

How about that facebook? Rumor has it that it’s having some privacy issues. Taking people pictures and putting them places they don’t want. Taking information from outside sources such as blockbuster online to show on facebook what movie you just rented. Slightly intrusive? I think so. I’m sure there is a way to stop it from doing this, but still, an invasion nonetheless. I think that facebook should just be facebook and blockbuster should be blockbuster. There is no real reason to mix the two.
Facebook is also starting this new thing called “personal advertising” where they take whatever your interested in and will show you these ads more often. Now that I think about it, I have noticed this. I often see ads about guitars, music, women, and whatever else I listed in my interests. This is ridiculous. This is a great method of advertising but it is still a huge invasion on people’s privacy. The lawyers representing facebook would probably say that it’s not anything people aren’t publicly releasing, but I think its still invasion. This may not seem so bad, but they are also looking at people’s history of what websites they have visited, and this is even bigger. Going into people’s computer and taking what they may want to be private is a big deal. The worst of all of this is that users can’t opt out of it this “facebook beacon”, if you are on facebook, you are being collected from. We have our rights and we should be told what is being taken from us.
Another issue of personal things is the 2nd amendment. It has been a constant battle for years now. The right to bear arms is a heavily debated issue. Could it mean that every American can have a rifle in their home to protect themselves? Could it mean that everyone can have big hairy arms with claws at the end? Does it mean that only those who are meant to protect our country have the right to a personal weapon? Who knows? The Trapezoid does. Some people say that if everyone had guns, everyone could protect himself or herself. Horse hockey, that’s what I say. I say that gun control makes people safe. If only police have them, or even if they only have tasers, lives without guns would be great. Gang violence would be down, accidental deaths would be down, and suicide could even go down if we try hard enough. The Supreme Court rarely rules about this issue, possibly not to cause problems. The only issue is the phrasing of the amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Does this mean that the Militia has the right to bear arms? Or does is mean that we can have a Militia and be able to have arms in our homes and hands. I think it means that just the militia is allowed to have them. It doesn’t make any sense for the people to have them. Canada doesn’t have them, and look at them! Their doing great. Universal health care and everything. Why can’t we be more like Canada? Because we are America, home of the brave, land of the free.

Peace, love, and bear arms,

Mayer “Danger” Stein