Slashdot Mirror
The Right's War On Net Neutrality
jamie writes "To understand the debate being waged in the United States over Net Neutrality, it's important to understand just how drastically one side has been misled. The leaders of the American Right are spreading the lie that Net Neutrality is a government takeover of the internet, with the intention of silencing conservative voices. (Limbaugh: "All you really have to know about Net Neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google.") This may be hard to believe to those of us who actually know what it's about — reinstating pre-2005 law that ensured internet providers could discriminate on the basis of volume but not content. Since the opposing side is so badly misinformed, those of us who want the internet to remain open to innovation and freedom of expression have to help educate them before the debate can really be held."
This has nothing to do with right or left, but the green of the money being bribed^H^H^H^H^H^H given for campaigning. This is not something the hill knows a damn thing about, and if we're lucky 10% of them understand the issue at a high level.
Yeah, like there are only two two kinds of people in this country ... and there are just as many on the "American Left" who will happily and blindly lap up what their "leaders" tell them to.
This appears to be a combined case of blind partisanship ("they support it, so we must oppose it because they're the other side"), stupidity, and "a free market isn't defined by the presence of competition or the ability for all parties to make free, informed choices, but rather whether large corporations have any restrictions on them or not".
I have no love for a lot of the "American Left" as most would think of it, nor for the "Right". But this is just fucking stupid.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Not "whenever." But in this particular case, yes, people who oppose net neutrality because they believe it's about censoring conservative voices on the Internet are misinformed.
The only way their argument makes any sense is if they believes that ANY gov't regulation will inevitably lead to oppression, which is, frankly, a pretty childish belief. Put down the Ayn Rand, folks, and come back to the real world. Gov't regulating lead-free drinking water is not an attack on liberty.
Mr, Kesuke Miyagi: [sighs] Daniel-san, must talk. [they both kneel] Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, [makes squish gesture] get squish just like grape. Here, Internet, same thing. Either you Internet do "yes", or Internet do "no". You Internet do "guess so", [makes squish gesture] just like grape. Understand?
Daniel LaRusso: Yeah, I understand.
Loading...
I'm pretty right-wing... but I have some awesome arguments about this with other right-wingers.
Some of them can't seem to evaluate the situation for themselves so they just go with whatever their media talking head tells them.
None of them can explain how the Internet is supposed to work, nor how companies are screwing it up, nor what net neutrality means.... but they are pretty sure that gay socialists are going to take over the internet.
I usually paint it like this:
What if ISPs and common carriers started deciding to block FoxNews.com because they didn't like the message? That seems to get thru to some of them.
The right-wingers have one point though:
Liberals usually work incrementally. It starts with simple net neutrality rules. Then later on, they add some more rules. And more. And more. A Killswitch and some hate-crimes legislation later and before you know the government is all up in your intarwebs.
Now before you liberals get all self-congratulatory on your enlightened position.... none of my liberal friends can think for themselves on several liberal bandwaggon issues either.
THL phish sticks
You mean AL Gore was lying to me when he told me that Ethanol from corn was a viable and statistically proven "green" fuel that would have no impact on the price of food and provide me with ultra cheap fuel for my car, just so he could get votes from farmers?
oh wait........
There were many people in the previous Slashdot thread about Network Neutrality, that complained that they supported the noble goal of "Network Neutrality", but that what the FCC was passing was not "the network neutrality they supported".
So the disconnect is that many people (NOT just Republicans) are warning you about the Network Neutrality you are about to get, not about the fantasy Network Neutrality the Daily Kos wishes to be. The Daily Kos claims it is "lies" because what is being said does not match the definition that the Kos holds for network neutrality - when in reality NONE of us have seen the regulation recently passed - I still cannot find the exact wording, isn't that rather a bad sign that we are not allowed to see what they pass before they pass it?
The Network Neutrality you are about to get was crafted mostly from feedback my media companies and telcos, and large companies like Amazon and Google. Worried about too much corporate control over the internet now? It doesn't get any better when you put the power of regulations into the hands of a small number of companies that have the resources to lobby the FCC on issues.
And all this to stop what EXISTING problem? There's a lot of danger in creating open-ended rules to solve problems that are only imagined, and do not exist. Have we learned nothing from handing over a lot of power to government organizations like the TSA that control to some degree how we travel now? Why would you want similar control over ISP network management on behalf of the FCC?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In this case, though, the pattern (seen here on /. as well as from Rush et al) is that the right wing set up a straw man of what net neutrality it is in order to knock it down. Specifically, they claimed that the proposal was about something similar to the Fairness Doctrine, when it is fact completely different.
It was rather clever of them, really: They took the fact that "Neutrality" and "Fairness" were similar ideas, and used just that to make a large segment of the population think that what "Net Neutrality" meant was "Barack Obama ensuring that nobody can say anything bad about him on the Internet".
I am officially gone from
I used to listen to Limbaugh (2002) until I heard him comparing the then-new Prius and Honda Insight hybrids to yugos, and claiming they can't run faster than 55. Well I owned an insight and knew that was a flat lie (its top speed was 120).
More recently he's been saying the Chevy Volt hybrid only goes 40 miles. Limbaugh ought to take a page from Glenn Beck and actually RESEARCH a topic before speaking because while the Volt Electric Mode only goes 40 miles, it also has a gasoline engine that turns-on when the battery is empty. Stupid shithead Rush... I refuse to listen to him anymore because if he can't get that basic tiny fact straight, it makes me wonder what else he's getting wrong.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This has been the most infuriating aspect of this debate for me. Every time I'm challenged by people who listen to Limbaugh on the subject of Net Neutrality, they think it's all about keeping porn off the Internet and allowing the Government to censor websites. So yes, my opponents are horribly misinformed on this issue thanks to that bombastic blowhard.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
Whenever someone disagrees with you, it must be because they are badly misinformed.
Often it can be the case, and in this case I think it is a bit of a problem. The issue is one that is being politically charged and turned into a partisan issue because those who are promoting this current concept of "net neutrality" is also doing the concept a disservice as well. From the Daily Kos article itself:
Unfortunately in American politics, a clean and clear "left vs. right" paradigm doesn't work either and there are also many aspects to somebody's political beliefs that by turning this into a "liberal vs. conservative" issue is doing themselves and this issue in particular a major disservice.
The core of the problem is the FCC getting into the mix here where they clearly lack the authority to act at all, and where this really ought to be a congressional issue or better yet something where the government simply stays out of the whole issue altogether. It is also a problem where just a few gatekeepers have somehow been able to get themselves to a position where they can in theory "control" the internet, and I contend it is because of too much regulation of the internet that this situation has happened. If private individuals were allowed to connect to whomever and however they wanted for a network connection, most of these problems would go away. It is the legal restrictions which enact barriers to competition and the encouragement of government-backed monopolies which has forced this situation to a head.
While I'll be the first to admit that Rush Limbaugh is speaking out through ignorance of the issue, this politically charged reply is showing equal signs of ignorance for what is unfortunately a very complex issue with multiple "solutions" if the goal is to permit more freedom for individuals to express themselves as they so choose.
Fox "News" viewers are the most misinformed people when it comes to pretty much everything, so it's hardly surprising that they have no fucking clue what they're talking about on this either.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
It isn't an issue of the concept being sound - it is the practical enforcement of the concept. Good ideas implemented poorly by a government that can't keep the post office viable or get aid to hurricane victims isn't going to help anyway. For me the debate over NN is moot. The real debate is can the FCC implement it without corruption or government creep? Sadly, there is little evidence to show they can.
You are misunderstanding Rush. Believe me, he has one hell of a research staff, and often he isn't saying what you think he is saying. If he is masterful at anything, it is at parsing words. If he says something like "The Chevy volt is only gonna let you drive 40 miles on batteries" and other think that means it will only go 40 miles, well, thats ok for him. He even plays back his "quotes", and again, he parses his words carefully so that in a single quote, the meaning might be obvious but in the full context, it may be misleading. Lots of "what if....[statement]" or " maybe...[statement]...who knows" type of noncommittal comments.
In other words, he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He is entertaining, and I see the attraction. I used to listen. But remember, he is an entertainer, not a journalist. Even he admits that, then acts like a journalist.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
i found two pieces of the puzzle:
one, foxnews make you more misinformed.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/12/16/1615218/Survey-Shows-That-Fox-News-Makes-You-Less-Informed?from=rss
two, given truth, the misinformed believe the lies more.
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More
How does net neutrality interfere with how you wish to use the Internet? Net neutrality "restricts freedom" in the exact same way that abolishing slavery "restricts freedom". In the first case ISPs are limited from restricting your freedom. In the second case replace "ISP" with "slave owner".
While the idea that net neutrality is about turning the internet into a liberal nanny state is, naturally, unmitigated hogwash, there is a certain twisted "logic" to its appeal...
First, of course, is the "zOMG, only governments are capable of regulation and/or oppression, free markets are free as in freedom, all historical evidence to the contrary!" brigade. There are people who think that "free market" is some sort of god-given default state, not something created by the interesection of specific culture and rule of law. This tends to lead to a view where "free market" is what happens with no regulations, and every subsequent regulation is a brick in the road toward socialist fascism.
Second, where do conservative commentators have their greatest strength, in terms of market penetration, viewership numbers, etc? Radio and Cable. On the radio, there is pretty much Right win talk, apolitical top-40 pop drivel, and NPR coming in a distant third. On cable, you have the rabid ideologues on Fox, and the slightly more respectable-looking "centrist" corporatistists elsewhere. The left pretty much has comedy central.
Now, given that, there is an obvious ideological and economic alliance of interests between team Cable, RF broadcasters, and the major entertainment and "news" figures whose fortunes are alligned with theirs.
The ideological alignment helps; but even if Limbaugh were host of the "Glorious People's Revolutionary Communism Hour", he would probably be dismissing net neutrality as a plot of the capitalist running-dogs and their international banking masters of deceit. Cable and Radio are two media where right wing figures have played particularly well. The fact that they are standing in defense of their bread-and-butter medium against the unfettered internet access that would(through a mixture of streaming video and pressure to re-allocate spectrum toward wireless IP networks rather than AM/FM/UHF/VHF broadcasts) cut into that medium's viability seems entirely logical, even without the ideological component.
I definitely lean net neutrality and see the benefits of it. BUT, part of the argument for government protecting net neutrality is assuming the worst of a situation without government intervention and expecting only the best from it's involvement. Given the FCC's past behavior with other mediums, I'm not so sure that government involvement is going to give us that "free and open" internet we expect it will be once there is government oversight. Most government programs never accomplish what they promise to do and often come with significant negative consequences.
That's not true. In what way does the government directly control the internet by requiring that providers offer their services in an equal way to all who want them. They aren't requiring them to provide service to those that won't pay nor are they telling the providers what prices they can charge. And so long as the prices and availability are the same regardless of organization they can do more or less as they have been.
Net neutrality more or less codifies the way things were done until relatively recently.
It's still a strawman to conflate the two even if both are mentioned at the same time.
They are different things and should be treated as such. Certainly the inclination of Radio and TV trolls to muddle the two doesn't help keep these concepts isolated from one another. It doesn't add to the discussion or help governance.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
But in this particular case, yes, people who oppose net neutrality because they believe it's about censoring conservative voices on the Internet are misinformed
They think this because the people pushing net neutrality are usually the same ones pushing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine
Before people think about how stupid people are for making this assumption, look at all the reactions whenever Rush says anything. People are quick to assume what he meant rather than to listen to what was actually said (like the poster above stating Rush said the Chevy Volt hybrid only goes 40 miles and leaving out that he actually said Chevy Volt hybrid only goes 40 miles on battery power before switching over to gas power.)
"The right" is against NN for the same reason "the right" rejects global warming: the rich and powerful don't want it.
We've got an enormous problem with political ignorance and naivety in this country. The Republicans want to run the country in whatever way helps the rich get richer quicker. (If you don't accept that premise, go back and look at whose interests they consistently looked after when they held the White House and both houses of Congress, vs. whose interests they occasionally threw a bone to. By the time of the 2006 elections the leaders of various socially conservative movements were complaining that they were bringing in a lot of votes and not getting much of anything in return.)
But there's a problem if you want to run a republic for the benefit of the rich: there aren't enough of them to win elections. So you have to find ways to get people to vote against their own best interests. But any decent politician knows that if they can make your knee jerk, they can make your finger twitch in the voting booth. So Republican politicians have offered the country things like the Southern Strategy, and the new Southwestern Strategy that they've been rolling out for the last ~5 years, and of course their association with the religious right. I.e., appeal to people's worst instincts rather than their best.
But now, due to the aforementioned political ignorance and naivety, people think that whatever the Republican politicians want is an inherently conservative position. So we get idiotic ideas such as that global warming and net neutrality are leftist ideologies. People in this country need to wake up and smell the bullshit before they've been fucked beyond the point of no return.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
no, even more so than the democrats. they do not have any hesitation in opposing giving healthcare to 9/11 first responders, even after drumming up the nationalism/patriotism card for a decade.
democrats have at least SOME consideration in regard to principle. they at least try to make whatever filth they are doing seem to fit their ideology, even in appearance. republicans dont even have that concern.
whatever their private backers, corporations want at THAT given moment in time, they drum it. if the corporations want the exact opposite 2 months later, they see no issues reverting back. they even dont care whether someone may notice and make a fool of them in media. and at the end they end up the greatest material for news comedy shows.
Read radical news here
No. The regulation need not be heavy. The idea that it is, is just mindless right wing demagogery.
A minimal amount of regulation is required in order to prevent Comcast from screwing around with your Netflix or Walmart from screwing around with your Amazon orders.
Imagine if your HOA could tax Amazon shipments out of existence?
What people don't understand is that their connection to the outside world is controlled by a corporation that would set up a "company store" if they could.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Best explanation I ever heard was that without Network Neutrality, our home internet could become just like our mobile internet. It would take a while to get there, but given the limited number of providers in each city it is possible. We really can move backwards. I don't buy the "alternate vendor" argument. Most cities have only 1 or 2 viable options.
You want chat with your internet. That's $5/month. You want email, voice mail, VOIP, games, NFL games, Blockbuster Streaming... That's extra. You want Netflix streaming. You can't have it. We don't have an agreement with them.
Most people talk about Network Neutrality as if it is giving preferential speed to one site over another. It can be much worse. We saw what happened when torrents (legal or illegal) were deemed to cause most of their network load. They tried blocking them. My provider blocks the standard SMTP port just in case my computer is a SPAM BOT. How soon before they deem that streaming movies are responsible for 50% of their bandwidth (and are a direct competitor with their own Cable TV offerings) and they block streaming video to "improve quality" for those poor customers who have their bandwidth unjustly stolen from those few who watch TV shows on their computer.
Companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want to be able to not only charge their customers for internet access, but also charge the companies like Google, Amazon, and Netflix for the traffic that their customers generate when accessing those sites. Look at the recent move Comcast made against Level3, "Hey guys, nice work on getting that Netflix account, oh by the way we're going to charge you more to connect to us because you are supplying connectivity for a company which competes with our OnDemand services, thank you for choosing Comcast". What would have happened if Level3 said "meh....I don't think so" and turned off peering to Comcast. Who would have suffered? Mostly us, the consumers. Awesome.
It's also about being allowed to prioritize network traffic for hosted services over competing third party services, although beating voip providers on price (ala bundling) has pretty much destroyed most of the third party VOIP providers. Being able to provide a better quality hosted product is real easy when you de-prioritize competing services traffic on your network. A few months of poor performance and customers will be switching to hosted services in droves. I think we can all agree that this would fall into the "anti-competitive practices" category. The thing is, they might be doing this already, except that its technically not illegal, or at least its difficult enough to prove that plausible deniability plays a significant role and there is no legal precedent set to file suit on. Net Neutrality laws would make this illegal and at the very least require them to disclose that they are doing it.
Anyone can see that charging Google or Microsoft money whenever a customer accesses the site is wrong. Somehow they have twisted this into them getting a free ride on their network. Nevermind that the customer is paying for access to the internet and that the site being accessed is also paying to be connected to the internet.
I am all for traffic shaping based on volume to ensure equal access to all traffic, but if you are using public funds to prop up your infrastructure, you better have full disclosure available.
THIS is what they are really talking about and it has nothing to do with the government "taking over" the internet. Of course they tend to screw up most things they touch so I have very little faith that even if they do try to regulate things, that they will do a decent job.
On a side note, many people on both "sides" like to blame de-regulation for the banking problems we have had, and then argue against any other forms of regulation on the basis that regulation is bad and against the free market.
First off lets get one thing straight, there is no such thing as a free market. Whether by government hands or private hands, someone will ALWAYS be manipulating the rules in their favor. We are not free, but merely have the illusion of freedom so long as we don't piss the wrong person off.
We understand "their view perfectly well". It's a sort of pseudo-libertarianism with some distracting demogogery for the proles thrown in to distract them from what's really going on.
Corporations and rich people should be free to take advantage of the powerless.
That has always been Republican dogma.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm a conservative. No one represents me in government, no one.
No one in government represents any of my neighbors either, not all of whom are "conservative".
You can even be a (real) conservative and realize that families are important and should be encouraged -- even ones headed up by married gays. Gheesh, how did those idiots let themselves be hijacked by the radicals? (which applies to either left or right as far as I can tell, just different radicals involved -- sometimes)
Why did we let them get to this point, where now there is no way to just vote the bastards out? Some choice we get at the polls -- people selected by the "two heads of the same monster" are our "choice".
This is indistinguishable from a police/fascist state no matter who is in power now.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
To me the fight between big Government and Big Corps is almost the same as those debating who takes away more rights the (D) or the (R) in power.
In the Case of NN, I'm all for NN, provided that it doesn't harm business, and government doesn't get more power. Those on the left don't see government having power as being a problem, as long as it is their kind of power.And this is why the people on the right have concerns, because it isn't beyond the left to limit speech that "offends" them in some way, or if the threat of "fairness doctrine".
Just recently the far left Senator Rockefeller mentioned taking FOX news and MSNBC off the air. And it doesn't matter if he was "joking" or not, simply saying it shows how these people think; that if you don't agree with them, you should be silenced.
THAT is the concern for many people who don't want government control of the internet, because once you start defining that the government CAN control it, it is just a matter of time before it controls the whole of it in one way or another.
On the other hand you have douchebags like Comcast who won't update their peer links to realistic expectations and are artificially putting choke points into their internet models so that they can extract more cash from content providers, and protect their monopoly.
The answer isn't a simple "let the government regulate it" as many people think.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Karl Marx supports communism.
Steve Wozniak supports net neutrality.
Karl Marx had a beard.
Steve Wozniak has a beard.
Therefore, Steve Wozniak is a communist and net neutrality is communism.
Similarly:
Clowns are have painted white faces and entertain people.
Rush Limbaugh has a white face and entertains people.
Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is a clown.
Here's a sampling of articles from conservatives / libertarians on net neutrality:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rOQpQYQtA0
http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/06/neutrality_for_.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juw5Ew_fKgs
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/17/free-press-and-the-art-of-profligate-fudging/
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/28/if-the-fcc-had-regulated-the-internet-from-the-beginning/
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/06/net-neutrality-aint-over-til-its-over/
http://www.freetoassemble.com/blog/cincinnatuschili/net-neutrality-comcast-vs-level-3-communications
A few points:
1) Not all conservatives / libertarians oppose net neutrality
2) Most of these writers have a pretty good understanding of the issue
3) Several who oppose it do it on free market principles
4) There is a legitimate distrust of the FCC - some view the net neutrality issue as being used as an excuse for an FCC power grab
[Insert pithy quote here]
First, of course, is the "zOMG, only governments are capable of regulation and/or oppression, free markets are free as in freedom, all historical evidence to the contrary!" brigade.
I'm not quite sure I'm reading this right, but you do know that our government has had a history of selective oppression, right? Japanese Americans during the last World War, the Native Americans... to name the two big ones I can think of. That's not even getting into the whole new "Terrorism" and Gitmo side of things. If they can tie something to National Security, they can/have get away with far too much.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
it seems to me that the poster has given good reason to bolster his claim
Really? How so? Because I cannot find the actual text of the regulation they just passed. All else then is speculation, except for a few leaked tidbits that indicate the regulation is nothing like the idea of network neutrality most people had. So then, it seems more right to be concerned about what it actually is than arguing that a mythical variant of network neutrality that we will never see in practice, is awesome and you should vote for it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Insightful my a$$.
So, it is OK with your conservative values if *corporations* restrict your access to internet content? To take your "views" to a logical extreme, it is OK with you if, as a Comcast subscriber, you only have access to content made available by NBC even though you are paying for flat-rate or volume internet access? Oh, you will play your "free market" card and switch? To what? Maybe the single other monopoly that can provide you broadband?
The 'Net is pretty much neutral now. There is a place for government regulation to keep it that way.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
Took me less than a minute..... http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
Normally I would dismiss your post, which seems full of crazy conspiracy theories that you're pulling from memory "but can be found on Google". However some bright sparks have seen fit to moderate your post as +5 Informative. So please, give me some citations. The only things I've been able to find on Google are completely unverifiable claims from conspiracy-theorist websites.
But more fundamentally --- what is the implication of your post? That opposing Net Neutrality legislation is going to make it harder for governments to censor? Cause it seems to me that a small number of powerful telecoms dominating what people read is more or less a precondition for a modern totalitarian state.
The closest thing I can find to the actual regulation is this document:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf
Which does not list the whole regulation passed, just excerpts. And parts of them look very bad indeed:
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is
so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to
reasonable network management.
Bye-Bye torrents; the government has now codified it's perfectly reasonable to block traffic considered "unlawful".
All that remains is for the MPAA to put forth the pipeline to feed ISP's the torrents the ISP's must block.
Remember the word "lawful" did not have to be in there at all, it's used in a few places - and it's not an accidental term.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is another case of false equivalence. Whenever someone criticizes the right, someone always complains that they aren't criticizing the left "because they are exactly the same." But it isn't the case. There really is no left-wing Rush Limbaugh and if there is then this person isn't nearly as powerful and influential as Rush. If you have something to criticize about the left or liberals or progressives, then I welcome that, it will ultimately strengthen the movement. But don't insist that the right shouldn't be criticized because you imagine others have the same problem but you can't be troubled to explain how.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
"Gov't regulating lead-free drinking water is not an attack on liberty."
But government fluoridation of drinking water is a communist plan to weaken our essence.
I still own and drive my 2001 Honda Insight daily. Its top speed is 113MPH -- that's when the governor kicks in -- and it is truly scary. Particularly WHEN the governor kicks in, suddenly the IMA is whining as it goes into recharge mode at a speed way past what it expects, then since your foot is still to the floor it accelerates the car as hard as it can (which isn't much) until the governor cuts off gas to the motor again.
In truth, about 90MPH is when the Insight gets pretty scary to drive. Ultimately, it's an all-aluminum, incredibly-efficient econo-box that can get out-accelerated by my wife's minivan.
I have never had a problem with freeway speeds (75MPH) in the Insight. The only time it gets scary at that kind of speed is when the road is grooved, like for construction, or uneven. Then the offset between the front and rear tires comes into play, and the car will kind of shimmy around a little in the lane.
So to sum up:
* Max speed of 55MPH? B.S. I've owned my 2001 Insight for nine years now, and drive faster than this all the time.
* Max sped of 120MPH? B.S., by about 7MPH. My sole experiment showed the governor kicking in reliably at 113MPH (which, by the way, is the max rated speed of the tires)
* Anemic performance? Damn right! My hybrid automatic transmission still averages better than 50MPG... and that's running larger, grippier tires than stock. I don't mind getting out-accelerated by trucks at stoplights; I'm playing the high-mileage game, not "who gets their first?".
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
The "lefts" crown jewels was single payer and it failed.
Mandatory national insurance was the sweetener to get the congress critters who were in the pockets of the health insurance lobbyists to vote for the bill. I don't think either side was enthusiastic about it but it was necessary to get the whole thing passed.
Isn't compromise fun?
Encryption does not stop them from throttling my packets based on a destination. Like say Comcast customers to NetFlix customers.
There is one, simple, crucial fact that the right is missing in these debates. There is no free market in broadband access. If you are extremely lucky you can pick between your telephone company and your cable company and they tend to not compete on either price or service and quickly move to adopt the same draconian policies introduced by their "competitors" -- and again, this is if you're lucky, most people are stuck with their cable company. Not even the right will argue against regulating monopolies, we all realize that in the absence of competition monopolies will provide poor service for rates that border on extortion.
If you want to win the net neutrality debate with the right then offer a simple concession: IPSs which open up their network to third party providers can operate without regulation. Those providers that have no competition or only one competitor must put up with regulation.
You can also remind everyone that the government invented the internet (arpnet was a darpa project) so the Internet was never created to be run by businesses anymore than the national interstate system was, but that doesn't resonate nearly as well as shifting this back to a monopoly vs. consumer debate.
People here don't seem to understand, Rush isn't fighting the concept of Net Neutrality, he's fighting what the FCC is doing right now! Just because the regulations being pushed by the FCC are called Net Neutrality, doesn't mean that they are. Either Slashdotters have an extremely short memory about what the FCC has been doing in the past month, or you all hate Rush so much that you'll defend 'fake net neutrality' just so you don't have to agree with him. Hell I don't like Rush but he may be right this time. Remember both the Left and Right are in the pocket of big business.
No, just evil people who grab and increase their power over us because we are dumb enough to let them. We've even let them destroy the language -- liberal used to mean something a lot more like "libertarian"
No it didn't. The libertarian position is one that honestly did not exist in politics until about 50 years ago.
I know, in conservative mythos, the founding fathers were libertarians, but they were not. Liberal, in that day, was basically anti-classism and anti-crown, a position that really doesn't exist anymore in modern politics.
Once the crown was gone, it continued to be anti-special-rules-for-the-ruling class, a position it still holds, at least in theory. (As we don't actually have any liberal political party, it doesn't really hold any position anymore.) All liberal fights, though the entire history of this country and back to John Locke, are to stop one group of withholding power-sharing from another group, with the groups being the crown, nobles, slaveowners, the superrich, the corporate owners, the whites, the straights...and, apparently, the superrich again. Except now the superrich have intelligently bought both parties.
(Please note when I say 'liberals', I am, indeed, aware that liberals used to be on the right, and flopped to the left around when I said 'the whites')
Libertarianism is not classical liberalism, it is neo-classical liberalism. It reinvents the idea that the problem is 'the crown'. Which, frankly, would be a rather strange idea to various classical liberal thinkers, whose biggest problem with the government is the fact that it often failed to enforce laws equally, and not that those laws existed at all!
and "conservative" used to mean, you know, look before you leap, spend less than you make, stuff like that. Or even "not all change is for the better, so examine it first before deciding".
Here, you're right. Conservatives, to paraphrase something David Brin wrote on the topic, used to be the serious guys in suits at NASA who did the math. The guys running around in the background monitoring stuff that seemed entirely pointless (Until it was wrong, then they calmly and efficiently saved everyone's life.), and wasn't glamorous, and they went home to their family and read the paper each evening. Whereas liberals were the astronauts and the sci-fi writers and the dreamers, and got all the credit, but without the guys in suits, wouldn't know how to do what they were trying to do. There's the guys who try to do everything, and the guys who figure out what can and can't happen and managed to get some of it done, while otherwise raining on the parade.
But that ended about two decades ago, when it was decided that the best way to rule the country is not to point out the parts of the left's plans that can't work, and invent better ways...but to simply assert, very loudly, that anything the left wants is wrong. Morally wrong, politically wrong, won't work, every single possible objection.
Even stuff like cap and trade or the public mandate for health insurance, both of which were conservative alternatives to the left's previous plan. Or stuff like bills attempting to stop child 'marriage', which the Republicans shot down for absurd reasons two week ago. (Apparently, educating women that it is not acceptable for them to be sold to older men when they're 13 as his 'wife' is...um...pro-abortion.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"We need a Fairness Doctrine for the internet. For example maybe you'll visit foxnews.com and a popup will ask if you want to read democrat.org too. We need to include that as part of net neutrality and other FCC regulations."
[citationneeded]. I can't find any record of a quote like this.
"We need to pass a law to remove MSNBC and FOXnews from cable television." The latter came from a Congressman Kennedy who is a nobody
I can find a Kennedy who has opinions on MSNBC and FOXnews, but he isn't a Congresman, and he does not appear to be calling for censorship. George Kennedy - former managing editor at the Missourian and professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism. He says:
"I’m not arguing that our traditional approach to journalism is inherently superior to the ideological model. After all, that model has served Great Britain and much of Europe pretty well for a long time. But it’s sure not what we’re used to, and confusing to many, even within the industry.
For us consumers, the important thing to remember is this: Fox and MSNBC are playing by different rules than the broadcast networks or NPR. If you like your news straight up, you’ll prefer the latter. If you like it with a twist, you know where to look."
There was a Senator Rockefeller who said:
“There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the F.C.C. to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.”
A lamentation of ideologically driven news media - quite different from the claim that he is actively seeking laws to shutdown ideological news organizations.
And then of course there's Obama himself who gave a college speech advising them not to read the internet news sites and only listen to WH press releases
What he actually said:
The class of 2010 is "coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter," the president said, earning an honorary doctorate of laws degree during the ceremony.
"And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy
With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, and on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all -- to know what to believe, to figure out who's telling the truth and who's not. Let's face it, even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I've had some experience in that regard,"
Funny that you interpret it as an attack on freedom, when even FoxNews acknowledged that this bit of the speech was a reference to some false internet rumours: "Obama has endured some nasty rumors at the hands of the Internet. Blogs and comment pages continue to allege that the president has not been honest about his place of birth -- Hawaii -- or about his religion -- Christian."
So if there's confusion by Republicans, it's because of what they are he
What amazes me is how many in this country now believe "free speech" means "only those things I agree with are allowed" and it is fine and dandy to get rid of anything else. It reminded me of watching TV with my grandfather when the Nazis were gonna march on Chicago. Now this was a man that spent four years fighting Nazis, that helped to liberate one of the Polish camps so he knew first hand what Nazism was really about, and who got to end the war by spending nearly two years in a full body cast thanks to a Werewulf unit dropping a wall on him along with his unit, two of whom died.
So if there was ANYBODY on this earth who had a legit reason to want to see them gone it was him, yet he made sure I knew he supported those Nazis 100% in their right to march. He said "THAT is what we were fighting for, and what made us different from them. Here we allow everyone to speak, to debate, to print their ideas, even if we don't agree with them". It is just a damned shame that so many have forgotten that, and day by day they take away that right by saying this or that is "offensive" and they just keep moving the line on what is offensive. I support Rush and Maddow, Beck and Stewart, hell I even support the "pro pedo" book guy who is currently rotting in jail for writing his thoughts on paper. We must ALWAYS support the right to speech we don't agree with, because tomorrow some politician or activist may decide YOU are the offensive element and shouldn't be allowed to speak. Which is why we have to stop the censors like Rockefeller at every turn. I may not agree with your words but like my grandfather before me I will damned well fight for your right to say them!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.