CNN.com - Politics

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Congressman Boehner

A wonderful individual, I must say. Unless you've been living under a rock, you've probably heard of the fight to save network neutrality. While I participated in e-mailing my representitives on the issue, and I actually got a reply back for Representitive Boehner's office -- a form letter. Below is the full text of the e-mail:
Dear Sean :

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent interest group proposals for so-called "net neutrality." It is good to hear from you.

This year, Congress will reauthorize the 1996 Telecommunications Act. One of the key criticisms of that act (and the original 1934 version for that matter) is that, despite supposedly benevolent intentions, Congress essentially picked winners and losers in the various sectors of the telecommunications industry instead of allowing a free marketplace in which competition would lead to new technology, better service, and lower prices for consumers. As a result, many industry experts have concluded that governmental regulation has impeded the emergence of new technology and better applications. Perhaps the biggest example of America's stifled telecommunications progress is that the United States, despite being the world's economic powerhouse, is currently ranked 16 th for Internet broadband deployment. In anticipation of the reauthorization, I believe we must honestly examine and reflect upon the many government regulations already on the books and carefully consider the pros and cons of any newly-proposed regulations before endorsing proposals that may simply sound good on the surface.

One of the issues that Congress will address is the concept known as "net neutrality." Certain interest groups and press editorialists proclaim that Congress should mandate that cable and telephone industry broadband operators offer control of their networks equally to any and all Internet traffic. In fact, several major software and e-commerce firms have already formed a lobbyist organization called the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators (CBUI) to petition the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to do just that. In the name of preserving "network neutrality" and Internet "openness," CBUI members argue that the FCC must adopt preemptive "nondiscrimination safeguards" to ensure Internet users open and unfettered access to online content and services in the future. Despite the rhetoric however, there is currently no evidence that broadband operators are going out of their way to block access to any widely used websites or similar online services. In fact, any significant discriminatory behavior on the part of broadband service providers ( BSPs ) would generally be financially counterproductive considering that BSPs make more money by carrying more traffic. On the rare occasion that a BSP may actively regulate traffic or impose differential pricing schemes on their network, it would likely be for rather sensible reasons. Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or signal theft. They may want to price services differently to avoid network congestion and/or conserve bandwidth. They may want to exclusively partner with other firms to help them reach new customers and ultimately create superior services. And perhaps they may very well direct users towards some content before others because it helps them make the necessary money to recoup the huge investment required to create and build out broadband networks. Outlawing the ability of network owners to favor certain content kills a major financial incentive for entrepreneurs to invent and build new networks in the first place. Ultimately, in the absence of clear harm, government typically does not regulate in the preemptive fashion that CBUI members are requesting.

Please be aware that the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006. Among other points, the act empowers the FCC to enforce the Commission's broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated within including: 1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice, 2) consumers are entitled to run the applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement, 3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network, and 4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Throughout the 1990s and more recently, I have resisted placing additional regulations and taxes on the Internet because of its effect on slowing development and service for consumers and the propensity for those regulations to actively harm certain businesses while rewarding competitors. Instead of being so preoccupied with maximizing consumer welfare within the confines of existing systems, "net neutrality" proponents would be better served to put more thought and energy into how future alternative networks may be created. The principle that "net neutrality" advocates seem to ignore is that competition in the creation of new networks is as important as competition in the goods and services that get sold over existing networks.

Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as this legislation comes before the House floor.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please continue to keep me informed of your concerns.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner



The only thing editted about that letter was some of the formatting. You can tell it's a really badly coded pre-written reply by looking at the remaining original HTML from my direct copy/paste prior to editing.

Well I e-mailed him again, with a reply to the above e-mail. This was my reply:
Dear Representitive Boehner,

I thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to send me a reply, even if it is a generalized form letter in response to the deluge of e-mails you have recieved as part of the various network neutrality advocates and their petitions which I am sure you have been receiving. I am, however, writing you back to correct you on a few points.

In Canada, where there are no similar safeguards for network neutrality as there are here, a BSP had blocked access to a site supporting a worker's union while they were in a negociation with their workers who belonged to that union.

Also, I am all for future development of the internet and of the networks -- my chosen major centers around computers and the internet, after all. But what I also think you fail to understand is that the Internet did not start as a privately-funded and developed enterprise: it was born from publically-supplied investments and publically-developed networks. The broadband networks were laid down by corportate interests, under regulation from the government. Yes, private investment in networks is needed and desired, but a little thing like network neutrality has not and will not kill the profit of large corporations with their hands in numerous pots.

Also, BSPs make more money dependent on how many clients they have, not how much traffic they have. Traffic -- as in bandwidth -- is a commodity which it costs money to allow access to, and they make extra money alloting extra bandwidth to high-end users like websites, heavy downloaders, et cetera.

The real concern with the repeal of network neutrality is not that corporations be forced to issue everyone the same bandwidth no matter what their usage is -- that's why they have a sliding billing cost depending on bandwidth usage for high-end users. The concern is that they will use the lack of network neutrality to "double bill" and block competitors off of their networks. The double-billing would come from a tiered internet which functions on a cable TV model: if you want access to the higher tier of bandwidth, you must pay a special "fee" to the BSP in order to access that, and then you're still paying the sliding scale fee based on actual bandwidth usage.

Blocking competitors services is another concern. There are many VOIP -- Voice Over Internet Protocol -- providers, among them the very BSPs which we are currently discussing. The concern would be that, say Time Warner, the key broadband, internet phone, and cable TV provider in this area would, for example, block Skype, a cheap VOIP service, and YouTube, an online video service, as they would be competitors to Time Warner's VOIP service and cable television services.

The other concern, though certainly lesser, would be the blocking of views which dissent with the corporation (in terms of labor disputes and others) and/or are unwilling to pay the fee to access the higher-tier (a "bribe"), and therefore would be silenced.

Yes, BSPs may lose money blocking content -- but only if they can't make up for it in double-billing and creating a tiered internet much akin to the way cable tv operates. You see my concern, as both a citizen, a netizen, and a (hopefully) future participant in the development of computers and the networks which connect them?

I doubt my views will persuade you, or that this e-mail will see anyone higher than a staff member assigned to wade though all of these e-mails. I do, however, wish you luck in your endeavors, good sir, and that I am glad I live in the district which the House Majority Leader represents.

Again, good luck to you and your re-election campaign this fall.

Sincerly,

Sean Stinnett

So yeah. That was my big reply. I decided to be formal with him, despite my urgings otherwise.

So yeah, I knew I was going to be voting against Representitive Boehner, the House Majority Leader, before this... but somehow this was the final straw. I've been pushed by Mr. Boehner into actively campaigning against his re-election.

Anyway, peace.

Two Things

One, I may not be posting as often for the rest of the week so I can spend a little more time catching up on the news and doing a little more factual investigating on some things. I am disappointed with the Kennedy article, which I believed in solidly and only briefly glancing through the sources. While I still believe that there were many irregularities in the 2004 election, and I believe there was fraud in the election, I believe that the focus on exit polls as 'proof' takes the focus off of the real problems: elections.

The other thing is, Blogger seems to be having issues today and that will affect the frequency of my posts. I've been on Blogger for three days and am already looking to move off of it. However, until I can make a bit more of a footprint in terms of being able to make developing, hosting, and writing my own website. So I may be on Blogger for a short time or a long time, depending on how it goes, but for the near-future I am here.

Peace.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Illegimate Illegality

They work so hard for us, to further our way of life on their backs. Can't we just cut some of them a break? Isn't that fair?

Iraq

This week's been big in announcements of Iraq-related events. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced 2,500 inmates would be released to help reconcile various sects within Iraq. Yesterday nearly 600 inmates of the 2,500 were released. I see this as a step forward in healing the wounds Iraq suffers from, but it won't solve the problem. You have to get to the causes of fundamentalism and extremism: people deserve better lives for what they work for; they deserve to be treated like equals and not have foreign powers coming in and telling them that they're running not just their government (which they usually don't have a hand in), but their society all wrong. And it's not just "you're doing it wrong, so we're here to help", it's "you're doing it wrong, so we'll do it for you how we see fit". It's not fair to a people to have a superpower come in and try to change the way your society functions via force. It's not fair and it doesn't work. Iron handed tactics only drive more people towards extremism: it's human nature.

The other big news is a timetable from the new Italian government, led by Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, issuing a timetable for withdrawl of Italy's troops from Iraq by the year's end. There are currently around 2,700 Italian soldiers serving in Iraq who will be returning to their homeland before the year's end. However, in my mind this raises a question: who is filling the gaps in Iraq's security arrangements? Believe me, I'm no fan of the war, and have opposed it all along on ideological and socio-political grounds, but I also don't believe that Iraq's security forces are ready to take over. In fact, I don't think Iraq's security forces really constitute any such thing right now.

I am a big believer in allowing Arab countries to assist patroling in Iraq. I say Arab countries because Turkey and Iran have too many interests in Iraq right now -- the Kurdish and Shiite situations respectively -- to act fairly in Iraq. And maybe I am wrong in that belief, maybe there are Arab countries who have similar conflicts of interest in Iraq; in fact, I know there are, but there are also many nations in the Arab League, and Arab League peacekeepers would therefore be a diverse group of international peacekeepers. Maybe allowing its neighbors -- any of them -- to police Iraq is a bad idea, but it's bound to be better than flooding the country with white soldiers from Christian nations which fundamentalists can paiunt as crusaders and target, right? Even a fully international U.N. peacekeeping mission would be better than the current situation, but any of the above proposals would require the conservative administration and Congress of America to come down off of their collective high horses about America's moral and political superiority and give up their dreams of American hegemony.

We can create a stronger, more globalized community if we work together with other nations in the best interests of the human race instead of working against everyone in the best interests of a national administration. But we'll see, maybe I'm wrong and the Iraqi security forces will ultimately turn out to be mostly competent, above corruption, and well-trained.

But I wouldn't hold my breath. Man do I get off-topic sometimes. Oh well, later guys.

Peace.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Ken Blackwell for Ohio Governor 2006

No, this is not an endorsement. This is commentary on something I have observed. I am a big believer in a person's right to choose, whether it be at the grocery store, in bed, in the clinic, or at the voting booth. The right to vote is the foundation for our democracy, and the disenfranchising of legitimate voters is downright criminal and unconstitutional. So how can I live with the knowledge that Ken Blackwell, our Secretary of State and Republican gubernatorial candidate, is the man who presided over the 2004 election disaster?

To be honest, I really can't. How can I trust a man who presided over some of the worst election anomalies in modern U.S. history? A man who tried so desperately, while working as co-Chair of Bush's Ohio re-election campaign, to abuse his position as Secretary of State to disenfranchise thousands of voters, primarily in Democratic strongholds? This time it's his campaign he's presiding over as Ohio's chief elections official: how do we trust that?

There are so many allegations of corruption in the 2004 election and how it went down in Ohio, most of them centering around Ken Blackwell primarily (though it is clear that the national and Ohio GOP were involved on varying levels), that it makes me sick. The abuse of people and the stripping of their rights over something seemingly as petty as whose candidate gets to be head of state for the next 4 years. But in Ohio, it's more than that: it's about maintaining the status quo, about advancing Ken Blackwell through the GOP ranks.

Why should we even consider this man for Ohio Governor? If anybody can tell me one reason why he deserves to be our governor, I would much appreciate it. And I will respond in kind, participating -- hopefully -- in a civil debate over his qualifications for governor.

RFK's Rolling Stone article: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Just a real quick post on an article I found from the June 1 2005 issue of Rolling Stone which I have come upon rather belatedly -- that's what I get for falling out of the loop for a year. The article, written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., affirms my belief -- one that I have held for a year and a half, since November 2nd, 2004 -- that the 2004 presidential election was corrupt, especially in my new home of Ohio. The article is well-researched and supported by various investigations before it. One section really caught my eye, dealing with an investigation done by Rep. John Conyer's, one of Michigan's representitives and one of my favorite homestate polititcians:

The most extensive investigation of what happened in Ohio was conducted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.(52) Frustrated by his party's failure to follow up on the widespread evidence of voter intimidation and fraud, Conyers and the committee's minority staff held public hearings in Ohio, where they looked into more than 50,000 complaints from voters.(53) In January 2005, Conyers issued a detailed report that outlined ''massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio.'' The problems, the report concludes, were ''caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.''(54)

''Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,'' Conyers told me. ''He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.''


Anyways, just thought I'd share that. Now back to sorting through the news today.

Peace.

EDIT 6-8-06: Well, turns out I made an error because my source was wrong. The article is from the June 01 2006 issue of Rolling Stone. Makes more sense as to why I've just now come across it. I was out of the loop, but I didn't think I had been that out of the loop. Turns out I was right. Makes me feel better about being able to do this.

The other addendum I wished to make to this post was this. It's a Salon.com article by Farhad Manjoo which counters Kennedy's. Farhad Manjoo also wrote a another piece on the 2004 exit polls last year. Both make for excellent reading.

Peak Oil?

A lot of people are advocating alternative energy sources based only on knowledge of steadily increasing prices of gasoline for powering our cars, natural gas for heating our homes, and electricity -- much of which is generated from fossil fuels. But the Hubbert Peak Theory, or 'Peak Oil', may add some urgency to the hunt for alternate fuels.

In a recent article on AlterNet.org, James Howard Kunstler engages in something of an angry tirade at the American people for their lack of understanding for what he sees clearly as an obvious crisis, as well as their dependence on a lifestyle which he describes as: "an easy-motoring utopia of suburban metroplexes that (makes) incessant driving inevitable". Clearly he has a lot of frustration built up on the issue, but is he justified in lashing out this way?

I personally do not believe so. Yes, I am not a fan of suburban America or the sprawl it produces, and yes, I do believe that Peak Oil is a real threat and that something has to be done about it. But to blast the American public for a lifestyle that was pushed on us by corporate America and the upper class isn't fair. Sure, we are also complecent in the creation of this lifestyle we live, but none of us conjured Wal-mart out of thin air, or presided over the explosion of the American highway system which occured under former GM CEO Charley Wilson, Eisenhower's Commerce Secretary. The lifestyle we live came about because some very powerful people had a stake in creating it.

It is our duty to inform the public as to the dangers of Peak Oil, though. It is our moral responsibility to our descendents: they should have the right to live, consume, be happy -- oil and natural gas are a large part of the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides we use today. They should also have the right, as should people today, of being able to have a family without feeling guilty that they may be bringing them into a world which is worse than the one our generation inherited. Our children should not have to live through food shortages, oil wars, social upheaval, et cetera.

Peak Oil is a dangerous thing, but maybe not as dangerous as some make it seem. For example, Kunstler's gloom and doom view of how events will go down, with predictions such as:
Our suburbs will enter a shocking state of economic and practical failure.
and:
We'd better start paying attention to the signals that reality is sending or we will be living in a very violent, impoverished and demoralized nation.
These things are possible, yes, but not entirely likely. Promoting more research of better quality into replacement energy sources could abate many of these problems. Yes, there will be changes, but hopefully they will be generally positive -- I believe -- and not violent upheavels, die-offs, and what not predicted by some of the direst of Peak Oil advocates.

Worldwide peak oil is predicted to happen this decade, how accurate that prediction is -- or the prediction of worldwide peak oil happening at all -- remains to be seen, some even say it happened back in 2004. In the U.S. our production peaked in 1971. Some of the major oil fields in Mexico and Saudi Arabia have reported evidence which indicates they hit peak last year. Peak oil happens, what the consequences will if it happens worldwide be is entirely up to us.

First Post

It's been nearly a year since I last blogged... my old LiveJournal having been my rantspace on political, social, and economic events for roughly two years between the summer of 2003 and 2005. It was sparsely updated, not as well written as I would have liked it to be. It was angrier and less focused than I intend this to be. You can say that I've mellowed a bit, but I disagree: I believe that I have matured a bit, grown wiser about how I can opine and state my beliefs to others.

I hope this doesn't become just another progressive/liberal rantspace. I would really love honest, open, civil debate; I hope that I can do my part to assist in that goal. I plan on using this space as commentary on current and past events in the world and in America. Yes, I do try to stay informed on the news and yes, I do consider myself an amateur journalist -- how much of a typical blogger am I?

I hope to break out of that mold, though, and aspire to provide something unique, something worthwhile to the great debate in this country. Yes, I have bias; yes, one of my goals is to help unite the progressive movement in the face of long odds and a strong conservative movement. But everyone has bias, almsot everyone thinks their way is best. I do not intend this to be a neutral site, but I also do not want it to be a place where only one side is heard from.

As for a bit about me... I am about as left-wing as they come: liberal democrat (democrat as in supporter of democracy, not necessarily supporter of the Democratic Party), socialist, civil rights activist, et cetera. But I am capable of understanding and even comprimising with others who do not hold the same beliefs as I -- I have friends in the conservative movement, as well as others who fall into other socio-political affiliations. I wish I could say that I have never argued with them, but I have. But I try to keep the discourse civil, even if I am not always successful. I also have been working on my ability to do so, hoping that future arguments may be abated.

Otherwise, I am a 20-year-old male nanny. I watch a wonderful child, approaching three years of age, full time for a very close friend of mine, whom I share a home with. I am something of an amateur journalist and am always looking to be able to break into the field. I also desire to return to college and major in Computer Engineering, a path which I only have a semester worth of credits towards, due to my financial situation. I am currently a resident of southwest Ohio, and plan on settling in the area for the long-term. I am originally from the state of Michigan (go Wolverines!), and moved to Ohio after joking in late 2004 that I was going to adopt a swing state -- though ultimately that is not what brought me down here.

Anyways, I hope to make an actual post on current events sometime this week, and hope to at least be able to provide weekly posts for the time being. Until then:

Peace, love, and chicken grease.