I could be way off but I believe net neutrality did go through recently. That said, it wasn't in place at the time, and since it isn't legalizing criminal invasions of privacy this means it isn't retroactive.
It wouldn't affect this anyway, because the "net neutrality" you're referring to is not a law (passed by congress) - it is another set of policy rules issued by the FCC. If the judges rule in favor of Comcast in this case, it could serve as precedent to throw out the entire rule. If they can't point to a statute that points to their actions against Comcast, they won't be able to point to a statute giving them the authority to issue those rules, either.
Such a subpoena would be illegal prior restraint on free speech.
Unfortunately the provisions in the Patriot Act that allow exactly those kinds of subpoenas are still in full effect, since no judge has yet had the opportunity to declare them unconstitutional.
Actually, there may be some cases still pending that could invalidate them, but because of the gag orders no one will ever know about them.
What then, if he was disciplined 19.5 years ago, thus having "paid his debt to society"?
So he can live his life - but he can't be trusted with things that he has proven he can't be trusted with.
We pretty much do this with everybody else (that is, outside of politicians and political appointees). If you kill someone with a gun (maybe during an emotional confrontation and a lapse of judgment), you can serve your time, and then be released into society. You've paid your debt and should be given another chance. However, we still don't let you own a gun again, because you have proven you can't be trusted with it.
I disagree--he demonstrated a willingness to misuse a public trust for personal gain that I doubt the passage of time has magically cured so much as made him better at covering his tracks.
He's been divorced from his wife for at least 20 years now, so it's safe to assume that he's over it.
Further, his current job has him in a position of trust with access to intelligence resources.
In that light, "He might do it again" isn't much of an argument.
Neither is your argument for excusing it. If he had killed his wife in a moment of passion, you could claim that he isn't likely to kill again, since he already solved his problem, so there is no public safety reason to put him in jail.
While reading your reply the term "parinoid lunatic" came to mind.
Thank you for demonstrating how the AGW alarmists typically respond to critics.
What's even more troubling than dismissing any opposition as lunatics or in league with the enemy (typically oil and coal moguls), is the efforts to manipulate the facts and re-write history to suit their agenda.
Well, there are laws against stealing data from computer systems.
There have been a lot of people claiming they were stolen, so maybe she assumed that was the case. But emails are stolen all the time - often revealing information that Boxer is all too willing to use (without comment on how it was obtained), so long as it supports her agenda. But all of a sudden now she's concerned about unauthorized access to some other country's computers.
And if you appreciate science, I found an interesting analysis from an expert (get it - he's an expert, so you can't question it without *years* of advanced study) which basically proves that it had to be an inside job.
And back then, Republicans were "liberal." At least by modern definitions of the word. So I don't really find it ironic. Parties change sides all the time. Now if Reid were an actual politician from those days then, yes, it would be ironic.
Also ironic because Reid is still a racist, as is clear if you do a little bit of research .
Technically, since Harry Reid DID say precisely thatafter Grayson entered Congress, your statement is true.
To wit:
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"
That's really an ironic thing for Reid to do, seeing as it was the Democrats that were opposing the end of slavery. It's like 1984 and he's trying to rewrite history.
Healthcare needs massive government intervention. Way beyond what either party is proposing. In theory a free market would remove these types of inefficiencies, but healthcare is the least free market I can think of. It's heavily regulated.
How does this make sense? You're right that heavy regulation and excessive government intervention has all but eliminated free market pressures from keeping prices in check. But how, then, do you come to the conclusion that the solution is... more government intervention?
Because local politicians will be less corrupt? Seriously? No more accountable or responsive in my experience so far. Hope you've had better luck. The less central government just lets corporations and the wealthy elite abuse people more--it's completely illogical to to strip power from the a check on wealthy and powerful. We need to outlaw direct campaign contributions or at least reform that greatly. Ideally, we could create some sort of motive for saving the people money and bringing measurable results.
What are you talking about? All the feds do is take my money and use it to help corporations exploit me. How are they a check on the wealthy and powerful? They don't even listen. They turn off the fax and phone and I can't even get through to a staffer. At least I can go to the local Board meeting and they will hear everything I say. You know how many letters it takes to influence a state legislator? 5. Yep. Try that with a tyrant in DC "representing" 700,000 to 1 million people.
You know what campaign finance reform laws have done so far? They given the 2-party duopoly an easy way to bludgeon any little political movement that tries to challenge them. The regulations are so exacting and detailed you need a full time staff just to comply with them all. It's impossible to get the reports in on time because it takes week to send a package big enough for the reports to a building in Washington - so if you can't afford to submit electronically you're screwed.
Which is the way it is with every armed federal bureaucracy that doesn't like the way you look. They'll run roughshod over anybody and don't care who they trample that gets in the way.
I suspect you're an idealist with absolutely no experience in politics - so you assume that corps are evil because you got mad at some company's phone tree when you wanted help. Are you still doing business with them? You don't have to. Try that with the IRS. There is no greater evil than a federal bureaucracy, and your "representative" will never hear your complaints.
No, by "government intervention" I mean thoughtless policies that encouraged reckless behavior and promising government backing and reward for failures. There was nothing sane about the storm of regulations. Unintended consequences? Maybe. But you can't blame people for acting in ways encouraged by government direction.
Meh, I understand the desire for small government... the less they do the less they'll f*(k things up. But as a purveyor of several fine national parks and other conservation efforts, environmental policy is one of the few things I can get behind without reservation.
As far as Gore goes, yes, conflicts of interests, maybe, but somehow I fail to see the evil in trying to get a firm that makes accounting software and a "carbon karma" bank that plants trees off the ground.
Well the point is that it is obvious Gore has a (major) vested interest in seeing that CO2 regulations are implemented in a specific way, whether he believes the AGW alarmism or not. And as he has recently been caught lying and misrepresenting certain findings (in the recent Copenhagen speech), it leaves him as just another opportunist with an agenda - just as motivated by greed as the oil company execs that are targeted as the enemy.
I am a long-time proponent of strong environmental policy on most issues. I have worked hard in the past for better protections for the Chesapeake Bay, one of my favorite places. It breaks my heart to see the damage done there. But this AGW panic has focused everyone on CO2 (not a real pollutant), ignoring some of the hazardous things we know are causing damage, and have shown proven results when steps are taken to reduce damage. So we vilify the oil companies and the electric companies (even with all the massive improvements they have made scrubbing the SO2 and other toxins - though that could go farther) - but the big AG companies keep pushing poisons and excessive phosphorous and GM seeds with total impunity.
I think it's stunningly short-sighted to assume that only oil company executives and their shills are opposed to a global tyrannical government.
I thought it was common knowledge that Al Gore is poised to make billions if something like cap-and-tax gets implemented - especially if it's an enforceable international treaty. He's a major owner in a British LLC doing a lot of investing in the kind of green tech that needs major subsidy, and in companies like Hara that will either make it big under cap-and-trade or fail because there's no market. He claims to give certain moneys to charities - but the charity 501-c(3) that he and his wife fully control, and he buys carbon offsets for his lavish lifestyle, but he buys them from a company that he owns.
Yeah the bankers choosing the wrong algorithms to calculate risk on derivatives, a speculative real estate bubble, and no background check loans for houses had nothing to do with the crash right Curunir wolf?
All activities encouraged by government regulations, and backed up by risk mitigation such as Freddie, Fannie, and the Greenspan put
Note these actions were all chosen freely by market actors with no government coercion involved whatsoever.
Not true. At all.
I'm sure you understand how the CRA encouraged high-risk mortgage lending. Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. With that to back them up, and no consequences for brokering loans that couldn't be paid back, it's no wonder too many bad loans were made.
Add to that regulations that allowed banks greater leverage for government-backed loans. You understand fractional reserve banking, right? Well the government passed regulations that allowed banks to maintain less reserves for having significant amounts of their reserves in the form of government-backed mortgage loans. Add to this the Fed maintaining artificially low interest rates, the knowledge that any failure will be met with bailouts, and you have a perfect storm of government regulation encouraging house-of-cards behavior.
Even the Libertarians big hero Alan Greenspan admitted there was a "flaw," after the crash, look it up if you don't believe me.
Really? Greenspan is the hero of the Libertarians? News to me. I've never liked that party, though.
The problem with conservative Libertarians is you guys are all about responsibility until *you guys* fuck up, and then guess what, it's the "gubmints" fault. How about banksters and real estate agents looking in the mirror and manning up about a serious screw up? Too bad tax payers were left holding the bag on that one,
Wait - first, as mentioned, I'm not a Libertarian. Plus, all those banksters were just doing what they were encouraged and sometimes required to do by regulation. Not sure what real estate agents had to do with it? How did they screw up? Their job is to sell houses.
And who called for the bailout? You! Why? Why not let those that cause the problem fall on their face? Why are they being propped up? Oh - government has to step in to interfere more. You may find that in the long run this "cure" is going to be worse than the much-hyped "disease" that the politicians kept telling everyone is sure to come.
I read for 1.4 trillion we could have paid off *all* Americans sub prime mortgages thus preventing Americans from being foreclosed *and* bailing out the banksters sketchy derivatives.
So why didn't that happen? Why did it all go to Bears Stearns (and the other institutions that owed Bears Stearns money)?
Of course that makes too much sense because it benefits everyone as opposed to a chosen few rich people, right?
I think it's actually more insidious than that. But keep on trusting what the politicians are telling you if it makes you feel better. I think it actually makes a lot of sense when you think about who they are working for (hint: a few rich people).
And note I actually cheer on Ron Paul and Libertarians when they challenge empire abroad, and police state at home and challenge why a private bank the Federal Reserve mints our money, that is all good stuff. Too bad your faith in the 100% rationality of market actors is so misplaced. Hint greed distorts peoples ability to choose rationally during bubbles which occur often, look up "irrational exuberance."
Well... by you. Either by your union dues, your mortgage payment, your gas bill, etc. Or by your tax dollars that pays for the revolving door of lobbyists, staffers, administration appointees and politicians. Corporations know that it's cheaper to buy some politicians (that you have trusted) than it is to compete for market share in a free market.
The only fix for that issue is to allow politicians less power and less control of money, and shift control from Washington to more local authorities. Because politicians are cheap, and they don't work for you.
It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this. They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).
And, as is typical of the ideological zealot, any evidence which may cast doubt on the practicality of their goals is rationalised away. Or just outright denied, and the messengers attacked.
You mean like Barbara Boxer calling for an investigation and prosecution of the people that leaked the CRU emails?
3) will empower a group of people who will be collecting these resources and reducing these liberties for their own benefit (actually, I'll settle for the name this group of people).
Do some research on Maurice Strong and Edward De Rothschild. Also check out the UN's "Agenda 21".
I don't think global warming is that much of a concern compared to all of the other beneficial side effects of CO2 cap-n-trade.
I know, right? Al Gore will make millions, even billions. And Maurice Strong will rule the world and Edward De Rothschild will control all the money. Woohoo! Global despotism FTW!/p
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. MOD PARENT UP!
I could be way off but I believe net neutrality did go through recently. That said, it wasn't in place at the time, and since it isn't legalizing criminal invasions of privacy this means it isn't retroactive.
It wouldn't affect this anyway, because the "net neutrality" you're referring to is not a law (passed by congress) - it is another set of policy rules issued by the FCC. If the judges rule in favor of Comcast in this case, it could serve as precedent to throw out the entire rule. If they can't point to a statute that points to their actions against Comcast, they won't be able to point to a statute giving them the authority to issue those rules, either.
So you build your own laptops?
... Remember a well informed consumer always gets the deal!
Chears!
I think you meant:
Chairs!
wat?
Such a subpoena would be illegal prior restraint on free speech.
Unfortunately the provisions in the Patriot Act that allow exactly those kinds of subpoenas are still in full effect, since no judge has yet had the opportunity to declare them unconstitutional.
Actually, there may be some cases still pending that could invalidate them, but because of the gag orders no one will ever know about them.
Actions have consequences.
What then, if he was disciplined 19.5 years ago, thus having "paid his debt to society"?
So he can live his life - but he can't be trusted with things that he has proven he can't be trusted with.
We pretty much do this with everybody else (that is, outside of politicians and political appointees). If you kill someone with a gun (maybe during an emotional confrontation and a lapse of judgment), you can serve your time, and then be released into society. You've paid your debt and should be given another chance. However, we still don't let you own a gun again, because you have proven you can't be trusted with it.
I disagree--he demonstrated a willingness to misuse a public trust for personal gain that I doubt the passage of time has magically cured so much as made him better at covering his tracks.
He's been divorced from his wife for at least 20 years now, so it's safe to assume that he's over it. Further, his current job has him in a position of trust with access to intelligence resources. In that light, "He might do it again" isn't much of an argument.
Neither is your argument for excusing it. If he had killed his wife in a moment of passion, you could claim that he isn't likely to kill again, since he already solved his problem, so there is no public safety reason to put him in jail.
While reading your reply the term "parinoid lunatic" came to mind.
Thank you for demonstrating how the AGW alarmists typically respond to critics.
What's even more troubling than dismissing any opposition as lunatics or in league with the enemy (typically oil and coal moguls), is the efforts to manipulate the facts and re-write history to suit their agenda.
You can't make this stuff up.
Well, there are laws against stealing data from computer systems.
There have been a lot of people claiming they were stolen, so maybe she assumed that was the case. But emails are stolen all the time - often revealing information that Boxer is all too willing to use (without comment on how it was obtained), so long as it supports her agenda. But all of a sudden now she's concerned about unauthorized access to some other country's computers.
There was a claim of responsibility by the whistle-blower among the files.
The emails were sent to the media before they got out in public.
Plus, there are plenty of suspects.
And if you appreciate science, I found an interesting analysis from an expert (get it - he's an expert, so you can't question it without *years* of advanced study) which basically proves that it had to be an inside job.
And back then, Republicans were "liberal." At least by modern definitions of the word. So I don't really find it ironic. Parties change sides all the time. Now if Reid were an actual politician from those days then, yes, it would be ironic.
Also ironic because Reid is still a racist, as is clear if you do a little bit of research .
Technically, since Harry Reid DID say precisely that after Grayson entered Congress, your statement is true.
To wit:
That's really an ironic thing for Reid to do, seeing as it was the Democrats that were opposing the end of slavery. It's like 1984 and he's trying to rewrite history.
Healthcare needs massive government intervention. Way beyond what either party is proposing. In theory a free market would remove these types of inefficiencies, but healthcare is the least free market I can think of. It's heavily regulated.
How does this make sense? You're right that heavy regulation and excessive government intervention has all but eliminated free market pressures from keeping prices in check. But how, then, do you come to the conclusion that the solution is ... more government intervention?
So claiming that the Republican plan for health reform is "Die quickly" is trying to be "Mr Nice Guy"? Pot, kettle, black and all that.
Because local politicians will be less corrupt? Seriously? No more accountable or responsive in my experience so far. Hope you've had better luck. The less central government just lets corporations and the wealthy elite abuse people more--it's completely illogical to to strip power from the a check on wealthy and powerful. We need to outlaw direct campaign contributions or at least reform that greatly. Ideally, we could create some sort of motive for saving the people money and bringing measurable results.
What are you talking about? All the feds do is take my money and use it to help corporations exploit me. How are they a check on the wealthy and powerful? They don't even listen. They turn off the fax and phone and I can't even get through to a staffer. At least I can go to the local Board meeting and they will hear everything I say. You know how many letters it takes to influence a state legislator? 5. Yep. Try that with a tyrant in DC "representing" 700,000 to 1 million people.
You know what campaign finance reform laws have done so far? They given the 2-party duopoly an easy way to bludgeon any little political movement that tries to challenge them. The regulations are so exacting and detailed you need a full time staff just to comply with them all. It's impossible to get the reports in on time because it takes week to send a package big enough for the reports to a building in Washington - so if you can't afford to submit electronically you're screwed.
Which is the way it is with every armed federal bureaucracy that doesn't like the way you look. They'll run roughshod over anybody and don't care who they trample that gets in the way.
I suspect you're an idealist with absolutely no experience in politics - so you assume that corps are evil because you got mad at some company's phone tree when you wanted help. Are you still doing business with them? You don't have to. Try that with the IRS. There is no greater evil than a federal bureaucracy, and your "representative" will never hear your complaints.
No, by "government intervention" I mean thoughtless policies that encouraged reckless behavior and promising government backing and reward for failures. There was nothing sane about the storm of regulations. Unintended consequences? Maybe. But you can't blame people for acting in ways encouraged by government direction.
Meh, I understand the desire for small government... the less they do the less they'll f*(k things up. But as a purveyor of several fine national parks and other conservation efforts, environmental policy is one of the few things I can get behind without reservation.
As far as Gore goes, yes, conflicts of interests, maybe, but somehow I fail to see the evil in trying to get a firm that makes accounting software and a "carbon karma" bank that plants trees off the ground.
Well the point is that it is obvious Gore has a (major) vested interest in seeing that CO2 regulations are implemented in a specific way, whether he believes the AGW alarmism or not. And as he has recently been caught lying and misrepresenting certain findings (in the recent Copenhagen speech), it leaves him as just another opportunist with an agenda - just as motivated by greed as the oil company execs that are targeted as the enemy.
I am a long-time proponent of strong environmental policy on most issues. I have worked hard in the past for better protections for the Chesapeake Bay, one of my favorite places. It breaks my heart to see the damage done there. But this AGW panic has focused everyone on CO2 (not a real pollutant), ignoring some of the hazardous things we know are causing damage, and have shown proven results when steps are taken to reduce damage. So we vilify the oil companies and the electric companies (even with all the massive improvements they have made scrubbing the SO2 and other toxins - though that could go farther) - but the big AG companies keep pushing poisons and excessive phosphorous and GM seeds with total impunity.
I think it's stunningly short-sighted to assume that only oil company executives and their shills are opposed to a global tyrannical government.
I thought it was common knowledge that Al Gore is poised to make billions if something like cap-and-tax gets implemented - especially if it's an enforceable international treaty. He's a major owner in a British LLC doing a lot of investing in the kind of green tech that needs major subsidy, and in companies like Hara that will either make it big under cap-and-trade or fail because there's no market. He claims to give certain moneys to charities - but the charity 501-c(3) that he and his wife fully control, and he buys carbon offsets for his lavish lifestyle, but he buys them from a company that he owns.
Yeah the bankers choosing the wrong algorithms to calculate risk on derivatives, a speculative real estate bubble, and no background check loans for houses had nothing to do with the crash right Curunir wolf?
All activities encouraged by government regulations, and backed up by risk mitigation such as Freddie, Fannie, and the Greenspan put
Note these actions were all chosen freely by market actors with no government coercion involved whatsoever.
Not true. At all.
I'm sure you understand how the CRA encouraged high-risk mortgage lending. Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. With that to back them up, and no consequences for brokering loans that couldn't be paid back, it's no wonder too many bad loans were made.
Add to that regulations that allowed banks greater leverage for government-backed loans. You understand fractional reserve banking, right? Well the government passed regulations that allowed banks to maintain less reserves for having significant amounts of their reserves in the form of government-backed mortgage loans. Add to this the Fed maintaining artificially low interest rates, the knowledge that any failure will be met with bailouts, and you have a perfect storm of government regulation encouraging house-of-cards behavior.
Even the Libertarians big hero Alan Greenspan admitted there was a "flaw," after the crash, look it up if you don't believe me.
Really? Greenspan is the hero of the Libertarians? News to me. I've never liked that party, though.
The problem with conservative Libertarians is you guys are all about responsibility until *you guys* fuck up, and then guess what, it's the "gubmints" fault. How about banksters and real estate agents looking in the mirror and manning up about a serious screw up? Too bad tax payers were left holding the bag on that one,
Wait - first, as mentioned, I'm not a Libertarian. Plus, all those banksters were just doing what they were encouraged and sometimes required to do by regulation. Not sure what real estate agents had to do with it? How did they screw up? Their job is to sell houses.
And who called for the bailout? You! Why? Why not let those that cause the problem fall on their face? Why are they being propped up? Oh - government has to step in to interfere more. You may find that in the long run this "cure" is going to be worse than the much-hyped "disease" that the politicians kept telling everyone is sure to come.
I read for 1.4 trillion we could have paid off *all* Americans sub prime mortgages thus preventing Americans from being foreclosed *and* bailing out the banksters sketchy derivatives.
So why didn't that happen? Why did it all go to Bears Stearns (and the other institutions that owed Bears Stearns money)?
Of course that makes too much sense because it benefits everyone as opposed to a chosen few rich people, right?
I think it's actually more insidious than that. But keep on trusting what the politicians are telling you if it makes you feel better. I think it actually makes a lot of sense when you think about who they are working for (hint: a few rich people).
And note I actually cheer on Ron Paul and Libertarians when they challenge empire abroad, and police state at home and challenge why a private bank the Federal Reserve mints our money, that is all good stuff. Too bad your faith in the 100% rationality of market actors is so misplaced. Hint greed distorts peoples ability to choose rationally during bubbles which occur often, look up "irrational exuberance."
That's just another Greenspan excuse
those regulation paid for by whom again?
Well... by you. Either by your union dues, your mortgage payment, your gas bill, etc. Or by your tax dollars that pays for the revolving door of lobbyists, staffers, administration appointees and politicians. Corporations know that it's cheaper to buy some politicians (that you have trusted) than it is to compete for market share in a free market.
The only fix for that issue is to allow politicians less power and less control of money, and shift control from Washington to more local authorities. Because politicians are cheap, and they don't work for you.
It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this. They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).
And, as is typical of the ideological zealot, any evidence which may cast doubt on the practicality of their goals is rationalised away. Or just outright denied, and the messengers attacked.
You mean like Barbara Boxer calling for an investigation and prosecution of the people that leaked the CRU emails?
3) will empower a group of people who will be collecting these resources and reducing these liberties for their own benefit (actually, I'll settle for the name this group of people).
Do some research on Maurice Strong and Edward De Rothschild. Also check out the UN's "Agenda 21".
I don't think global warming is that much of a concern compared to all of the other beneficial side effects of CO2 cap-n-trade.
I know, right? Al Gore will make millions, even billions. And Maurice Strong will rule the world and Edward De Rothschild will control all the money. Woohoo! Global despotism FTW! /p
The market crash was caused by government intervention and the policies of the Federal Reserve. Try again.
Corporations != the free market. There was capitalism before we became the corporate state we (the U.S.) are now.
But free market --> Corporations IOW capitalism kills itself. Thanks for admitting that.
You missed a step or two. Free market --> government intervention --> Corporations --> more government intervention --> Fascism.
And another comparison you may want to think about: decentralizing government --> more freedom vs. centralizing government --> tyranny.