The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: FlipConstantine on May 16, 2006, 01:38:06 am
-
Undermining Net Neutrality has serious consequences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP17mbJ5L6Y&search=%22search%20for%20Spock%22) (via PVP).
Now that's pretty amusing, but in all seriousness, this is becoming a pretty serious issue, what with this COPE act and all. I urge everyone to get involved (http://savetheinternet.com). But I thought I'd start this thread so people have a place to sound off about this issue, though I hope there will be basically a consensus that net neutrality is good because telecoms are big stupid doo-doo heads.
-
telecoms are big stupid doo-doo heads.
Surely you aren't talking about the same corporations who voluntarily gave our phone call records to the NSA? Not those guys! Why I have the utmost faith that they would only do what's best for each and every one of us.
-
Yes, and I'm certain there's a lot we can do when we have a majority government that is basically pretty happy with Corporations having the same rights as citizens even though they're not really.. you know.. people as such.
-
But hey, they're already charging $45/month for $1 worth of bandwidth. And only installing fiber-to-the-curb in the wealthiest neighborhoods. And artificially downthrottling upload speeds. What more do you want them to do?
Honestly I can't decide whose service is worse: Verizon or Comcast. Verizon has never met a deadline, had my phone ringing in another appartment, and cut my parent's cable line. Comcast refuses to admit that all the channels under 100 look like utter shit and have terrible ghosting, and made me pay $35 for "installation" (read as: screwing in the coax). Damn I wish I could get Starpower. fuck*ng monopolies.
-
By starpower do you mean like in Super Mario where you get a glowing power up and then run and go kick some ass? Because otherwise I don't know what you're talking about but if so, then yes, that would probably help the situation.
-
Starpower is a small cable/phone/ISP company. In DC you can use either Starpower or Comcast and nobody in their right mind chooses Comcast. However I live in a monopoly county where Comcast is the only game in town.
-
MQ-- I got into this completely unintelligible argument with my AP Gov' teacher about this.
"BUT A COMPANY IS NOT A PERSON!"
"yes, but that's what a corporation is."
"a company that is called a corporation is still not a person! A person is a human being! can a corporation vote?"
also:
"how is "hey can we have a law that says we get 1 billion dollars" an example of a Petition for Redress of Grievances? Plus... they aren't citizens."
*insert argument above*
"and, daniel, just because you don't agree, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it."
"Asking for money is not a petition for redress of grievances. That is not what that phrase means."
we had a lot of arguments like that.
my favorite is that I'll never get to laugh at the kid who kept defending the wiretapping program as "only on overseas calls" now that it's come out that domestic calls were also used. Although, apparently, the content was not used, only the info. on which parties were involved, etc.
-
Lots of things that were more reasonable in this discussion than I will be.
Yes. Don't get me started. I don't really want to be called names.
However the entire setup makes no fuck*ng sense to me.
-
oh man, that class sucked in the blowjob sense and in the "it was bad" sense at the same time. I was the token Liberal kid, who had to do things like get all worked up about Affirmative Action so that everyone felt bad about disagreeing with me, and say that Pork is bad, etc. I had to take the liberal position just so that there would actually be some class discussion.
Ironically, Jack Abramoff does not like pork.
-
"a company that is called a corporation is still not a person! A person is a human being! can a corporation vote?"
I forget sometimes how young the membership is here.
Not only can a corporation vote, Daniel, but corporations' votes are the only ones that actually count.
Discuss.
-
I live in australia where broadband is only reliably available in major cities (defined as the 7 capital cities) and even though I live within half an hour of one of these I cannot get broadband by adsl, cable or wireless. The mobile phone coverage at my place stinks too.
Luckily we have a reasonably powerful national (read: rural) party so things are slowly getting better but sure as hell the government privatising our major communication provider didn't help (yeah thats right, the major communications company used to be part of the public service. AND THEY SOLD IT!).
The worst part is the people down the road from me can get ADSL (literally four houses down) and the people up the road from us are in range of wifi so it's really just my house.
This makes me sad.
At least we don't have crazy laws like this being proposed though, mind you some people in the opposition have proposed mandatory filtering options at the ISP level, meaning you would need to apply to your isp to get access to all the smut and violence (for the 'won't somebody think of the children' reason rather than the 'lets give huge companies a way to make MORE money!' reason), I don't care for that one bit. It's cool though, they haven't been elected in over a decade and have gone through about three or four leaders in the last three years so we're in no danger from that front yet.
Actually now that I think about it your government does seem to go out of it's way to allow giant companies to make more and more money and the expense of the people with the, y'know, votes. I know this is because to be elected president you need a huge bundle of money and so on but I can't help thinking this wouldn't happen if the president wasn't so independant of their party. Over here the party just elects their leader internally and run as a party, so while there is exactly 0 chance of an independant being elected leader of our country that doesn't seem to be happening over there either.
To tangent totally (and probably piss people off) I've always thought there was something a bit weird about this artificial god-emperor position you guys have created, you have all the same levels of elected officials we do but then make it all moot by electing one guy (I was going to say person but hey, let's be realistic) who can just veto the whole shebang, seems messy. Makes it harder for one group to take total control I suppose but at the same time your congress (and senate and whatever else) seems to have proven itself either unwilling or unable to even challenge a leader commiting large scale international acts that are unpopular with (at best) a large minority of your citizenry.
I'm sorry what were we talking about again?
-
To tangent totally (and probably piss people off) I've always thought there was something a bit weird about this artificial god-emperor position you guys have created, you have all the same levels of elected officials we do but then make it all moot by electing one guy (I was going to say person but hey, let's be realistic) who can just veto the whole shebang, seems messy. Makes it harder for one group to take total control I suppose but at the same time your congress (and senate and whatever else) seems to have proven itself either unwilling or unable to even challenge a leader commiting large scale international acts that are unpopular with (at best) a large minority of your citizenry.
It's not supposed to be like that. Not at all. While the president has veto power, his vetoes can be overturned by a super-majority of the congress. Even if the veto doesn't get overturned the Supreme Court can have a say in the laws by ruling on their constitutionality.
Now... When all your pals are in the congress, and some judges die or resign, well... I guess that knocks the whole thing on its ear.
I truly believe that the problem with how we're being governed here, is that the government (read: The U.S. Citizens) aren't demanding more of their government (read: Themselves). They're letting the people that represent them just go on and on.
At worst:
"A huge database of my phone records? Well... if it helps fight the terrorists."
At best:
"A huge database of my phone records? I will impotently denounce this in my blog."
-
Corporations are created so that there is an entity that is legally and fiscally responsible mostly so that no individual or group of individuals can be personally sued for their assets if the shit hits the fan. In a sense, a corporation is a 'person' in that you can sue it or take other recourses against it.
As for corporations voting: what else would you call lobbying and special interest groups? Do you think invidual Americans contribute more to campaigns across the country than corporate entities? Or have more access to the politicians? How many congressman and cabinet members sit on boards of directors of corporations? Oh, they vote alright.
Although, apparently, the content was not used, only the info. on which parties were involved, etc.
If that's true, then it's not really an eavesdrop or a wiretap. I actually wonder whether what numbers you dial on a regular basis is actually protected by privacy laws...there's no real content there. I'm sure it will work it's way through the courts. Interesting how it took almost 5 days for the phone companies originally named in the USA Today story to respond - also interesting how the responses aren't entirely consistent. I personally have no opinion on this because, frankly, unless you shred your cellphone bills this info is to some degree out there anyhow for LD calls - and most of your calls are probably local, which most companies don't even track or log aside from the minutes the phone is used.
-
What's ominous to me about this NSA deal was the revelation that the gov't is tracking the numbers reporters call to catch leaks. This is not a good thing.
-
What's ominous to me about this NSA deal was the revelation that the gov't is tracking the numbers reporters call to catch leaks. This is not a good thing.
Seriously. Anyone have any carrier pidegons?
-
What's ominous to me about this NSA deal was the revelation that the gov't is tracking the numbers reporters call to catch leaks. This is not a good thing.
The problem with that is that, potentially, legitimate 'confidential' sources could get outed too - but leaking classified information is a felony and you have to allow some provision for investigating it. It's a fine line, and the only answer I can see is that NSA staff members are judicious and handle sensitive material with respect. That, of course, will not make members of the press feel any better....
It will just keep sources off the phone. Back to meeting people in, say, parking garages. All that cloak and dagger stuff.
-
Georgia cops use counterterrorism unit to hassle vegan activists, anti-war protestors. (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050806J.shtml)
IRS investigating more liberal-oriented organizations than conservative ones. (http://www.dmiblog.net/archives/2006/05/post_10.html)
Yes, I'm sure we can trust our Republican overlords not to use their wiretapping powers for anything vaguely related to domestic politics.
-
I'm not sure liberal organizations would fare well in Georgia regardless of the national administration. That story is not too surprising.
The second story - well, it's interesting. It should be just as easy for liberal organizations to accuse conservative ones of the same thing. During the 8 years of the Clinton Administration and with the IRS headed by Democrats, maybe that happened....I guess my point is that the tide always turns eventually when the electorate has its say.
I chafed for 8 years under Clinton like you are chafing now. For different reasons, obviously. But it always, always changes.
I was looking at the links you provided and I started thinking about the neutrality of the sources...and I found this interesting study by UCLA (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664).
-
It will just keep sources off the phone. Back to meeting people in, say, parking garages. All that cloak and dagger stuff.
Tradition! And much better in movies than sitting in your office talking on the phone.
-
I was looking at the links you provided and I started thinking about the neutrality of the sources...and I found this interesting study by UCLA (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664).
I'd like to know how they define bias/leaning. Is this one of those "the facts are biased" things? If a Republican administration is doing evil shit, reporting on it is not "liberal bias." Reporting the facts, then reporting administration spin/lies to explain it away, is not "balance." (And vice versa, natch.)
-
Well, as Stephen Colbert always tells us, reality has a known liberal bias.
-
I would like to make a statement:
as of today, Wednesday the 17th of May, I, Daniel Robert Burton, declare as follows:
if John McCain is the Republican Nominee for the Presidency of the United States, I will vote for him.
And if he loses because George W. Bush has alienated so many people, I will cry hearty tears.
And if the Democrat who beats him is another do-nothing, lying jackass, I will lose a little faith.
I don't know what I'll do when I have to confront a Democrat screwing up the country.
-
I would like to make a statement:
as of today, Wednesday the 17th of May, I, Daniel Robert Burton, declare as follows:
if John McCain is the Republican Nominee for the Presidency of the United States, I will vote for him.
And if he loses because George W. Bush has alienated so many people, I will cry hearty tears.
And if the Democrat who beats him is another do-nothing, lying jackass, I will lose a little faith.
I don't know what I'll do when I have to confront a Democrat screwing up the country.
This seems fairly figurehead based. Are the two main parties really that similar or does the President have so much power he is his political party?
-
I would like to make a statement:
as of today, Wednesday the 17th of May, I, Daniel Robert Burton, declare as follows:
if John McCain is the Republican Nominee for the Presidency of the United States, I will vote for him.
And if he loses because George W. Bush has alienated so many people, I will cry hearty tears.
And if the Democrat who beats him is another do-nothing, lying jackass, I will lose a little faith.
I don't know what I'll do when I have to confront a Democrat screwing up the country.
I think that everyone in the country is going to be a little disappointed the next go round. At this moment it seems like a good environment for the proverbial dark horse.
I don't think McCain can get elected, and I'm not sure he could beat Giuliani or Condi Rice in the Primaries. I think Hillary will run and although not unbeatable, she will be tough to beat, although if Gore and Kerry really run hard during primary season like they seem to be preparing to, it could complicate creating a cohesive public platform for the Dems which could cost them later.
I think it's going to be painful, strident, and ugly in the next Presidential election, and a lot of people are not going to be proud of their party or their political process when it's said and done.
-
I think it's going to be painful, strident, and ugly in the next Presidential election, and a lot of people are not going to be proud of their party or their political process when it's said and done.
It's really sad that what you describe is how I currently feel. Mostly, I'm sad that we don't have nearly as many informed voters as we should.
-
I think Hillary will run and although not unbeatable, she will be tough to beat,
Do you really? I think the whole idea of Hillary running is nuts. Wouldn't she be such a divisive figure? I have a friend who wrote a book about Hillary's senate race who totally thinks she could actually win. But I wonder if she's objective. Because, um, she'd probably sell more copies of her book then, you know?
Mainly you are right though, this next election is going to suck to hell.
-
Do you really think her support for the war on terror is sincere? It's an election thing. She hasn't commented much about the current debate about migration over the southern border either. She's almost surely trying to find out how to approach the issue in the most centrist way possible. She has been steadily moving toward the center ever since her election to the Senate. This is a smart move for her; it maximizes her chances I think.
The far left and the far right won't probably vote for her, but I think there are a lot of folks in the middle who might - and she's jockeying for that position. I think she can be beaten, but it won't be easy and it will almost have to be by either a woman or a minority. Or, in the case I think would give Hilary the hardest fight, both. But Dr. Rice may not run at all, so it will be interesting. Ugly and interesting. This is a good opportunity for a Democratic candidate no matter who it is, but I think it could come down to what the last election came down to: having a message that America can understand, and if you say you have a plan, please, tell us what it is. Kerry never articulated his position or his plan well last time around; the Republicans were successful in keeping him off message with the constant pressure on his military record and attacks on President Bush's National Guard experience never really got the kind of traction they needed for Kerry to gain enough ground back on him. Still and all, it was a very close election, as was the one previous and I don't doubt the next one may be very close as well.
A Republican president in '08 could cement the Supreme Court in conservative thought for the next 30 years. That's going to really affect law, business, privacy, law enforcement and a lot of other issues that mark your daily life. A Democratic President could have the opportunity to put some balance back there. That could become a campaign issue.
-
I don't think McCain can get elected, and I'm not sure he could beat Giuliani or Condi Rice in the Primaries.
That is completely horrifying. Giuliani won the Jefferson Muzzle 3 years in a row. That's just insane. Including the first ever Lifetime Muzzle. To be that just proves he isn't even human. Because only some kind of non-person wouldn't grasp how expression is an inherent part of humanity and would think they could get away with the kinds of bullshit he tried to pull.
Although McCain also has 1 Muzzle to his name, which he shares with Lieberman, but still.
-
Oy, Hillary. I'd vote for her, sure. But the flood of crap that would come from the GOP if she was the nominee will make what they did to Kerry look like a garden party.
-
I was looking at the links you provided and I started thinking about the neutrality of the sources...and I found this interesting study by UCLA (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664).
Their methodology is...odd. I'm not comfortable with it at all.
-
This seems fairly figurehead based. Are the two main parties really that similar or does the President have so much power he is his political party?
Umm, well yes and no. And the president, well, kinda... and sorta. That's the best I can do.
Until the voting system is reformed, I really don't deem politics worth discussing. Voting only counts in the states with no identifiable personality.
If I was part of the electoral college, I would GROW A fuck*ng PAIR OF BALLS AND VOTE THE OPPOSITE WAY OF THE POPULAR VOTE JUST TO ENCOURAGE VOTING REFORM ALREADY FOR FUCKS SAKE.
-
If I was part of the electoral college, I would GROW A fuck*ng PAIR OF BALLS AND VOTE THE OPPOSITE WAY OF THE POPULAR VOTE JUST TO ENCOURAGE VOTING REFORM ALREADY FOR FUCKS SAKE.
Some members already do that. But since members of the electoral college are appointed by the parties who are composed of officials elected by consituents, they still answer to the voters, to some degree.
-
Some members already do that. But since members of the electoral college are appointed by the parties who are composed of officials elected by consituents, they still answer to the voters, to some degree.
I did not know. When was the last time this happened?
-
Yeah, but does it really surprise you? I've also long felt that National Public Radio is far less liberal than conservatives think.
-
I did not know. When was the last time this happened?
I assume it happens in every election, since the members technically vote however they want to, and are only bound by their sense of right and wrong to cast their vote according to the majority of their constituents. My AP Government teacher told our class about this, so I can't back it up with any o' them fancy statistics ("science-numbers").
EDIT: Holy crap, 500 posts! I promise this is my last mention of a particular postcount until I reach 1000.
-
I did not know. When was the last time this happened?
One of DC's voted Present in 2000. I want to say Elenor Holmes-Norton but I'm not sure.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Faithless_electors
And it was Barbara Lett-Simmons who abstained.
-
Their methodology is...odd. I'm not comfortable with it at all.
I went back and looked at it. Reference to or quote from liberal organization like the ACLU = liberal points, reference to conservative org like the Heritage Foundation = conservative points.
Can't say as I like it. Like I said earlier, allowing the "other side" to present its case is not "balance" when that case is made entirely of spin and bullshit.
And there are going to be stories for which you just won't have references to organizations from one side or the other. If you're doing a piece on, say, hate crimes in the south, you're probably going to talk to the Southern Poverty Law Center. You're not going to talk to the Respecatble Conservative Think Tank to Bring Back Lynching, because it doesn't freakin' exist.
-
Well, it wasn't just references. They tried to compare outlines of senator's speeches with reasoning with news articles. And if they matched up they awarded the score of the senator to the article.
-
liberal organization like the ACLU = liberal points,
The ACLU is NOT a liberal organization.
-
The ACLU is NOT a liberal organization.
Ha! Depends on who you ask.
-
Well, Fox News devotees and other Kool-Aid drinkers might think so, but an objective examination of the evidence would show that the ACLU has defended the civil rights of everyone regardless of political persuasion. Just ask the KKK or Fred Phelps (hardly left-wingers.)
On second thought, maybe you're right. Maybe only liberals respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights these days.
-
I agree with Aug, although the high profile cases always seem to involve the defense of an apparently liberal organization, the ACLU takes cases based not on the agenda of the aggrieved party or organization, but on the cases merits. (Like he says, they take the cases of complete asshats like Phelps)
On second thought, maybe you're right. Maybe only liberals respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights these days.
Maybe Conservatives are more likely to bring the lawsuits. Or because of the perceived liberal nature of the ACLU, more liberals call on them than conservatives.
-
It must be true if me and AD are agreeing about it.
-
Man, Fred Phelps. When you are like that guy, and hate one thing so single-mindedly, I don't think you can call it "belief" anymore. That's just psychosis.
-
Their methodology is...odd. I'm not comfortable with it at all.
I found it interesting but I don't really have time to back research it to find out how the methods worked out. I would think that UCLA, like most institutions of higher learning would not 'tend' to favor conservatism. It's always pretty fuzzy to try to measure 'lean'.
-
Post from conservative friend on FB: "I'm just curious how many of you have read anything about net neutrality?"
Assumed translations: "You are all goddamned idiots who don't know anything about this thing you're all happy about! Let businesses do what they want! Government bad!"
Yeah, I'm jumping to conclusions and I may be wrong. But I'm so not taking that bait.
-
The right wing propaganda machine is very effective at swaying the opinion of their low information/low i.q. base.