Shared: Analyst sees ‘ghost town’ in Inland Empire
July 8th, 2008 at 08:00amShared from Google Reader:
Shared: Interview with Senator Government Genius: Discussing the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
July 4th, 2008 at 08:00amShared from Google Reader:
Interview with Senator Government Genius: Discussing the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
Shared: Real Homes of Genius: Today we Salute you Beverly Hills 90210. Making $1 Million in Home Equity Disappear.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:00amShared from Google Reader:
Shared: The L.A. housing bubble: a snapshot in time
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:00amShared from Google Reader:
Don’t forget about the judges
June 28th, 2008 at 07:00amThe close 5-4 ruling in DC vs Heller goes to show how important judges are. The 4 left-wing judges on the court wanted to repeal the individual right to own a firearm without connection to a militia. The current election could help determine the composition of the Supreme Court considering the older justices on the bench:
Judge Stevens - 88, Ginsburg - 75, Kennedy - 72, Scalia - 72 and Breyer - 70
There's a good chance the next president will be nominating replacements for 1 or 2 of them. Any of McCain's nominees would be far superior to anyone Obama would put up. You might not like everyone about the McCain, but he sure looks good next to the alternative.
Read the entire dissent, starting on page 68, written by Stevens in DC vs Heller to be thoroughly disgusted. Here's just a quick tidbit:
As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia.
That's right, 45% of the Supreme Court doesn't think you should be able defend yourself in your home with a handgun. Suzanna Hubb is a perfect example of what happens when law abiding citizens aren't able to protect themselves. If you haven't heard her story you must listen to her tell it:
Big win for the 2nd Amendment
June 26th, 2008 at 08:55pmSCOTUSblog » Court: A constitutional right to a gun
The Supreme Court ruled on Heller vs DC today and pretty much said that an individual has the right to own a gun. From the opinion:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The decision doesn't invalidate regulations like registration requirements, but it certainly opens the door for legal action against laws that limit the use of firearms by law abiding citizens. I'm not a gun nut but this how I feel about the whole situation:
Criminals don't obey gun laws, they just leave their victims defenseless. I'm glad I have the ability to defend myself in my home because I don't want to be at the mercy of some criminal threatening my life and property. If that moment ever comes the police won't be able to help. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
Why hands-free cell phone laws are dumb
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:51amPoliticians must think that if they don't pass a new law every two days then they aren't doing their job. The hands-free cell phone law is a great example of this need to pass legislation that is supported by absolutely zero reasonable thought.
At politician school you learn two things: find a legitimate problem and then create a dumb solution that doesn't address the actual problem. Firearm laws are a great example of this.
The new hands-free cell phone law is also a perfect example. There's two components to talking on a hand held cell phone: holding the phone to the side of your face and carrying out a conversation. The politician looks at this situation and sees two possibilities: make it illegal to hold a phone in your hand while driving or make it illegal to have conversations while driving. If I put my stupid politician hat on I immediately realize that holding a phone to your head drastically increases the risk of an accident and for the sake of public safety it must be stopped.
Removing the stupid politician hat I understand that my knee jerk reaction might not be valid and requires further investigation. Maybe scientists have done research into this problem area?
- Cell Phone Users Drive 'Blind'; Study Explains Why Hands-Free Phones Just As Bad As Hand-held
- Cognitive Psychologists Show Conversations Lower Visual Abilities
- Passengers, Not Just Mobile Phones, Contribute To Road Accidents
Hmmm how about that? It is quite possible that holding a conversation makes up most of the increase of collision risk.
When I look at the situation and use common sense I come to the conclusion that to have any noticeable effect on collisions all activities that distract a driver have to be made illegal, not just using a hand held cell phone. Here's a short list:
- Participating in any conversation
- Listening to the radio/music/talk radio
- Looking at billboards, bumper stickers, license plate frames or any other advertisements
- Consuming food or beverages
- Applying makeup
- Driving with one hand (manual transmission drivers would have a 3 second period between shifts to place both hands back on the wheel)
- Driving while holding any object
- Sneezing/Coughing/Yawning/Sleeping/Farting/Barfing/Laughing/Stretching/Waving/Smiling/Thinking
Okay I'm just kidding. Kind of. To spite the new law I might just drive around with a banana held up to my head blaring "Ring ring ring, banana phone" over my stereo. If it is illegal to talk on a phone in your hand surely I would get pulled over for doing the same with a piece of fresh fruit.
Our most sacred right of free speech
June 11th, 2008 at 04:59pm Saw this article on Drudge: Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S. Pretty good read that illustrates the difference between America and the rest of the world. I'm grateful that the Constitution prevents our government from telling us what we can't say, what not to think and what not to do. God forbid if that ever happens we'll still have our guns to take back our country. Always remember that the Constitution does not grant us revocable privileges; our rights are there to protect us from the government. The article ends with a good quote from Mark Steyn:"What we're learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins," Steyn added. "Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."
