to shit all over commander’s argument:

… and in this case, about selling guns.

If S&W just wanted to benefit cancer victims, why not just make a donation to a cancer research organization without pinking the product?

Anne Landman

Because the ENTIRE point behind the pink campaign is to raise AWARENESS. It’s a marketing ploy (not all of them are evil) to raise money to help research breast cancer. Anonymous donations don’t raise awareness because nobody fucking hears about them. I’m only going to post one more nugget of stupidity here. User MarshallD makes a very astute point:

Smith and Wesson and Julie Goloski have their hearts in the right place and you all should be ashamed of doubting them.

A woman with a firearm, trained on how to use it, has a greater chance of defending herself against a violent opponent much larger than herself. I feel much better knowing that my wife carries a firearm to defend herself against a criminal.

Of course Anne doesn’t understand what self defense means:

If a woman needs training in self-defense, I suggest martial arts training. That way she has something that can’t be taken away and used against her, nor can it be stolen and used against someone else.

Anne Landman

I’m sorry but in a self defense situation I want every advantage. If my attacker has a gun and is standing any reasonable distance from me what good are martial arts going to do? What if you’re up against some crazy who’s been taking PCP and can’t feel pain? Sure he won’t feel bullets but he’ll eventually bleed out while breaking limbs probably isn’t going to accomplish much.

Anyways I just wanted to point out some of the stupidity being argued there. Anne who is claiming she’s made at Smith and Wesson because they create the best method one can own for self defense, is more or less advocating those women be disarmed.

And why did I make these remarks on my blog instead of posting them on her site? Well I did post on her site but I have more leeway with my blog and I can use whatever language I feel necessary. Also I realize no amount of logical argument is going to change her mind but I want to place a record of this somewhere since I’m worried she may decide to do some comment pruning in the future.

Petty Double Standards

An example of petty double standards is presented for our amusement by Says Uncle. October is breast cancer awareness month and hence companies out there usually release some commemorative product which the profits or proceeded are donated to a cancer research group, usually the American Cancer Society.

Both DPMS and Smith and Wesson help auctions for custom guns with procedes going to a cancer research center. Of course some people aren’t happy when gun manufacturers do it. See it’s only OK for companies who don’t make devices that many women use every day to defend themselves to make donations towards fighting breast cancer.

Net Neutrality

Unless you’ve been living under a slab of pure granite for the last couple of years you’ve heard of the war looming over the Internet. The war has been given the name Net Neutrality and at risk is the very freedom of the Internet.

The war had another shot recently introduced by none other than John McCain, the self professed luddite, who recently introduced the deceptively named Internet Freedom Act.

Net neutrality boils down to this, several of the world’s largest ISPs want to have discretion over what Internet traffic can flow over their wires. Comcast wants to ban peer or peer, AT&T wants voice over IP destroyed, and all the big players would love to make you buy a tiered Internet. What do I mean by tiered Internet? Well it’s a lot like cable television, if you want the basic web like e-mail and Yahoo you pay a certain fee. If you want access to “premium” websites like YouTube you have to pay an additional free. You get the picture.

On the other hand you are dealing with a company’s liberty to conduct business without interference from the government. Free market involves a lack of government interference in corporate matters. The only way to achieve net neutrality is to have the government tell the ISPs they can’t selectively filter Internet traffic. Of course companies are the people who built the infrastructure and pay for the equipment maintenance to keep the Internet going so they should have a right to do what they want with it correct?

Well that’s what it boils down to. The problem is nothing is quite as simple as it appears. I am the last person who is going to profess a need for government to do something and certainly you would expect me to say the FCC should not be allowed to regulate the Internet correct? Here is the problem, the government has been meddling with the Internet since before it was created.

The Internet as we know it today evolved from a Cold War research project called ARPANET. The idea behind ARPANET was to create a communication system that was decentralized and therefore would stand a better chance of surviving a first strike incident by the Soviets. Since no central unit was required by ARPANET to function there was no single target the Soviets could strike to disable our communication capabilities. Eventually research based off of ARPANET was released into the private sector. This research is what the Internet you see before you evolved from.

The Internet itself was made in a generalized manner so it could be broadcast through almost any media. It didn’t depend on a specific cabling system, nor a wireless frequency. This lead to the eventual use of the already established phone lines to send data across. That key item is the reason phone companies like AT&T and Verizon were able to become Internet providers, they had the infrastructure.

Here is where we run into move government control though. Back when the phone system was created the government was quick to establish a sanctioned monopoly to control it. This sanctioned monopoly was granted to Bell Systems which is still commonly referred to as Ma Bell. So from the get go the phone system was controlled by one central agency, obviously not a development from the free market. Eventually a case, the United States vs. AT&T, started in 1974 and concluded in 1982 broke the government sanctioned telecommunication monopoly. In return for divesting their local exchanges Ma Bell was allowed to enter the personal computer field.

This divesture was where our modern telecommunication companies hail from. Originally the breakup created eight “Bell Babies.” Through mergers we eventually ended up with three major players being AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest. All of this is important to note because the telecommunication field has been so heavily influenced by government control there is no way to know how it would have evolved without government control.

So now we find ourselves in a rather precarious situation. Either we call on the government to regulate the Internet, an entity of its own creation, or allow companies, also entities of its own creation, to do as they please. But we can look further yet into this. We need to look no further than the United States Postal Service.

What could the Postal Service possibly have to do with the Internet? Well it’s an example of how much our founding fathers cherished the idea of open communication. The Postal Service is established in Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution. The clause states, “To establish post offices and post roads.” That in itself isn’t greatly useful for the topic at hand but it’s reason for establishment is. As already stated it was created to ensure interstate communication. Secondly it was a form of revenue for the United States government in its early days. Still the idea of open communication existed in the very beginning of this country.

And that’s what the Internet provides, communication. But not just interstate communication but inter-country communication as well. Much like the telephone service before it and the postal service before that the Internet facilitates open communication between people.

It is through this research and understanding that I personally support the concept of net neutrality. The Postal Service doesn’t discriminate what kind of mail you send, and Ma Bell didn’t establish restrictions on who you called. Why should the Internet ISPs be allowed to control the means of which you use the Internet?

The Real Terrorists

We have billions of dollars being spent every year on homeland security. All this money is being spent to fight the terrorists that are so frightening we passed the PATROIT Act.

But alas we’re not targeting the actual terrorists. The ones who damage of power infrastructure and deny American citizen’s their God given right to life, liberty, and television. That’s right I’m talking about squirrels.

A hat tip goes to Bruce Schneier’s blog for this little tidbit of information.

Citizens of Europe You’re Screwed

Bad news for those of you living in Europe. Your last been hope for freedom, the Czech Republic, has signed the Lisbon Treaty. It’ll be law soon as all countries have ratified it. That’s right the piece of legislation so bad it couldn’t be passed by a vote by the citizens so it was made a treaty, is now going to be law.

What does this mean for those of you living in Europe? Well first anybody deemed mentally unstable or addicted to a substance no longer has any rights. But most worrisome is there will be the European Army which will be centered in, take a guess, Germany. Because Germany has such a great track record when they have a huge army at their disposal.

California Screwing Its Citizens Again

Do you live in that People’s Republic of California? Well you have my sympathies in that case since you’re getting beating up by your government again. Stating yesterday California will be withholding an additional 10% of citizens’ paychecks. Oh but get this, it’s not a tax. Yes it’s mandatory and yes the state is taking it from your paycheck before you even get it, but it’s not income tax. You’ll get it back someday, scout’s honor.

As a citizen of the United States of America let me extend a welcome invitation to all subjects of California to uproot yourselves and come to the U.S. It’s actually rather nice here.

This is Why You Don’t Comply with Criminals

You know what the anti-gunners always say, comply with criminals and you’ll be better off than if you defended yourself. The phrase, “Just give them want they want” is often used by those against the right of self defense.

The problem is you’re making a contract with a person willing to cause you harm. I present and example showing why compliance isn’t a substitute for self defense.

Here is the story summed up. A many breaks into a family’s home and robs them of valuables. After the even the family report the incident to the police and then get a shotgun in case they experience anything like that again. Well the thug was so pissed off that the family reported him that he returned with intent to kill the family. He met the business end of a shotgun.

Remember when dealing with unscrupulous people there is no guarantee that they won’t decide to turn around and murder you after you’ve done everything they say. On the other hand dead criminals can’t harm anybody. And that is my thought of the day.

For Those of You in Support of S. 1317

I’ve made some quips about the unconstitutional S. 1317, known as the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, before. If passed the bill would say anybody on the FBI’s secret terrorist watch list would become a prohibited person. This means you could be denied your right to bear arms because your name appears on a list nobody can read. To add insult to injury nobody is allowed to know the criteria for placing names on that said list.

Well for those of you who still support the idea take a look at this story. According to numbers released by the FBI 1,600 names are submitted to be added to the secret list EVERY DAY. The list already has 400,000 names of “suspected terrorists” and it ever growing. That’s a potential of 1,600 people every day losing their right to bear arms based on suspicion alone. So much for being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.