Slashdot Mirror
Bush Says Americans 'Ought to Have' Broadband and a Pony by 2007
wrttnwrd writes "George Bush is calling for universal broadband by 2007. He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough? (for all of you Boondocks readers out there)" First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service. And don't forget the pony!
Fetch the man his coffee, post haste!
Some Americans have yet to receive their forty acres and mules.
1. Anger most of the population
2. Attempt to win them over with cheap internet
3. ???
4. Pro...Re-election!
Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc? This is a normal function of politicians, folks, nothing to see here.
If we're going to have "Universial Service" for Internet access, we first need to determine what level of service is going to be considered the universial level.
For example, lets consider phones... The USF for telephone service assures that everybody can get access to POTS. But, it's exactly Plain Old Telephone Service, a dialtone. Any advanced services are not included in the subsidized rates, so customers are on their own if they want Caller ID, Call Waiting, or Three Way Calling to work. Cellular customers have to pay into the USF fund because they are connecting to the phone network, but they get no subsidies out because cell service is most definitely above the universial level of service. However, this also means that cell network operators are not responsible for getting their networks extended into areas where they don't think it would be profitable to operate.
The other key thing about phone service is that it only costs about $5 to get the hardware you need to fully enjoy all of the features of Plain Old Telephone Service. Sure, there are more expensive telephones are the market, but those all ofter additional features beyond what it takes to interface with the telephone network. It's not an unfair burden to expect somebody to be able to afford to buy their own phone hardware. But, just what is the minimum feature set of a computer to enjoy the Internet? Is Lynx a good enough browser, or do we have to assure that the subsidized level of service can deliver Mozilla?
And, just what technical definition of "broadband" will the subsidized service use? Afterall, DSL and Cable Models come in various speeds of upload and download last-mile links, and how congested the network is after you get off the last mile is also variable and hard-to-quantify. The debate as to what would be defined as "Plain Old Broadband Internet Service" is far from settled.
Bush is giving off a nice thought for an election year proposal... but it seems like this is so lacking in details it can't exactly be taken seriously yet.
I advise all slashdot readers to vote for this patriot on the upcoming election!
Bush is all about freedom, has been and always will be.
This man knows every american has a universal right; and that is to download pornography at high speeds.
...has been replaced by a bold new "don't tax, and spend" policy.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What he meant is that he wants broads banned, universally.
What a sexist pig!
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
Who needs broadband when you have AOL with TOPSPEED technology?
oh wait...
I agree. All Americans ought to have it.
When GWB proposes spending government money on this, please get back to me.
I am sorry, but broadband in the household is not like FDR's Public Works Proejcts of the 1930's. Roosevelt used such initiatives to give work to those hammered by the Great Depression while simultaneously modernizing the US infrastructure - electricity for rural communities and the like.
I agree people should have broadband, but Bush needs to let ECONOMICS drive that, not legislation. When demand is high enough, providers will answer. Until then, there are plenty of other issues our government needs to take a look at.
Here's a hint, turn your head East.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Don't you mean liberate mars?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Howard Dean had proposed this, we'd be seeing tons of posts on how visionary it was.
I loved "independent" thinkers.
The statement of "and a Pony too" is usually tacked on to make fun of an outragious request being made... as this "proposal" by Bush seems to be at this point. He's not saying all Americans will have broadband by 2007, he's just saying they should. He's also not giving out any plan for just how more Americans will get broadband, or promising to see to it that more Americans get access to broadband.
So, making a statement that "All Americans ought to have broadband." is something that nobody's goign to disagree with, and is not something he can be called for not following through on. More or less, he's said nothing newsworthy at all... he's just trying to get the geek vote without offering much in return.
See how life is unfair: Al Gore invents the Internet, now Dubbya profit from it. The system should have some kind of protection to prevent people from stealing each other's ideas...
5.6% unemployment: Low for Clinton, High for Bush.
The Bureau of Labour Statistics doesn't agree with you.
During Clinton's term in office, the unemployment rate dropped from 7.5% to 4.0%. During the first three years of Bush's term, it rose from 4.0% to 6.0%.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
>The mistake is you made the assumption that Bush is a conservative.
Conservatives want to limit the size and power of government, even (especially?) when the expansion looks like it's being done for good reasons.
Conservatives like to balance budgets.
Conservatives believe in military action but only when it's supporting US interests.
Conservatives, like Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich, are speaking out against the "USA PATRIOT" Act.
This is going to be a tough election for conservative voters. Both candidates are far from conservative.
The economy was already getting weak when Bush took office.
I sure as hell don't support the republicans (or the democrats for that matter), but implying that the president has anything but a minor role in the immediate economy (especially during thier first term in office) is silly.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
We're trying to amend the Constitution to allow states to define marriage however they choose. Right now, the definition of marriage is in the hands of three old white men sitting behind a bench. The amendment will put that decision back in the hands of the people.
If anyone is likely to react incorrectly and ban gay marriage, it is old white men. The only reason they wouldn't do that is if it were (gasp!) illegal to ban it.
As for why states shouldn't be allowed to define it seperately: What part of FULL faith and credit do you not understand?
I'm so terribly sorry that you don't appreciate democracy.
The old white men are part of our democratic system. One of those brilliant checks and balances: They'll follow the law, regardless of popular opinion. This makes nasty things hard to do quickly, thus making it less likely that wrong things will be done in haste. If they're right things, eventually they will be done.
People complain about judges only when the check/balance is not working for them. Guns would be illegal by now if not for old white men.
I want my Cowboyneal
> Bush says he wants broadband for everybody by 2007, Kerry
> says he wants to spur technologies that will bring broadband
> to everybody. Same thing. However, on slashdot, we're only
> allowed to point out when Republicans say stupid things, not
> when Democrats do. Didn't you read the F.A.Q.?
Simple. Challengers run on change. Incumbents run on their record.
The point is, Bush has been president for four years. He determines the budgets, the direction of Federal departments, and in general tax policy (with the help of the other Republican who have been in power for the past four years). And Bush has done absolutely nothing to make universal broadband a reality in America since he's been president. His FCC has worked to allow more media consolidation, he's cut taxes for the rich (thus reducing the amount of revenue available to fund a public works project), and he was so focused on going to war in Iraq, that his priorities haven't accommodated universal broadband, among other even more serious issues.
Kerry is a senator, but he's not president. So he's saying that if he were president, this is a possible works project that would stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help broadband become universal like phone service. Kerry is the presidential challenger, so it's up to him to present his vision for America and explain why he's the right man for the job.
Bush is the presidential incumbent. It's up to him to explain his record for the past four years and explain why that record is good enough that he deserves another four years. If Bush really thought this was a good idea, well, he's been able to do it for four years. It makes no sense for the presidential incumbent to make vague promises about things he has not done anything about for the past four years. But when your record isn't good enough to run on, you avoid talking about it. You change the subject to talk about going to Mars, you make vague subjects about universal broadband, you resort to hateful language about constitutional amendments, etc.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
i suppose the same should be said about a group of 5 loving people, and yet I wouldn't be surprised if you were against polygamy
/legal/. Government should prohibit only minimally, as necessary, and let churches wring their hands over whether things are moral.
You say this like it's supposed to sound ridiculous. In fact, I for one have no problem with polygamy on moral grounds.
The major argument against polygamy is historical, it being the case that multi-partner marriages have seldom been wholly consensual. It is wrong for a man to keep five women as much as it is for him to keep one, if keeping is what he is doing. With two people the chances that the relationship is less harmful is greater. None of this says that polygamy should be illegal or is immoral. In todays world it might even be possible to have perfectly workable polygamous marriages, given our fairly good legal and social system. I think we could do it in this day and age without it being harmful.
And heck if you love your brother or sister?
In principle there is nothing wrong with sexual contact of some kind between siblings, but I agree that it should be generally illegal on genetic grounds. And again, the possability of abuse is rather greater with a member of ones own family. So, while it's possible to have a safe icestuous relationship, I don't think the practice should be legal as at this time I do not believe such a relationship has a good enough chance of being safe.
As for incestuous marriage... why not? Apart from the sex issue, it seems fine to me.
I mean you love each other, or your dog for that matter.
The only reason to ban beastiality is health reasons, both yours and the animal's. Thereis some chance of disease, for one. And I have heard of reports of harming the animal by means of the act itself. The major argument against it is that there are curently no laws of enough specificity on any books (of which I am aware) to protect the animal in such situations.
As for marriage... you can already leave posessions to pets, and you can already sleep with them (more or less). While it may be necessary to exclude such unions from certain aspects of marriage (how would health benefits work?) and thus make the process more of a legal fiction than anything else, I see no problem with it.
The problem is you have no objective morality
I've got news for you, in case you slept through your philosophy classes: There is no objective morality. A few people have tried to define objective morality, and "community standards" are about as close as you can come.
Give me one reason I should trust your judgment?
Give me one reason you need to trust my moral judgements. If I married (say) a goat, it would in no way involve you and thus your moral perspective would be irrelevent.
Why is your view more right than mine?
Why is your view more right than mine? I know, majority opinion, right? Well anyone can see how quickly majority rule gets screwed up. "It's always been that way!"? This veneration of the past, while amusing, does not hold any moral weight. We don't keep slaves any longer, though it is a venerable practice. Give me some real argument as to why your opinion on marriage has any impact on anyone other than yourself and your spous (if any).
Why should any of this be illegal or legal? What buisness does the government have telling anybody what they can and can not do.
None at all, insofar as what people do does not cause particular harm to other people or the government. And maybe not even then.
How does a government decide wht is moral or immoral if the electrical impulses going through their brains are nothing more than chance?
Ah, that's jsut it, y'see.You've hit the nail on the head: The government doesn't decide what is moral, the government decides what is
Your views of right and wrong are abitrary and have no
I want my Cowboyneal
The evil martian regime harbors weapons of mass destruction in the form of tremendous stockpiles of poison gas, and has even gone so far as to kill off large segments of its own population. Our weapons inspection teams are hampered at every turn, and the British inspection team hasn't been heard from in months, presumed dead.
We cannot ignore the martian threat any longer.
The ______ Agenda
Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise.
What planet are you from? All that the White House did was show that Bush once took advantage of free dental work at the Air National Guard base in Alabama.
The payroll records released by the White House show that Bush performed no guard duties at all for more than half a year in 1972. They also raise questions about how he could be credited with at least 14 days of duty during subsequent periods when his superior officers in two units said they had not seen him.
This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter. The attempt failed miserably. In fact, Bush spent more time training to be a pilot than Kerry spent in Vietnam.
What heroism! Flying a fighter jet around Texas at taxpayer expense. Think of the danger! What if the North Vietnamese had attacked Houston? Bush would have been on the front line. And to think that people portray Kerry, who was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, a war hero! Damn liberals.
Actually, most of the troops within Iraq understand and agree with the mission given to them. I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for.
Give your chest pounding bravado a rest. Bush lied to the American people about "weapons of mass destruction", lied to the troops, and sent our troops to Iraq with no exit strategy and poorly equipped. I know troops who did not have enough rations, toilet paper, and whose parents had to buy them the body armor that Bush & Co. didn't supply. Maybe you think that it's okay to lie to our troops, but I don't. Quit with the ends justify the means crap. If Bush thinks that we should be engaged in "nation building", then he should say so instead of making up stories about imaginary weapons.
In closing, here are some things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
3. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
4. "Standing Tall for America'" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
6. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
11. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.