August 2010 – Page 6 – Politics Plus

Is Grayson Net Neutral?

Posted by TomCat at 1:21 am Politics

Aug 202010

I’ve observed considerable criticism of Rep. Alan Grayson, much of it from the left, because he refused to sign on to the idea that guaranteeing net neutrality is up to the FCC. Frankly, I think he has gotten a bum rap on this. Here is his own explanation:

The Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Proposal begins by stating that "Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet." Well, that’s nice. Imagine what they would have come up with if they had been trying to kill off the open Internet.

Actually, you don’t have to imagine it. Because that’s what this is. An effort to kill off the open Internet.

Much of the coverage of the Verizon-Google Proposal has focused on only one of the proposal’s many problems: the fact that the proposal allows wireless broadband carriers — like, say, Verizon, for instance — to discriminate in handling Internet traffic in any manner they choose. They can charge content providers, they can block content providers, and they can slow down content providers, just as they please. That sure doesn’t sound "neutral."

We’ve already seen examples of political censorship over mobile networks. In 2007, Verizon refused to run a pro-choice text message from advocacy group NARAL, due to its supposedly ‘unsavory’ nature. Yes, this happened; yes, this kind of censorship would be continue to be legal under the Google-Verizon deal; and yes, Google, this is evil.

But the Verizon-Google Proposal allows almost as much latitude to other internet carriers, like cable and DSL carriers. Under the heading "Network Management," all carriers can "engage in reasonable network management," which "includes any technically sound practice" (which means what?). And it specifically includes the power to "prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency." The term "latency" means delays in downloading, from carrying video files and such. So if you want video, and YouTube won’t pay Verizon to provide it, then Verizon can "prioritize" other traffic. And then your two-minute video will take two hours to see. And let’s say you want to start a new website that offers video — good luck getting through to Verizon’s customer service department, to have Verizon place it in the right ‘tier’ of Verizon’s internet service. In my experience, customer service requests have extraordinarily high "latency."

Furthermore, under the heading "Non-Discrimination Requirement" (that sounds promising!), wireline carriers cannot engage in "undue discrimination." "Undue discrimination!" What, exactly, is "due" discrimination? And even then, the presumption of non-discrimination "could be rebutted."

And if a carrier somehow manages to run afoul of these absurdly loose standards, the FCC doesn’t even have the power to act, unless someone actually finds out about the discrimination, complains about it, and can prove it. And even then, the Verizon-Google Proposal limits the penalty to $2 million.

Do you happen to know what Verizon’s revenue is every 10 minutes? It’s . . . $2 million. That’s right. The maximum fine is equal to what Verizon takes in every 10 minutes.

Do we laugh? Or do we cry?

This would give Verizon — and every other large internet carrier — the equivalent of a cheap "put" option on every company with an internet-based product or service. For a mere $2 million, Verizon could secretly block (or just mess with) the internet content of a billion-dollar company, destroying its market value overnight. And, perhaps, sending those customers to Verizon’s rival product or service.

Now, I really would like to believe that the FCC can deliver on guaranteeing net neutrality. But remember, this ‘proposal’ came after months of secret, closed-door meetings with the FCC, spurred by Chairman Julius Genachowski, that sought an industry- brokered deal along the lines of the Verizon-Google Proposal. And when the proposal was issued, net neutrality’s longtime ally, Commissioner Michael Copps, responded as follows: "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its many problems."

When I see our most stalwart friend on the commission coming out against a deal shepherded by the Chairman, it doesn’t inspire confidence that the FCC can hold the line against telecom and cable companies, when those companies have something else in mind.

Google’s market capitalization is $150 billion. Verizon’s is $85 billion. They don’t care about our wellbeing. Never have, never will. Even if one of them tells us it won’t "be evil."

It’s time for the FCC to step up. It’s time for Congress to step up. It’s time for all of us to step up. We need for the law to protect the internet: No discrimination in pricing or in service. No self-regulation by corporate titans. And no blessing of corrupt deals at the FCC… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Grayson’s position has always been clear to me, and it is that we cannot depend on the FCC alone. We need the protection guaranteed by law, not just regulation. Keep the heat on Congress.

MSNBC Says No to MoveOn.org

Posted by TomCat at 1:20 am Politics

Aug 202010

MSNBC is my favorite news channel, because they are the most balanced. Their straight news is straight news, and they offer a balance if commentators from Pat Buchannan to Rachel Maddow. I was, therefore, surprised that they refused an ad from MoveOn.org.

MoveOn has hit a bump in the road for its anti-Target ad, which calls for a boycott of the company as a result of its $150,000 donation to a business group running ads for Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MSNBC, the liberal-branded national cable channel where MoveOn hoped to air the ad, has instead rejected it.

An MSNBC spokeswoman told the Associated Press that the spot violates the channel’s policy against ads that directly attack an individual business.

It’s not all bad news for MoveOn, though. The group says that local TV stations in the Twin Cities market are running the ad… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

Here’s the ad itself:

Considering the source, it it quite low key, as MoveOn has often taken a more in your face approach. There is nothing here that could rightly be considered distasteful.

For now, I’m watching and, if I see ever see an ad on MS-NBC that directly attacks an entity of any kind (except Faux Noise ;-)), this story will come back.

Open Thread – 8/20/2010

Posted by TomCat at 1:20 am Open Thread, Personal

Aug 202010

After yesterday’s first appointment, I could not be more pleased to report that one of the worst experiences in my medical history is over. My pulmonologist agreed that I am CPAP intolerant. During the last two months that horrid contraption has cost me around sixty hours of sleep. After this ordeal I’m almost looking forward to the doctor with the 20 foot camera for where no man has gone before. My second appointment was to return the CPAP machine. I waited over an hour for that one. That thing was going back mo matter what the pulmonologist said. I feel like a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Then I had to go to the radiology lab for a chest X-ray. All this took most of the day, so I still have not replied to comments or retuned visits. The only thing on tap for today is a trip to the grocery store, so I should be able to at least put a dent in the comments.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today it took me 4:24. To do it, click here. How did you do?

Short Takes:

From AP/Google: A lot of the crude that spewed from BP’s ruptured well is still in the Gulf of Mexico, but it’s far below the surface and invisible. And it’s likely to linger for months on end, scientists said Thursday in the first conclusive evidence of an underwater plume of oil from the disaster.

As I have said all along, the effects of the GOP Gusher will linger for years.

From TPM: The number of Americans who say President Obama is a Muslim has nearly doubled since March 2009, according to a new poll from Pew out today. The poll finds that 18% of Americans say the president — who, it should be said for the record, is a practicing Christian — is a Muslim. That’s up from 11% who said the same thing in March of last year.

The most ludicrous thing about this is that the people spreading this lie are the same people who were making the big sting about Rev. Jeremiah Wright during the campaign. And the same sheeple who believed that, now believe this.

From Think Progress: The ironically named Dove World Church — whose pastor, Terry Jones, has written a book called “Islam Is Of The Devil,” which is also emblazoned on a sign outside the institution — is planning to host “International Burn A Quran Day” on September 11. But the radical church ran into a new roadblock yesterday as Gainesville city officials “denied a burn permit” for the church for the event, effectively telling them doing so would be illegal. The church, undeterred, sent out an e-mail to supporters promising to hold the burning event anyway.

During Jesus’ lifetime the Republican religious right, aka Pharisees and Sadducees, condemned Samaritans in the same way that they condemn Muslims today. Jesus demonstrated that he refused to go along through the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This right wing hate is NOT authentic Christianity.

Cartoon: from Cagle.com

20fitzsimmons

TGIF!!

Editorial: Why? Is it over? Who won? Now what?

Posted by TomCat at 4:04 am Editorial

Aug 192010

Yesterday evening at 5:51 PM PDT, I watched the gates at the border of Kuwait closing behind the last vehicle of the last combat brigade to leave Iraq. I could not help but reflect on the long struggle to bring this war to an end. For me it began in 2001. On the morning of September 11, I was at work and, like most Americans, feeling stunned. My job that day was to contact CTOs and VP ITs in Fortune 500 companies in Manhattan to arrange site visits by a research team from a major software manufacturer. A made two calls, actually talked to someone in the WTC. The man asked me to call his wife and tell her that he loved her. I did. I felt totally freaked out! After that I refused to make more calls and was almost fired, but our company’s President showed up, sided with me, and suspended operations for the rest of the day. We gathered in the lunch room and a friend asked me what it all meant. I correctly identified Al Qaeda as the most likely culprit, and added that I felt certain that Bush would use the attack as an excuse to invade Iraq and curtail the rights of US citizens. Little did I know jusyt how prophetic I was. Nine long years later, these questions remain.

Why?

Bush took us to war for two, perhaps three reasons. Many neocons in the AEI and PNAC wanted GHW Bush to overthrow Saddam and had wanted to finish the job ever since, but this is the least of the factors. The dominant radical Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia takes strong exception to the presence of foreign troops so close to Islam’s two most sacred shrines. Thus, it would have been beneficial to Saudi relations to establish permanent military bases elsewhere in the Gulf. Iraq was an ideal location. Bush wanted to control the world’s fourth largest oil reserves for his cronies in US oil companies. UK participation cut BP in on the deal. Operation Iraqi Freedom was always a Republican lie, along with WMD and connections to 9/11. Iraq was always Bush’s war for oil and conquest.

Is it over?

In a word, No. 6.000 more combat troops will fly home within a week, and US forces remaining will officially be on combat status until August 31. Even after that, 50,000 troops will remain in so-called noncombatant roles. Those roles include embedding with Iraqi units as advisors. Having embedded troops in combat units is combat. Those roles will also include special forces operations against terrorists. Operations against terrorists is combat. So this withdrawal is more a media event than anything else. The two good things here are that Obama is completing the withdrawal on time and the the last 50,000 troops must be out by the end of 2011.

Who won?

The Iraqi people did not win. They may have gotten rid of a horrific dictator, but who can say if what comes will be any better? Far too many Iraqis have been killed. Estimates range from 160,000 to 1,300,000 as of October, 2008. Since the highest comes from Lancet, I consider it the most credible. Millions have been dislocated. The nation’s infrastructure is destroyed. Despite billions spent by taxpayers to restore it, Bush’s Republican minions squandered the money on corrupt Iraqi officials and criminal US corporations. Women had more rights under Saddam than they do now. At this point, Iraq doesn’t even have a government.

The US did not win. 4,415 of our fine troops have been killed and thousands more maimed. We have squandered about $800 billion on direct war costs, and that does not even include the cost of reequipping our units or providing well-deserved care for vets whose minds and bodies have been shattered in this war. Through no fault of our fine troops, we have not achieved any of the objectives we had when we entered the war.

If anyone has won, it is Iran. Since the majority of Iraqis are Shia, and since Iraq is divided on sectarian lines, Iran will exert more influence over that nation than anyone else. Considering the current impasse between Iran and the US, the consequences of Iran’s increased role in Iraq could well be dire.

Now What?

First we need to pray, hope, or whatever it is that you do, that the country does not fall apart before our final exit at the end of 2011. Second, we need to learn from our mistakes in Iraq. Even though we are the world’s only super power, we cannot achieve our goals through military action, unless we are supported by a broad coalition of partners who share equally in the combat and cost. Even then, military force must be a last resort. Third, we cannot remake the world in our image. Different cultures develop at different rates, and we cannot change that. Fourth and most important, Afghanistan presents far more military problems than Iraq ever did. The sooner we cut our losses there, the better.

Poll Results – 10/19/2010

Posted by TomCat at 4:03 am Blog News

Aug 192010

Here are the results of the Useless DINO poll:

Poll0819

And here are your comments:

From Pissed off 99er on August 15, 2010 at 9:20 pm.

Nelson is a traitor and needs to switch parties. If he doesn’t, the DNC should force him to and stop funding him in any way.

From libhomo on August 14, 2010 at 1:21 pm.

What about Obama, Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, Paterson, Gillibrand and Baucus?

From tool on August 11, 2010 at 8:40 pm.

pres. obomaa DINO

From Lisa G. on August 1, 2010 at 1:45 pm.

Nelson is by far the worst; I’ve been saying he needs to switch from D to R for a long time now.

Nelson was the clear winner in a landslide, earning my vote as well.

Enjoy the new poll.

Open Thread – 8/19/2010

Posted by TomCat at 4:02 am Open Thread, Personal

Aug 192010

Yesterday I was tied up longer that I hoped on tasks not related to blogging. My printer is on the fritz, and I need it badly next week. Over 2 1/2 hours of testing revealed that I probably need a new print head. I had a ton of email to answer, and I had to do some research for a close friend, who is caught up in the housing bubble. In addition, I slept late. I needed that. I did get our poll swapped out, but I now have five days of comments needing replies and visits needing returns. Today I have two medical appointments, so that will probably have to wait until tomorrow or Saturday.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today it took me 3:31. To do it, click here. How did you do?

Short Takes:

From Huffington Post: With less than three months to go, I thought it’d be a good time to take a quick look at how the midterm elections are shaping up in the Senate.

This overview is worth the read, if you care to click through.

From AP/Google: Bennet, the Denver school superintendent appointed to his post after former Sen. Ken Salazar became interior secretary, has put forth an elaborate plan to make the Senate more workable. It includes eliminating the practice known as a "hold" in which a single senator can secretly prevent action on legislation or nominees; ending the ability to filibuster motions to bring a bill up for debate; banning earmarks for private, for-profit companies; imposing a lifetime ban on members becoming lobbyists; and restricting congressional pay raises.

I mostly agree. My only point of contention is that the filibuster needs to be restricted beyond just the debate phase.

From Alternet: Critics of Myanmar are voicing hope for intensified global pressure on the military regime after the United States signaled it would support a UN inquiry into alleged war crimes.

I’m sorry, but as long as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a few more walk free, our nation has zero credibility on the subject of war crimes.

Cartoon: from Cagle.com

19matson

What’s up?

Is Fox the Republican Reichsministry of Propaganda?

Posted by TomCat at 3:03 am Politics

Aug 182010

Rupert Murdoch put his money where is publications, including Faux Noise, are yesterday. He gave $1 million to the Republican Party and nothing to the Democrats.

Yesterday, Bloomberg News reported that News Corp., the Fox News parent company run by Rupert Murdoch, donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) in June. As Politico’s Ben Smith noted, “The company’s media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and the GOP.”

A look at News Corp’s own “Standards of Business Conduct [Murdoch delinked],” however, raises questions about whether the $1 million contribution to the RGA violations company policy:

B. Dealing With Government Officials

Employees who have dealings with government officials shall conform to the following standards:

1. All employees who contact public officials must be familiar with the applicable lobbying laws and public disclosure requirements, particularly those laws or regulations pertaining to registrations or filings that must be made by the Company.

2. No payment shall be made to, or for the benefit of, any public official in order to induce or entice such official to: enact, defeat or violate any law or regulation for the Company’s benefit; influence any official act; or obtain any favorable action by a governmental agency or official on behalf of the Company.

3. Social amenities, entertainment and other courtesies may be extended to government officials or employees only to the extent appropriate and reasonable under applicable laws and customs. Gifts of greater than nominal value to, or lavish entertainment of, public officials are prohibited. No gifts in the form of cash, stock or other similar consideration shall be given, regardless of amount. Any gift about which an employee is uncertain should not be made without the prior written approval of the Company’s General Counsel. Any expenses incurred by a Company employee in connection with the matters discussed herein shall be accurately recorded on the Company’s books and records.

What’s not totally clear is the intent of News Corp’s donation. Was it to “induce or entice” a public official to “enact, defeat or violate any law or regulation for the Company’s benefit”? The only public response from the company so far comes from spokesman Jack Horner, who said, “News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy.”… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

News Corp’s official company policy properly forbids such donations by a news organization, but Fox and Murdoch’s other media properties are not about news. They are about furthering the agenda of the extreme right, no matter how many sheeple they deceive in the process.

Keith Olbermann and Eric Burns, President of Media Matters, discuss the extent to which Faux Noise has become an integral part of the Republican political juggernaut.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So is Fox the Republican Reichsministry of Propaganda? I say YES. What say you?

Robert Gibbs, the “Professional Left”, and the Opportunity We Can’t Miss

Posted by TomCat at 3:03 am Politics

Aug 182010

PFAW has produced a memo on this subject that I consider too important not to reproduce in it’s entirety.

To: Progressive Allies

From: Michael B. Keegan, President, People For the American Way

Re: Robert Gibbs, the "Professional Left", and the Opportunity We Can’t Miss

Date: August 17, 2010

Last week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sparked an uproar when he complained about the dissatisfaction of the "professional left." Although he didn’t specify who he included in that group, activists, advocates and bloggers all took it personally, and many expressed their dissatisfaction and anger in public or in private. Eventually Gibbs qualified his statement somewhat, but the tension and frustration still linger.

Most discussion has focused on whether Secretary Gibbs was right or wrong, whether he was blaming the right people and whether he spoke too harshly. But these questions miss the larger question of what’s at stake in this debate and of who and what all of us are fighting against.

The election of President Obama presented America with the opportunity to make some serious progress on the critically important areas of health care, financial regulation, energy, immigration and more. Undeniably, major progress has been made on at least some of those issues. Whether enough progress has been made or which tactics should have been used is open to debate. And that’s ok. If the solutions and the way to accomplish them were easy and clear, these problems would have addressed and solved decades ago.

Beyond the debate about the pace of change, though, it’s far more important that we refocus on one of the great promises the 2008 election gave us: a chance to recast Americans’ views towards government.

For decades, the GOP has attacked government as a failure, a drain, and a malignant force in the lives of ordinary Americans. They told us that when government wasn’t utterly incompetent, it was overly intrusive. Regulations, they claim, harm the economy. Government intervention, except when intervening on issues of marriage and reproductive health of course, is always bad. Unrestrained market forces will solve every problem. Tax cuts for the rich are great in a booming economy and even better in a bad one.

These attitudes aren’t arrived at arbitrarily. There are forces in our nation that want government out of the way. Energy companies, agribusiness, manufacturers, pharmaceutical corporations and Wall Street all want less regulation—not because they’re led by bad people, but because restrictions of any kind can be bad for business.

The effects of that ideology are obvious to anyone who watched BP damage the Gulf of Mexico or saw decades of savings go up in smoke while corporate executives pocketed billions. Those who preach the "government is the problem" philosophy, as the President accurately points out, have driven our nation into a ditch. To make matters worse, they haven’t let go of the wheel.

Despite major defeats in 2006 and 2008, the GOP is relentlessly obstructing the President’s and all of the Left’s agenda. After almost two years, it’s easy to take that for granted, but in fact the Republican willingness to throw sand in the gears of government—delaying even the most critical and unobjectionable nominees and legislation—verges on catastrophic. But catastrophe cuts in their favor. After all, if your ideology depends on the premise that government is always a failure, you work hard to make sure that government always fails. When Americans see government that makes a real impact in their lives with Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, and better schools they want more of it, not less, and they want it to work.

We still have a chance to reshape Americans’ relationship with government, but that’s never easy.

The American people are painfully aware of the sway that corporations have over their lives. By showing people that government can make a difference, and by arguing forcefully against the conservative ideologues who claim otherwise, we can remind America that our government truly can be of, by and for the people. It’s tough but each victory we scrape out is another chance to prove that point.

The White House and the "professional left," however that’s defined, both have critical roles to play in that fight. Both roles can be difficult at times, and tension is inevitable, but we are all on the same team.

No matter what our disagreements may be over tactics, they pale in comparison to the enormity of what we have the chance to do—if we do it together.

Inserted from <PFAW>

Perhaps I don’t qualify as a member of the ‘Professional Left’. I have never asked for or received a donation, let alone made a profit for the work I do, and the expense for everything that goes into making this site available comes from my own pocket. I prefer it that way, because that leaves me beholding to nobody, free to express truth, as I see it, free from legitimate suspicion that those views are bought.

On this issue, I agree with PFAW. We are all on the same team. That said, is there a place on that team for those, like Gibbs, who refuse to acknowledge that fact? I think not.

Older Entries Newer Entries