Politics Plus

Chris Dudley and Former Governor John Kitzhaber are in a virtual dead heat in the race to be Oregon’s next governor, with Kitzhaber only three points ahead.  How could this be?

Why does Republican nominee Chris Dudley want to be Oregon’s governor? He’d never shown much interest in politics, before he began positioning himself to run for office. He has little understanding even of his own race. He skipped out on a traditional newspaper-sponsored debate, and his excuse was then revealed to have been dishonest. And his proposed agenda of cutting taxes, government, trees, and land use laws would mostly benefit the wealthy and powerful, while hurting most Oregonians.

Dudley is wealthy and a son of privilege. Now, he wants to be powerful. Perhaps that’s the real rationale for his campaign. That and a fondness for the limelight. He wasn’t very talented as a sort of athlete, but he was tall enough to make a lot of money as a career backup center in the limelight of the NBA. And that seems to be all there is to it. Dudley has shown no interest in Oregon or the well-being of Oregonians. He has shown no interest in policy. But he does want to protect his money from taxes, and he does want more of the fame of which he once had but a taste.

Late last year, Willamette Week had this little tidbit:

Unlike most Blazers, however, Dudley lived across the river in Clark County. Property records show he owned a house in Camas, Wash., from 1994 though 1998, which sheltered at least part of his paycheck from Oregon’s 9 percent personal income tax (Washington does not charge personal income tax). In his speech last week, Dudley said, “I was wasn’t born here [in Oregon], but I feel I was born to live here.” Records show Dudley—who opposes the tax increases on corporations and wealthy Oregonians in Measures 66 and 67—bought an 8,536-square-foot, $2.9 million home on nearly two acres at a Lake Oswego golf course in August 2004. He became a registered Oregon voter that same month.

Got that? While making a lot of money as a Portland Trailblazer in the NBA, Dudley lived across the river, in Washington, to avoid paying Oregon taxes. With Oregon facing a budget crisis, he avoided contributing his ample share, while showing so little interest in politics that he often didn’t even bother to vote. But now that he lives in Oregon, he wants to hold the highest political office in the state, while cutting his own taxes. A state in which he’s been registered to vote now for all of six years. And he also avoids the political basic of letting the voters learn about who he is, and what he knows about and intends to do about the issues. He also opposed ballot measures increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy, both of which Oregon voters approved.

The question is why any Oregonians would even consider electing someone who shows so little interest in the state or in them… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

The only reason Dudley is staying so close is that he has raised over three times as much money as Kitzhaber has.  Dudley gets his money from huge corporations, many of them out of state including banksters such as Bank of America.  This incompetent candidate must not be allowed to buy this election.

I trust you know that I am a long term advocate of Net Neutrality.  At present, it is under severe threat from corporate telecommunications giants, who may have been joined by Google, a former ally in the battle to keep the Internet open.  Here is an explanation of the issue, followed by a petition I urge you to sign.

That’s what The New York Times recently suggested when it reported that Google and Verizon are nearing an agreement where Google would not oppose the broadband provider if it wants to charge Website owners a fee for the privilege of delivering content more quickly to end users. If true, the Google-Verizon pact has the potential of doing an end run around the Federal Communication Commission’s recent attempts to preserve an open Internet.

Google and Verizon have denied the Times’ report. Verizon posted a public comment on its blog saying the Times report "fundamentally misunderstands our purpose …our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect." Verizon’s statement did not explicitly deny it was negotiating with Google.

Meanwhile, a Google spokesperson recently told UK newspaper The Independent that Google has "not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic." The search giant says it remains committed to an open Internet.

What is Net Neutrality?

At its core, net neutrality means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be prohibited from slowing down Internet access speeds based on what you were doing online.

Activities like video streaming or peer-to-peer file sharing would have to be delivered to you at the same speed as less data-intensive functions like e-mail and basic Web browsing.

Implications for You

If the Times’ report is true, this would mean that you would get fast access over a broadband connection only to Websites and online services that are willing to pay ISPs for speedy delivery. Websites that didn’t pay would be slower to load and less usable.

The fear is that without net neutrality, new and innovative online businesses would not be able to pay the delivery costs to compete against larger Internet companies with deeper pockets like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft.

Schmidt Sings A Different Tune

While Google’s assertion that it is committed to an open Internet may sound reassuring, recent statements by company CEO Eric Schmidt suggest otherwise. In fact, Schmidt appears to confirm the worst fears of open Internet advocates by redefining what net neutrality means.

London’s Telegraph reportes Schmidt confirmed that Google had been trying for some time to come to an agreement with Verizon over the definition of net neutrality. Then Google’s CEO said, "people get confused [about net neutrality]. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don’t discriminate against one person’s video in favor of another. It’s OK to discriminate across different types [of data]," according to the Telegraph… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <PC World>

The free market is already at work on the Internet.  The service you purchase from your ISP (Internet Service Provider) guarantees a certain bandwidth (speed of data transfer).  If you want more speed available to you, you have to pay for it.  That is fair.  The service I purchase from my HSP (Hosting Service Provider) that delivers Politics Plus to you also guarantees a certain bandwidth.  If I want more, I have to pay for it.  That is fair.  That is the free market.  Net Neutrality would guarantee that the only thing that effects the speed of data transfer between Politics Plus and you is the bandwidth you and I have chosen to buy.  Does that make sense?

Now, giant telecoms don’t want us to have that freedom.  They want to control the speed of data transfer based on what we are doing.  Right now the argument is economic.  They claim they want to cut transfer rates for data intensive applications like file sharing.  But once they get that power, how long will it be before they start cutting transfer rated based on political content?  Considering that greedy corporations want to control what we see, hear and read, how much will they be willinbg to pay to stifle content in opposition to their agenda?  Measure the time in heartbeats.

Credo Action has a petition to Google to stop dealing with Verizon under the table.

Google’s motto is "Don’t be evil," but Google is about to cut a deal with Verizon that would end the Internet as we know it.

According to a front-page New York Times story, the deal would allow "Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege."1

It would create fast Internet lanes for the largest corporations and slow lanes for the rest of us.

That is why CREDO is joining MoveOn, Free Press, and Color of Change in rallying Google users to tell Google, "Don’t be evil."

Speak up for a free and open Internet by signing this petition. With massive amounts of public pressure, we can stop this deal.

From the beginning, the Internet has been a level playing field that allows everyone to connect to one another and to the world of content available online — whether it’s Daily Kos or FOX News.

This deal would change all of that by allowing Google and Verizon to pick what websites you can see over others. It would undermine the open Internet upon which hundreds of millions of people rely.

Our Internet connection should be free of corporate gatekeepers — there’s only one Internet, and it shouldn’t matter who your provider is or whether you’re logging on from home or your cell phone.

Sign this petition to tell Google, "Don’t be evil."

Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin created Google to make information freely available to everyone online.

But this deal is a complete reversal that abandons their core principles. It’s evil and Google must walk away from it.

Sign this letter and tell Google’s founders: "Your Verizon deal IS evil, and it must be stopped."

1 "Google and Verizon Near Deal on Web Pay Tiers," New York Times, August 4, 2010

To sign the petition, click here.  I did.

In our recent Constitution series we covered many of the differences between the Constitution, which Republicans claim to honor, even waving little paper copies to prove how patriotic they are, and actual Republican policies.  I have to wonder if they actually hate the Constitution, if they have even read it.

Think Progress’s Ian Millhiser details the astounding number of issues the Republican party has with the constitution, and the various

REPEALING CITIZENSHIP: Numerous GOP lawmakers, including their Senate leader and the most-recent Republican candidate for president, are lining up behind a “review” of the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to virtually all persons born within the United States….

REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE THE ECONOMY: The Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” gives national leaders broad authority to regulate the national economy, but much of the GOP has embraced “tentherism,” the belief that this power is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub….

REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO SPEND MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” a broad grant of authority to create federal spending programs such as Social Security. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), however, recently called upon the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution’s clear language and repeal parts of the budget he doesn’t like….

REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO RAISE MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress broad authority to decide how to distribute the tax burden. Thus, for example, Congress is allowed to create a tax incentive for people to buy houses by giving a tax break to people with mortgages, and it is allowed to create a similar incentive for people to buy health insurance by taxing people who have health insurance slightly less than people who do not. Nevertheless, the frivolous assaults on health reform would eliminate this Constitutional power….

REPEALING EQUALITY: The Constitution entitles all persons to “equal protection of the laws,” a provision that formed the basis of Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision yesterday that California cannot treat gay couples as if they are somehow inferior. Immediately after this decision was announced, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) called upon Congress to “act immediately” to overturn it — something that it could only do through a constitutional amendment….

REPEALING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: As Judge Walker also held, marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The GOP’s anti-gay amendment would repeal this constitutional protection as well.

REPEALING ELECTION OF SENATORS: Finally, a number of GOP candidates have come out in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, the provision of the Constitution which requires direct election of senators, although many of these candidates also backed off their “Seventeenther” stand after it proved embarrassing. It is simply baffling how anyone could take one look at the U.S. Senate, and decide that what it really needs is even less democracy.

There’s one amendment to the constitution that they worship, however… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

Do you care to guess which amendment that is?  The second, of course.  Dangerous as it is to keeping our Republic, the Second Amendment is the Republican solution for everything.