Say, for instance, someone wasn't paying attention and accidentally marked two candidates for the same position.
Say, for instance, someone intentionally marked two candidates for the same position. There's a generally accepted rule that we don't tell people they're "not allowed to vote that way". Once you start down that path, it's a short trip to "...People who voted for Your Candidate also voted for these other Candidates...
You are a terrorist if you coerce or intimidate a civilian population according to section 802 of the Patriot Act.
There is much of lawyer speak which makes no sense to the common man. For example, what could we cite as an example of a population which is not civilian?
My point is, the definition of a terrorist is legally extremely vague.
I realize you have a "personal" definition of terrorism which you will bend to fit any particular situation you deem, but clearly an act of terrorism does not require sponsorship by a government, or action against a government, or the use of particular weapons, tactics, or techniques.
The essential element is fear, and if you don't recognise the element of fear at Columbine, I cannot assist.
That is sort of like telling the cop who pulled you over for doing 50 in a 35 that the other cars on the road were going 60.
No cop is going to pull you over for doing 50 in a 35 if the other cars on the road are going 60, except perhaps for obstructing the flow of traffic. But that's entirely off-topic...
...this is all part of a campaign to set the stage so that if the Democrats lose they can claim the election was stolen....
It is equally applicable no matter which party "loses". Both incidents reduce the confidence that a Free and Fair election has occurred; which opens up the election process to post-ballot manipulation-- out of control of the voters.
There are those who would claim that the Republicans actually did lose last time, then proved-out their strategy of post-ballot manipulation to eventually win the office.
If this did happen, I'd imagine both the Democrats and the Republicans are chomping at the bit to utilize this "newly accepted" campaign strategy to put their candidate into office. After all, the other side would do it in a second if they had the chance.
Neatly ignoring the fact that this isn't what was alleged...
...claim voter intimidation...
If a news story broke that the other candidate was falsely alleging voter intimidation by your guy, would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?
If a news story broke that your favorite candidate was falsely alleging voter intimidation by the other guy, would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?
What if the news falsely alleged that some of your guy's supporters (yourself included) would not be allowed vote because the other guy' supporters tore-up voter registration cards supporting your guy? Would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?
What if the news falsely alleged that some of the other guy's supporters would not be allowed vote because your guy' supporters tore-up voter registration cards supporting the other guy? Would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?
I suspect he first case results (for most people) in either a total gain of votes cast, or a neutral impact with people who wouldn't have voted anyway possibly choosing to still not vote. I suspect only a very few people would be so morally outraged by these allegation (true or false) against their guy that they would choose not to vote when they otherwise would have.
In the second case, there is a possibility that some people (the ones disenfranchised in the "true" case) which would otherwise have voted find themselves unable to do so; a net loss of voters.
If our goal is to encourage every voter to vote his/her concious, then the first case is a possible positive and the second a certain negative. If, on the other hand, our goal is to ensure our candidate wins even at the expense of voter intent, then the first case (true or false) offers us no tactatical advantage, while the second offers us a clear and certain tactical advantage, so long as it is the other guy's supporters disenfranchised, and only if the allegations are true.
Someone once said all the answers of the world can be found in Game Theory. I don't know if that's true, but the harder I look, the more I believe.
The flaw in your reasoning is that it assumes that none of the drugs currently under prohibition are worse than alcohol. This is simply not true. If you've ever met a real cocaine or heroin addict (there is no such thing as a casual cocaine/heroin "user", only "addicts"), you'd see that it is not the same thing as alcohol at all. It takes over your life. It creates a dysfunctional circumstance in which the person quickly loses the ability to carry on a normal life, hold a steady job, and maintain a loving relationship with family.
Not a troll, and not trying to be a smart-alek, but I'd have to argue with your reasoning, or at least your reasons.
If you are planning an exploit, one goal is to seek a level of impact which is as minimal as possible. A virus which kills its host immediately will have little chance to propagate, whereas one which infects, but does not disable its host is much more likely to spread.
The health damage caused by cigarettes (cumulative) is much greater than the damage caused by more powerful drugs not because cigarettes are more harmful, but because they are so much less harmful than hard drugs we have had little motivation to outlaw them.
If we are to object to the legalization of "hard" drugs, therefore, we should object not on the basis of the harm it does to those who use, but rather on the basis of the harm it does to those who do not use and yet are affected.
Once we've made that leap, it becomes easy to see how both the "hard" (currently illegal) drugs and the "soft" drugs (like alcohol and tobacco) are harmful, not necessarily to those who use, but to those who do not.
This, then, is the reason why people who do not use drugs are (generally) in favor of outlawing their use by those who do, and why (once there is a significant population of users) some drugs are considered to be okay even though the harm they cause to a society might be tremendous.
In this sense, I'd argue that some drugs which you might not classify as "worse than alcohol" might actually be just that.
She said she suspected Hurricane Jeanne, which struck in September, may have zapped electricity and air conditioning to the room where the server was stored, causing temperatures to soar to 90 degrees or more and possibly causing the crash. The storm wiped out power to nearly 1.3 million homes and businesses throughout Florida.
So, this election may be postponed on account of rain?
What's the difference between this and a MoveOn.org ad, other than this is 90 minutes long and ads are like 30 seconds?
No difference, provided the stations are willing to run 90 minutes of anything George Sorros wants to fund, at the same rate Sinclair is willing to pay. Which wouldn't be much, unless they're willing to violate capmaign contribution spending caps. Which is why Sinclair wants this classified as "news" rather than "advertisment".
We don't have a perfect system. I'm not convinced we can make it better, however, by turning things into a lawless free-for-all.
Completely off topic, here, but I've noticed again this election cycle in this traditionally Red state, that someone is vandalizing and tearing-down Democratic (generally) and Kerry-Edwards (specifically) yard signs. Either the Republicans are scared, or my worst fears about the kind of people that party represents are coming true.
I suppose, in a "They did it, why can't we?" world, I should be responding in kind, but that's not the kind of world I want my kids to grow up in. May they forgive me if I'm wrong.
Sinclair invited Kerry to be on afterwards to refute the documentary.
The court would have to rule, first, that the Licensee were "granting" time to one camp. If the Licensee claimed they were granting time to Kerry's camp, then Kerry could choose to pull Stolen Honor and replace it with something else. So the Licensee would claim that the time were being granted to the Bush camp. That would still leave the Kerry camp in control of the "equal time" (technically, "...equivalent forum...") for their own purposes.
Sinclair would have a difficult time claiming that "a chance to respond" represents an equivalent forum. Imagine the reverse situation: a station chooses to play 3 hours of F9/11 plus commentary from 9PM to Midnight, then "allows" Bush to stand in front of a camera for 3 hours from midnight to 3:00am to respond. Clearly unfair.
If Sinclair could get the Court to declare this as "unbiased news", then they would be exempt from the equal time requirements.
It's not clear, from what I know, if the FCC License is owned by Sinclair, or the stations themselves. I suspect it belongs to the stations. If a station were contractually obligated to play Sinclair's content, they would also likely be contractually obligated (to keep their license) to offer equal time. Sinclair may be putting it's stations into a rather unfavorable financial position, by requiring them to offer 90 minutes of airtime (commercial free) to the Kerry campaign.
I suspect Moore is working on a 90 minute "directors cut" of F9/11 even as we speak.
You want conservatives to let go, without liberals being help accountable?
Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? I said no such thing.
I'll leave my children the legacy of knowing that I fought my hardest to pull the nation to represent me the best.
It's always about you, isn't it?
Other people are pulling the nation in their direction. When we all keep pulling the nation looks like a democracy.
When you talk about pulling the nation in your direction, does that include only advocacy, or does that extend to deriding the other side as well? The video, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal could hardly be described as Bush Advocacy. (If it were, it would clearly be illegal.) I have no quarrel with anyone attempting to make things better for all of us, even if I might think their strategy for accomplishing it is bankrupt. But trying to build a strong nation on the basis of "I must be right because I'm better at breaking your toys than you are at breaking my toys" is madness. It's what many people (perhaps yourself included) would deem to be acts of terrorism.
But Sinclair does not own the public airwaves; Sinclair ownes a license to use them. Their license specifically denies them "...the right to air anything on those stations they please."
They (and other broadcasters) were denied this right because (in the opinion of the FCC) the airwaves are a scarce resource.
If the airways belong to all of us, then there will always be some give and take of who controls them.
And because opinions differ, this nation of laws chooses to create laws governing how the airwaves are used. We've created a system (as best we could) where the airwaves define a fair-playing-field. If any broadcaster you would cite as pro-one-candidate-or-the-other violates those laws, then you have a legitimate legal complaint.
We took our punch when CBS used forged documents to attack President Bush.
So this is all about sour grapes? I do hope you don't throw-away your precious Democracy over a handful of sour grapes.
If the airwaves belong to "all of us" then recognise that they belong to the most powerful.
Be careful what you wish for. You might believe yourself to be among the "most powerful" today, and feel that a legitimate reason why your side should rule over the "less powerful". Be assured that those above you in the power chain will have you in their sights just as soon as they finish conquering the rest of us. Democracy was created to ensure that "the powerful" did not get a greater voice than the less powerful.
Sometimes that bends towards liberals and sometimes towards conservatives.
And to whatever extent it "bends" at all, it bends away from the center, away from the interest of the majority of the people, away from a world tolerable for all. Is that really the kind of world you want to leave as a legacy; as an inheritance for your children? Are you so sure they will share your views about power? Do you share your parent's views?
So, given the failure of preventing propaganda in favor of Kerry, I am now all for propaganda in favor of Bush.
Without regard to your political leanings, I suspect you will live to regret saying that.
What this really does is set a precedent opening the door to outright political warfare over the public airwaves. You can be certain if this goes forward, that some politically-motivated group will respond with an anti-Bush message much worse than anything even Moore would be accused of stooping to. (And remember, if it air's after the Kerry attack, there will be even less time for the forces-of-truth to pick apart the lies.) It may not happed this election cycle, but once the tactic is considered allowable, you can write-off any hope of getting fair and balanced coverage of the issues from any aspect of the public media. The prize will be just too big to ignore.
We mustn't be led into the trap of saying "it's okay for <one candidate> to get away with ruining our country, because <the other guy> got away with it; down that road lies only madness and ruin.
Cool! You mean some media conglomerate has ordered its affiliates to run Fahrenheit 9/11 a week before the election? When is it on?
To clarify: Moore has said he'd like to have F-9/11 available for release before the election, perhaps on Pay-Per-View, but that's not the same as Sinclair ordering affiliates to run a program. No one is going to make me buy any of Moore's films, or pay to allow others to watch it, but the airwaves belong to all of us. When a television station applies for a license to broadcast, they are also applying for a license to keep everyone else from broadcasting on those channels. We grant them that right based on the promise that they will use that grant in a manner supporting public interests.
If they want to run it as a political ad, then run it under the political ad rules, meaning all candidates get equal time.
If they want to run it as news, they're just trying to game the system.
If something is an obvious good for everyone, everyone will adopt it.
Some things are an "obvious good" (defecit spending) but not for everybody. Others are good for everybody (rainforest preservation) but not obvious.
There's a delicate balance here. A nationally standard sales tax might be too high for people in one state and too low for people in another; so this kind of an idea would be bad to implement at a federal level. If implemented at the state level, people could choose a sales tax level appropriate for their means and needs. Those who didn't like it (either because it taxes them too much for the benefit they receive, or because it taxes them too little for the benefits they desire) could move. It would then become a federal responsibility to ensure that people who wanted to move between states be guaranteed that right.
Metcalf's Law tells us that the value of a network you are connected to increases when I also connect. And it doesn't matter if I am connecting from next-door or the middle of Wyoming. Nor does it matter if the network we are connecting to is built with packets, asphalt, or postage stamps.
That's why ensuring the Internet reaches everyone is a Federal concern, why the network of packets thus constructed should not be owned (controlled) by private interests, and why there is fairness in the distribution of the benefits even if the monies seem to be flowing in only one direction.
And why, exactly, do school need to have internet access?
I'm thinking when you say "Internet" you're thinking web pages, email, and things like that. Clearly we have different views of the Internet.
How about "Internet" as in "keep the parents in touch with the teachers, their children. Let the parents see their kids homework assignments. Let the parents ask the teachers (or other parents) for help if they don't understand how to do it themselves."
How about "Internet" as in "lifelong distance learning. Let teachers access other teachers and share experiences, project ideas, teaching techniques. Let teachers ask University Professors to answers a question they can't answer themselves. Let the parents acces this learning."
How about "Internet" as in "sharing a pool of teachers among a set of dispersed classrooms, so that the kid who needs individualized help always gets it.
The one thing the Internet has always been good at is building communities. Our schools have damned little of that recently.
So yes, a post service is a legitimate function of the Government, as listed in the body of the Constitution itself. Our Federal Highway program is also legitimate, as it is also directly listed with in the main body of the Constitution.
The Founders understood the benefit to be derived from the free flow of information and commerce. They (apparently) also understood that if the States were allowed to "set the rules" of either communications or traffic, a serious harm would result.
I think the same reasoning is applicable to the Telephone system as well.
As for the Internet, we are clearly way off track.
You realize that this is the worst possible justification, don't you?
Indeed. I should have chosen my words more carefully.
What I meant to say was that there are some projects which only show benefit (or are clearly more benewfit-effective) when applied to a national population; applying the same program at a statewode-level only may not be cost effective. For these such programs, it makes sense to have Federal involvement.
One of those "...of the People, by the People, for the People..." things.
If you as a constituant think that your local schools and libraries need internet access then you lobby your State or Local governments and let them fund it.
The reason the Federal government is involved here is because the Federal Government benefits when the population of the entire country is better educated.
If we poshed this responsibility down to the local level, we'd wind up with (even more of) a two-tiered system where anyone living in big cities, where broadband is readily available, would pay next-to-nothing for great access and people living in rural communities, where broadband is still non-existant, would be paying thousands each to fund access for their school.
FCC policy we have today is leading us to an Information Superhighway of privately owned toll roads. There are still many people in the US who have only dial-up access to the Internet, only one telecommunications provider to choose from, and no "market opportunity" to effect a change. If we had followed these same policies in deploying the telephone, most of the country would still be relying on the post office for their "telecommunication" needs.
In my mind, this policy action on behalf of the FCC is just another in a long string of policies designer to ensure that a publically owned internet infrastructure is not allowed to come into existance, in favor of saving that infrastructure for divving-up amount the incumbent, politically powerful, telecommunications carriers and media companies.
Here's an interesting question to homeowners? Would you be interested in fiber-to-the-curb provided and administered by your local government (city or county government) if the per-month cost for that service was on par with what you currently pay for city/county water? (For those who don't regularly write the check, it's about $15-$30 a month) If a local entity can keep the gallons flowing for this amount, why can't they keep a few routers running for the same money?
That is why I feel that the Federal Government should stick to only A) Settling Inter-State disputes, B) Providing for the National Defense of the United States, and C) Handling diplomatic responsibilities for the States.
Is the postal service a legitimate function of the Federal Government?
Slashdot Mirror
Say, for instance, someone intentionally marked two candidates for the same position. There's a generally accepted rule that we don't tell people they're "not allowed to vote that way". Once you start down that path, it's a short trip to "...People who voted for Your Candidate also voted for these other Candidates...
There is much of lawyer speak which makes no sense to the common man. For example, what could we cite as an example of a population which is not civilian?
If that is your point, consider it made.
The link you cite refers to four definitions of "terrorism":
I realize you have a "personal" definition of terrorism which you will bend to fit any particular situation you deem, but clearly an act of terrorism does not require sponsorship by a government, or action against a government, or the use of particular weapons, tactics, or techniques.
The essential element is fear, and if you don't recognise the element of fear at Columbine, I cannot assist.
[emphasis added]
arrest: : SEIZE, CAPTURE; specifically : to take or keep in custody by authority of law.
HTH
I guess you had to be there...
No cop is going to pull you over for doing 50 in a 35 if the other cars on the road are going 60, except perhaps for obstructing the flow of traffic. But that's entirely off-topic...
It is equally applicable no matter which party "loses". Both incidents reduce the confidence that a Free and Fair election has occurred; which opens up the election process to post-ballot manipulation-- out of control of the voters.
There are those who would claim that the Republicans actually did lose last time, then proved-out their strategy of post-ballot manipulation to eventually win the office.
If this did happen, I'd imagine both the Democrats and the Republicans are chomping at the bit to utilize this "newly accepted" campaign strategy to put their candidate into office. After all, the other side would do it in a second if they had the chance.
If a news story broke that the other candidate was falsely alleging voter intimidation by your guy, would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?
If a news story broke that your favorite candidate was falsely alleging voter intimidation by the other guy, would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?
What if the news falsely alleged that some of your guy's supporters (yourself included) would not be allowed vote because the other guy' supporters tore-up voter registration cards supporting your guy? Would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?
What if the news falsely alleged that some of the other guy's supporters would not be allowed vote because your guy' supporters tore-up voter registration cards supporting the other guy? Would that keep you from voting for your favorite candidate? If you weren't previously planning to vote, is there a possibility that such a story might prompt you to vote? Would it make a difference if the allegations were proven to be true?
I suspect he first case results (for most people) in either a total gain of votes cast, or a neutral impact with people who wouldn't have voted anyway possibly choosing to still not vote. I suspect only a very few people would be so morally outraged by these allegation (true or false) against their guy that they would choose not to vote when they otherwise would have.
In the second case, there is a possibility that some people (the ones disenfranchised in the "true" case) which would otherwise have voted find themselves unable to do so; a net loss of voters.
If our goal is to encourage every voter to vote his/her concious, then the first case is a possible positive and the second a certain negative. If, on the other hand, our goal is to ensure our candidate wins even at the expense of voter intent, then the first case (true or false) offers us no tactatical advantage, while the second offers us a clear and certain tactical advantage, so long as it is the other guy's supporters disenfranchised, and only if the allegations are true.
Someone once said all the answers of the world can be found in Game Theory. I don't know if that's true, but the harder I look, the more I believe.
Not a troll, and not trying to be a smart-alek, but I'd have to argue with your reasoning, or at least your reasons.
If you are planning an exploit, one goal is to seek a level of impact which is as minimal as possible. A virus which kills its host immediately will have little chance to propagate, whereas one which infects, but does not disable its host is much more likely to spread.
The health damage caused by cigarettes (cumulative) is much greater than the damage caused by more powerful drugs not because cigarettes are more harmful, but because they are so much less harmful than hard drugs we have had little motivation to outlaw them.
If we are to object to the legalization of "hard" drugs, therefore, we should object not on the basis of the harm it does to those who use, but rather on the basis of the harm it does to those who do not use and yet are affected.
Once we've made that leap, it becomes easy to see how both the "hard" (currently illegal) drugs and the "soft" drugs (like alcohol and tobacco) are harmful, not necessarily to those who use, but to those who do not.
This, then, is the reason why people who do not use drugs are (generally) in favor of outlawing their use by those who do, and why (once there is a significant population of users) some drugs are considered to be okay even though the harm they cause to a society might be tremendous.
In this sense, I'd argue that some drugs which you might not classify as "worse than alcohol" might actually be just that.
So, this election may be postponed on account of rain?
Bush/Chainey in 04! Four More Wars! ;-)
In a way, I'm heartened to know this isn't an organized conspiracy, just your everyday "people acting like spoiled children.".
No difference, provided the stations are willing to run 90 minutes of anything George Sorros wants to fund, at the same rate Sinclair is willing to pay. Which wouldn't be much, unless they're willing to violate capmaign contribution spending caps. Which is why Sinclair wants this classified as "news" rather than "advertisment".
We don't have a perfect system. I'm not convinced we can make it better, however, by turning things into a lawless free-for-all.
Completely off topic, here, but I've noticed again this election cycle in this traditionally Red state, that someone is vandalizing and tearing-down Democratic (generally) and Kerry-Edwards (specifically) yard signs. Either the Republicans are scared, or my worst fears about the kind of people that party represents are coming true.
I suppose, in a "They did it, why can't we?" world, I should be responding in kind, but that's not the kind of world I want my kids to grow up in. May they forgive me if I'm wrong.
The court would have to rule, first, that the Licensee were "granting" time to one camp. If the Licensee claimed they were granting time to Kerry's camp, then Kerry could choose to pull Stolen Honor and replace it with something else. So the Licensee would claim that the time were being granted to the Bush camp. That would still leave the Kerry camp in control of the "equal time" (technically, "...equivalent forum...") for their own purposes.
Sinclair would have a difficult time claiming that "a chance to respond" represents an equivalent forum. Imagine the reverse situation: a station chooses to play 3 hours of F9/11 plus commentary from 9PM to Midnight, then "allows" Bush to stand in front of a camera for 3 hours from midnight to 3:00am to respond. Clearly unfair.
If Sinclair could get the Court to declare this as "unbiased news", then they would be exempt from the equal time requirements.
It's not clear, from what I know, if the FCC License is owned by Sinclair, or the stations themselves. I suspect it belongs to the stations. If a station were contractually obligated to play Sinclair's content, they would also likely be contractually obligated (to keep their license) to offer equal time. Sinclair may be putting it's stations into a rather unfavorable financial position, by requiring them to offer 90 minutes of airtime (commercial free) to the Kerry campaign.
I suspect Moore is working on a 90 minute "directors cut" of F9/11 even as we speak.
Both what cases?
Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? I said no such thing.
It's always about you, isn't it?
When you talk about pulling the nation in your direction, does that include only advocacy, or does that extend to deriding the other side as well? The video, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal could hardly be described as Bush Advocacy. (If it were, it would clearly be illegal.) I have no quarrel with anyone attempting to make things better for all of us, even if I might think their strategy for accomplishing it is bankrupt. But trying to build a strong nation on the basis of "I must be right because I'm better at breaking your toys than you are at breaking my toys" is madness. It's what many people (perhaps yourself included) would deem to be acts of terrorism.
But Sinclair does not own the public airwaves; Sinclair ownes a license to use them. Their license specifically denies them "...the right to air anything on those stations they please."
They (and other broadcasters) were denied this right because (in the opinion of the FCC) the airwaves are a scarce resource.
And because opinions differ, this nation of laws chooses to create laws governing how the airwaves are used. We've created a system (as best we could) where the airwaves define a fair-playing-field. If any broadcaster you would cite as pro-one-candidate-or-the-other violates those laws, then you have a legitimate legal complaint.
So this is all about sour grapes? I do hope you don't throw-away your precious Democracy over a handful of sour grapes.
Be careful what you wish for. You might believe yourself to be among the "most powerful" today, and feel that a legitimate reason why your side should rule over the "less powerful". Be assured that those above you in the power chain will have you in their sights just as soon as they finish conquering the rest of us. Democracy was created to ensure that "the powerful" did not get a greater voice than the less powerful.
And to whatever extent it "bends" at all, it bends away from the center, away from the interest of the majority of the people, away from a world tolerable for all. Is that really the kind of world you want to leave as a legacy; as an inheritance for your children? Are you so sure they will share your views about power? Do you share your parent's views?
Sinclair is claiming (or is purported to want to claim) that this is "news", and therefore exempt from the "equal time" legislation.
If the courts rule that they have to offer equal time to Kerry supporters, I'll bet they back off.
That's not hypocritical. It's called bullying.
Let's call a spade a spade.
Without regard to your political leanings, I suspect you will live to regret saying that.
What this really does is set a precedent opening the door to outright political warfare over the public airwaves. You can be certain if this goes forward, that some politically-motivated group will respond with an anti-Bush message much worse than anything even Moore would be accused of stooping to. (And remember, if it air's after the Kerry attack, there will be even less time for the forces-of-truth to pick apart the lies.) It may not happed this election cycle, but once the tactic is considered allowable, you can write-off any hope of getting fair and balanced coverage of the issues from any aspect of the public media. The prize will be just too big to ignore.
We mustn't be led into the trap of saying "it's okay for <one candidate> to get away with ruining our country, because <the other guy> got away with it; down that road lies only madness and ruin.
Cool! You mean some media conglomerate has ordered its affiliates to run Fahrenheit 9/11 a week before the election? When is it on?
To clarify: Moore has said he'd like to have F-9/11 available for release before the election, perhaps on Pay-Per-View, but that's not the same as Sinclair ordering affiliates to run a program. No one is going to make me buy any of Moore's films, or pay to allow others to watch it, but the airwaves belong to all of us. When a television station applies for a license to broadcast, they are also applying for a license to keep everyone else from broadcasting on those channels. We grant them that right based on the promise that they will use that grant in a manner supporting public interests.
If they want to run it as a political ad, then run it under the political ad rules, meaning all candidates get equal time.
If they want to run it as news, they're just trying to game the system.
Some things are an "obvious good" (defecit spending) but not for everybody. Others are good for everybody (rainforest preservation) but not obvious.
There's a delicate balance here. A nationally standard sales tax might be too high for people in one state and too low for people in another; so this kind of an idea would be bad to implement at a federal level. If implemented at the state level, people could choose a sales tax level appropriate for their means and needs. Those who didn't like it (either because it taxes them too much for the benefit they receive, or because it taxes them too little for the benefits they desire) could move. It would then become a federal responsibility to ensure that people who wanted to move between states be guaranteed that right.
Metcalf's Law tells us that the value of a network you are connected to increases when I also connect. And it doesn't matter if I am connecting from next-door or the middle of Wyoming. Nor does it matter if the network we are connecting to is built with packets, asphalt, or postage stamps.
That's why ensuring the Internet reaches everyone is a Federal concern, why the network of packets thus constructed should not be owned (controlled) by private interests, and why there is fairness in the distribution of the benefits even if the monies seem to be flowing in only one direction.
I'm thinking when you say "Internet" you're thinking web pages, email, and things like that. Clearly we have different views of the Internet.
How about "Internet" as in "keep the parents in touch with the teachers, their children. Let the parents see their kids homework assignments. Let the parents ask the teachers (or other parents) for help if they don't understand how to do it themselves."
How about "Internet" as in "lifelong distance learning. Let teachers access other teachers and share experiences, project ideas, teaching techniques. Let teachers ask University Professors to answers a question they can't answer themselves. Let the parents acces this learning."
How about "Internet" as in "sharing a pool of teachers among a set of dispersed classrooms, so that the kid who needs individualized help always gets it.
The one thing the Internet has always been good at is building communities. Our schools have damned little of that recently.
The Founders understood the benefit to be derived from the free flow of information and commerce. They (apparently) also understood that if the States were allowed to "set the rules" of either communications or traffic, a serious harm would result.
I think the same reasoning is applicable to the Telephone system as well.
As for the Internet, we are clearly way off track.
Indeed. I should have chosen my words more carefully.
What I meant to say was that there are some projects which only show benefit (or are clearly more benewfit-effective) when applied to a national population; applying the same program at a statewode-level only may not be cost effective. For these such programs, it makes sense to have Federal involvement.
One of those "...of the People, by the People, for the People..." things.
The reason the Federal government is involved here is because the Federal Government benefits when the population of the entire country is better educated.
If we poshed this responsibility down to the local level, we'd wind up with (even more of) a two-tiered system where anyone living in big cities, where broadband is readily available, would pay next-to-nothing for great access and people living in rural communities, where broadband is still non-existant, would be paying thousands each to fund access for their school.
FCC policy we have today is leading us to an Information Superhighway of privately owned toll roads. There are still many people in the US who have only dial-up access to the Internet, only one telecommunications provider to choose from, and no "market opportunity" to effect a change. If we had followed these same policies in deploying the telephone, most of the country would still be relying on the post office for their "telecommunication" needs.
In my mind, this policy action on behalf of the FCC is just another in a long string of policies designer to ensure that a publically owned internet infrastructure is not allowed to come into existance, in favor of saving that infrastructure for divving-up amount the incumbent, politically powerful, telecommunications carriers and media companies.
Here's an interesting question to homeowners? Would you be interested in fiber-to-the-curb provided and administered by your local government (city or county government) if the per-month cost for that service was on par with what you currently pay for city/county water? (For those who don't regularly write the check, it's about $15-$30 a month) If a local entity can keep the gallons flowing for this amount, why can't they keep a few routers running for the same money?
Is the postal service a legitimate function of the Federal Government?