Politics Plus

I’m not quite sure how to react to this.

In a shot across the bow of Dems, the labor powerhouse SEIU is starting a new third party in North Carolina that hopes to field its own slate of candidates, part of an effort to make the Democratic Party more reliable on issues important to labor, I’m told.

SEIU officials setting up the new party, called North Carolina First, are currently on the ground collecting signatures to qualify as a state party, SEIU officials tell me, adding that there are around 100 canvassers on the ground right now. The goal: To have the party up and running so candidates can run in this fall’s elections.

It won’t be lost on political observers that three House Dems who voted No on reform are from the state: Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre, and Larry Kissell.

The new project is an outgrowth of SEIU’s earlier vow to hold House Dems accountable for voting against heatlh reform and against labor’s interests in general. That said, presuming the party qualifies at all, it remains to be seen how much clout it will wield.

For instance, it’s unclear which districts the party might field a candidate in, and what the criteria for picking those districts will be. A lot of these things will be determined by availability of candidates and other local political concerns…

Inserted from <The Plumline>

I’m the first to agree that these cowardly Blue Dogs are not welcome in my cathouse.  They have to go!  But is this the right way?  The political deck is so stacked against third parties that SEIU might be better served to champion opponents in the Democratic party.  If they cannot win the elections, as a third party, they will split the Democratic vote and deliver the seats to the Republicans.

Net Neutrality took a hit in the Corporate GOP DC Circuit Court.

Yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC had limited authority to regulate broadband services, meaning essentially that the FCC would not have the power to enforce Net Neutrality–giving all Internet users, and all Internet content providers, equal access to the network.

The decision is a setback for Net Neutrality advocates, for the FCC, and a minor win for Comcast, which has asserted its right to slow its own cable customers’ access to file-sharing, the issue for the case. But it’s not an out and out win for Comcast, as Jack Balkin explains, because there are a number of ways forward from here for the FCC.

1. The Supreme Court overturns the D.C. Circuit on the scope of the FCC’s ancillary jurisdiction, and the FCC goes on to fight the other issues in the case. One reason why the Supreme Court might reverse is because of its Brand X decision, in which it upheld the FCC’s decision in its 2002 Cable Modem Order to treat broadband providers not as common carriers subject to regulation under Title II of the Federal Communications Act, but rather as "information services" which would be subject to much less stringent regulations. Brand X was premised on the assumption that the FCC might still regulate broadband providers, even if they were classified as "information services" and not subject to the more stringent requirements of Title II. The D.C. Circuit has declared these parts of Brand X dicta or read them very narrowly. The Supreme Court might disagree.
2. Congress might amend the Federal Communications Act to create a new source of jurisdiction to regulate broadband. To do this one would need at least 60 votes in the Senate. Good luck with that. Comcast and other broadband providers probably could exert influence in both parties to prevent broad new regulatory authority to the FCC.
3. The FCC might revisit its initial decision in its 2002 Cable Modem Order to treat broadband providers as information services instead of telecommunications services (regulated by Title II of the Communications Act). The Supreme Court let the FCC classify broadband this way in the Brand X decision, but in hindsight it was a big mistake on the FCC’s part, because it put the FCC’s regulatory authority on a much shakier ground. If the FCC goes through the administrative process of reversing its earlier decision about cable broadband, and places cable and DSL under Title II authority, there is little doubt that it has jurisdictional power to impose network neutrality requirements. And it may create special rules or exemptions for broadband under Title II to the extent that the existing common carriage model of telephone service is inappropriate for broadband. Indeed, under its Title II jurisdiction, the FCC can require open access requirements, which would be even more valuable for purposes of promoting freedom of speech and innovation.

It’s possible that the FCC will simply see if it can get a reversal in the Supreme Court. That will take many more years of litigation. But the FCC might decide that the better solution is to retrace its steps, correct the mistake it made in 2002, and reassert Title II authority over broadband.  Doing this would give the FCC the tools it needs to deal with the regulatory problems of the future.

That option, the FCC reasserting its Title II authority over broadband, won’t happen without a fight, but it seems to be the best option for an FCC that under chairman Genachowski has been a strong Net Neutrality advocate… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

I don’t know what will transpire from here, so I cannot recommend a specific option yet, except that we keep a very close eye on this issue.  If the giant telecoms have their way, their corporate propaganda will travel at the speed of light, while our freedom of speech travels at the speed of mud.

When I was in my early twenties, I had occasion to meet friends at Stapleton International Airport.  Although 9/11 was over 30 years in the future, the airport had just installed metal detectors to screen all people entering, causing a huge logjam, because they had too few units to handle the traffic.  After waiting over fifteen minutes, I commented to a friend, “Like I’d really smuggle a gun into an airport!”  I have a booming voice that carries, and one to the security people apparently heard the words “gun” and “airport”.  The thing I knew I was spread eagled, face down on a conveyer belt with a night stick probing my nether regions and being more groped than a male Congressional page at an RNC meeting.

Since 9/11, the situation has become far worse.

Federal officials were investigating an incident aboard a Washington-to-Denver flight on Wednesday involving a passenger who caused a disturbance.

ABC News reported that the passenger had been identified by the authorities as a diplomat in the Qatar Embassy in Washington.

A federal official said that the man went to the bathroom to smoke a cigarette, and was confronted by air marshals on board the plane. The passenger understood he had diplomatic immunity, and made sarcastic comments that the marshals took as a threat, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“The situation here is not like the shoe bomber,” the official said, alluding to the December 2001 incident in which Richard C. Reid, a self-admitted member of Al Qaeda, had attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes on a trans-Atlantic flight.

Several law enforcement officials said late Wednesday that no bomb had been found on Wednesday’s flight. Still, the passenger was being questioned by the F.B.I., as were fellow passengers, and the investigation was continuing, they said.

Two F-16 fighters from Buckley Air Force Base, in Colorado, were scrambled to intercept the plane, the authorities said. They escorted it for the last five minutes of its flight, and it landed safely in Denver.

Aircraft around the United States were alerted about the incident, a federal official said…

Inserted from <NY Times>

Be careful what you say, and whatever you do, don’t light up in the can!