Content by karch4511
Posted at 7:13pm on May 26, 2006 net neutrality: eBay makes play
By karch4511
I received this letter from eBay CEO and President Megan Whitman today concerning net neutrality.
Dear karch4511,
As you know, I almost never reach out to you personally with a request to get involved in a debate in the U.S. Congress. However, today I feel I must.
Right now, the telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet. It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future.
The phone and cable companies now control more than 95% of all Internet access. These large corporations are spending millions of dollars to promote legislation that would divide the Internet into a two-tiered system.
The top tier would be a "Pay-to-Play" high-speed toll-road restricted to only the largest companies that can afford to pay high fees for preferential access to the Net.
The bottom tier - the slow lane - would be what is left for everyone else. If the fast lane is the information "super-highway," the slow lane will operate more like a dirt road.
Today's Internet is an incredible open marketplace for goods, services, information and ideas. We can't give that up. A two lane system will restrict innovation because start-ups and small companies - the companies that can't afford the high fees - will be unable to succeed, and we'll lose out on the jobs, creativity and inspiration that come with them.
The power belongs with Internet users, not the big phone and cable companies. Let's use that power to send as many messages as possible to our elected officials in Washington. Please join me by clicking here right now to send a message to your representatives in Congress before it is too late. You can make the difference.
Thank you for reading this note. I hope you'll make your voice heard today.
Sincerely,
Meg Whitman
President and CEO
eBay Inc.
This debate has popped up a few times on RS and I think the debate has been good.
I would hate to think that content provided by certain companies couldn't get through to me quickly even if I wanted it.
But I hate even more the thought that a company can invest billions of dollars in fiber optic cable and have to control over how that cable is used.
I guess where I get hung up is on what the consumer actually pays for. I pay for my high speed Internet connection in order to access the content that I want. I expect that the money my fellow subscribers and pay cover the cost of the bandwidth we eat up.
Perhaps that's naive. But isn't that the Internet? Sure some companies have made the investment in infrastructure. But they made that investment to offer their customers high-speed Internet, not sell bandwidth to marketers.
I will be royally ticked if I get Fios or something else and my bandwidth and speed gets eaten up by companies that have paid Verizon money to get high-speed access to me.
Then again, is a lousy seconds a terrible price to pay to ensure that these investments in Internet technology are made in the first place. And shouldn't content providers shoulder at least some of the cost of the Internet infrastructure since they are the ones using up all the bandwidth in the first place?
So the questions I've used to consider this issue are:
- What do consumers pay for when they buy high-speed Inernet? for me, it's for quick access to whatever the heck I want. Don't mess with that Verizon.
- Who should pay the price of infrastructure development? Surely the cable-layers as it's a business development expense for them. But those costs are passed on to the consumer. If there is a way to share the cost burden with the eBays of the world, why not do that? Though I'm skeptical that I'll see any of that savings.
- Regardless of the answers to those questions, why the heck should government regulate this? By regulating the government pokes its nose in where it may not belong and, worse, picks winners and losers by default. Either we will reimburse the cable-laying companies through higher rates or some sort of bogus tax/user fee. That sucks.
- If we're looking for a free market solution, what's the market?
Discuss, if you're not sick of this topic already.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:29am on May 25, 2006 Saudi textbook discussion video online
By karch4511
Highly recommended watching.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:02am on May 25, 2006 Can one be a social and fiscal conservative these days?
By karch4511
Working in politics as I do, I have revisited a comment my dad made when I first entered the field. In voicing his frustration with politics (i.e. trying to explain why he stoppedl listening to Rush and Dobson), he asked, "Why does it seem like if you're a social conservative, you can't be a fiscal conservative too?"
It's a question I had been struggling to resolve and one that eats at me today. Adam C's Redhot post has me pondering again.
Why does it seem like you can't be both? Is it possible to promote the agenda of each camp, while remaining true to your convictions and preserving your intellectual honesty? There are plenty of leaders who seem to do it. For us little guys, it seems a little tougher.
Fiscal conservatism as a viable political argument is under attack. Sadly, the strongest attack has come with the GOP in control the WH and the Capitol.
Some say true conservatism in the buckley/reagan/goldwater sense is, in reality, dead. People just don't want to hear about what government shouldn't be doing. They want their government to do stuff. Whether they appreciate the cost (to personal freedom or their checkbook) of this opinion is besides the point - at least in terms of what people actually think. The merits of this reasoning can be addressed in another thread. The bottom line is that Nanny Government threatens to supplant personal initiative and self governance.
Because of this cultural attitude, social conservatives have seized the opportunity afforded by this cultural shift over the role of government. SCs have touched on a suspiction that our most dearly held values are under assault by a wanton cultural recklessness that can only be stopped through proactive government action, ignoring their (our) historical view that government action is inherently flawed - government grows as the expense of personal liberty. Many libertarians would sympathize with this idea of cultural decay, while disputing that the battlefield should be drawn in the policy arena because of the danger of growing the government however good your intentions. Even some SCs are questioning the wisdom of this strategy in the long-term.
This has created a dreadful alliance of sorts between GOP moderates and social conservatives. They agree on the level of spending, but dispute the programs all this money should fund. SCs say spend it on abstinence education and healthy marriage promotion and policing the airwaves; moderates say spend it on welfare, transportation projects, education, and the like. Nowhere does either side seem to seriously consider cutting programs.
Sadly, as post after post on this site suggests, true fiscal conservatism has been killed or at least been severely wounded by this macabre alliance. It is simply impossible to make the argument for a restrained government when the leaders of both major parties reject this view of government.
Of course, the calculation made by social conservatives is that smaller government was long ago scrapped in favor of a social engineering bureaucracy that is currently run by liberal career federal employees who, as much as or more so than, Congress, dictate how money is spent. Faced with the choice between fighting runaway spending and accepting higher spending as long as Washington bureacrats are forced to advance conservative values, SCs chose the latter, while paying occasional lip service to the former.
I'm not sure that I disagree with this political calculation given my concern over cultural decay and need to make arguments that resonate. When it comes down to it, policy does matter. And when that policy is promoting values that are diametrically opposed to the values I treasure, I'd want them opposed too.
However, the American conservative tradition - carried in word if not always deed by the GOP - has tied the preservation of values not to government action but cultural and indvidual renewal that is impossible apart from a government and a society that empower the individual with freedom. SCs, myself included, have lost our credibility to make this argument because we have bought into the notion that policy is the way to transform culture. Yet we continue to wrap ourselves in the Founders legacy, which is as saturated with the Christian worldview as much as it is with the limited government tradition (they viewed them as inextricably linked).
I guess what I'm saying is that it's time to reassess how we make the case for Republican values. SCs, as much as I count myself, must realize that in a battle between spending money on abstinence or spending money on transporation earmarks we don't win just because the money goes to the former over the next five fiscal years. Unless the SC argument is coupled with a compelling case for cutting programs, at some point, the money we secure for the SC agenda will be spent on something else. Most likely, "comprehensive sex ed". We will find ourselves on the receiving end of a flood of liberal social engineering dollars funded through the very programs SCs intended to advance traditional values.
This isn't the whole story of course. It's not that simple. We must consider political realities and strength of message, etc. Or do we?
For those interested in opening this discussion, have at it. I just needed to get this out and think I have three or four posts on this theme to get out.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:58pm on May 21, 2006 Saudi Ambassador sanctions hate, terror
By karch4511
Just in case anyone doubted whether the Saudis and their top leaders were on our side, there's this in today's Washington Post.
In this piece, Nina Shea from the Freedom House argues that,
A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government's statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the "monotheists") and unbelievers (the "polytheists" and "infidels").
This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to "spread the faith."
These books were sanctioned for use by the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. in Saudi schools around the world, including here in Washington, DC where children of diplomats and Saudi expats go to school. Ambassador al-Faisal is Chairman of the board of the school in DC.
This is worse than a slap in the face, it is further confirmation of the Saudi government's complicity in the intellectual fueling of terrorism.
that's not the best part. That would be the fact that the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. is on a listening tour touting his government's effort to remove hate from the text books. Unfortunately, for the Ambassador some of us do in fact know Arabic and have in fact translated this propaganda and now his gig is up.
What to do?
Saudi Arabia can no longer play games like this with us. Yes, they're a key ally. However, this is the garbage our enemies are using to brainwash and recruit a new generation of suicide bombers. And worse, it's the propaganda they use to foment unrest and keep a large portion of the world living in poverty and oppression.
Can we please, for once, speak plainly with the Saudis? We look like fools speaking about the importance of liberty while allying ourselves so strongly with those who underwrite our enemies. Surely we can find a way to get off Saudi oil. Surely, we can find a way to support a Saudi regime that is honestly trying to sever its ties with terrorists and Islamist ideology. Surely.
With friends like these...
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:58am on May 19, 2006 Border Patrol knows best, but will W listen?
By karch4511
President Bush has pulled out his "I'll listen to the generals on the ground" talking point in discussing a fence along the Mexican border. The question is will he listen. I'm skeptical.
Rod Dreher over the CrunchyCon posted this exchange with Julie Meyers of ICE.
The give-and-take is very telling. Either she is awful at talking to the media, or Rod is right that we should be concerned that the people who should be able to explain the Administration's policy can't do it or are afraid to say it.
I just have this suspicion that if the Border Patrol were to say we need a fence along the entire border, the Administration's answer would be "we need a comprehensive plan and fencing is just part of the solution." If the political calculation is that a "comprehensive plan" would yield significant gains with Hispanic voters, then fencing will not be a signifcant part of the plan as a fence is not popular among Hispanic citizens and certainly not popular with Vicente Fox who seems to have some sort of Jedi-like power of President Bush - "this isn't the fence you want to build, George. Think amnesty, George."
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:27am on Apr. 30, 2006 The moderates' hypocrisy
By karch4511
The NY Times has an interesting piece this morning. On the one hand it's a typical hit job against Republicans. On the other, it offers a perfect glimpse into the corrupting nature of beltway power.
GOP "moderates", represented by the Republican Main Street Partnership, have been among the most vocal on the need for lobbying reform. "Remove the influence of money from politics," they say. Of course this doesn't apply to their pet projects in spending bills or to the budget process itself. But if they can score PR points for taking down those fat-cat lobbyists, then that's what they'll do.
Excerpt:
After appearing to falter Thursday, the House of Representatives is once again poised to pass a new package of lobbying restrictions, thanks largely to the efforts of an alliance of Republican moderates. Nothing in the bill, however, would stop those same Republican moderates from continuing to court corporate lobbyists with some unusually explicit invitations to lunch.
For $5,000, a lobbyist can join lawmakers and staff members of the alliance, the Republican Main Street Partnership, for a lunchtime policy briefing by an outside expert. For $15,000, the lobbyist can attend four lunches, two of them with briefings by an outside expert and two with briefings from members of Congress.
And for $25,000, the lobbyist can have three lunch briefings with lawmakers, not to mention V.I.P. seating for eight at a black-tie dinner for the moderates' coalition.
This isn't a discussion on the merits of campaign finance reform or lobbying reform, the moderates' pillar of government reform. Both of which are misguided and will be ineffective in controlling the influence of money players in politics. They don't rely on several key principles, namely freedom, strong enforcement, and transparency. Instead they drive into deeper, more nefarious holes.
This is a discussion of hypocrisy. The right hand reaches out and slaps lobbyists (the people lawmakers must often rely on to help write policy) while the left reaches under the table and takes a check.
Perhaps it's not so much hyposcrisy as it is a tawdry (and transparent) political game. As long as we can score PR points for appearing to hate money in politics, then no one will notice that we're taking it in huge amounts.
The problem is their strategy doesn't change a darned thing. We all know it. and it might cost us the 2006 elections.
With earmarks still firmly entrenched lobbyists will be around to get their clients' share. With a budget that means nothing, beltway bandits will stop at nothing to get their hands on some of that cash because there are no real restraints on spending. And with moderates in control of key spending and authorizing committees, any talk of cleaning up Washington is a joke as they rely on special favors and earmarks to satisfy key constituencies and so-called "swing voters" back home.
Plus the practice may in fact be illegal:
Offering special access to lawmakers in exchange for financial contributions is hardly uncommon on Capitol Hill, and the Main Street Partnership is well within the law in seeking such donations. But under the reforms the group helped pass four years ago, soliciting corporate or unrestricted individual contributions is illegal for political candidates or the national political parties.
The partnership can seek unlimited and undisclosed corporate donations because it is organized as a nonprofit advocacy group. Other groups of that type, like People for the American Way or the National Rifle Association, can do the same thing, but the partnership is a rare example of one that is dominated by elected officials and operates outside campaign finance rules to promote its agenda.
The conservative plan for reform - put teeth in the budget, give the President line-item veto power, allow votes on pork earmarks, and a balanced budget - is the way to go. It does not grandstand for political points. And, get this, it actually does what it claims to do - brings order to a chaotic and corrupt spending apparatus.
The moderates are merely wolves in sheep's clothing. This article is yet the latest to demonstrate that the moderate appetite for money is hardly satiated because they're champions of lobbying reform. Their calls for reform are merely smokescreens that allow them to escape the responsibility of governing responsibly.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:01am on Apr. 18, 2006 Easier to defend something than nothing
By karch4511
When I was in college, I often went to my political science classes unsure of what I thought about the text we'd discuss. Part of that wasbeing a conservative in a decidedly liberal environment and being unsure of myself in debate settings. Part of that was that I'm not really a debater until I get in the heat of battle.
However, as the discussion got underway I found it much easier to defend something for which I'd get criticism than not taking a position at all or, worse, just saying the options on the table are all bad. (hint: putting down the other guy's fraternity doesn't work too well either!)
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:37am on Mar. 28, 2006 Does anyone not believe Zacarias Moussaoui
By karch4511
Yesterday, Zacarias Moussaoui told a court that Usama bin Laden blessed his role as the 20th hijacker, ordering him to fly a plane into the White House as part of the September 11th attacks.
More below...
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:49pm on Feb. 7, 2006 Aren't the church burnings hate crimes?
By karch4511
Fox News is reporting new church fires in Alabama. While we don't know for sure, we can reasonably assume someone is acting out of hatred for Baptists. That's a hate crime isn't it?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:39am on Aug. 11, 2005 Iraq is like Vietnam
By karch4511
I hate to say it but Iraq is like Vietnam.
But not in the conventional sense of that comparison. I don't mean that we're facing an enemy impossible to defeat or that we're taking on casualties we can't sustain or that we're fighting an unjust war. None of that is true. In fact none of that was true of Vietnam.
We lost Vietnam because politicians lacked to will to win, lacked the courage to devote the resources we needed to win, and lacked the creativity to change the rules of engagement when battlefield realties dictated.
The War in Iraq suffers from the same lack of political will in its planners and same void of creativity that we saw in Vietnam. Rumsfeld is the most public face and the most vocal proponent of the Vietnam mentality. Perhaps it's time for him to go.