Verizon and every other internet provider is in the business of offering bandwidth to their paying customers; what is done with it should be the consumer's choice, within the limits of restrictions passed by Congress, i.e., laws against cyberharassment, predation, etc.
I could make the computer I'm typing on into a server just by adjusting my preferences. For example I could use it in lieu of Photobucket to hold images for a MySpace profile; I'm not a heavy user, so they likely would not be uploaded often and therefore are none of Verizon's business. For a more politically significant example I could be an animal-rights activist wanting to make grusome meat plant photos available to interested persons, regardless of a linking site's own photo hosting guidelines. Again not Verizon's business.
Serving might imply higher bandwidth demand, but that's only true if its serving a popular site. Verizon is fully capable of identifying if a particular user is hogging an excessive amount of bandwidth and dealing with that situation irregardless of the reason. But pre-emptively denying any kind of serving is unnecessary and bad business.
Uploading is basicly just serving initiated by the server, not a client. Different kinds of P2P sharing requires that your computer serve the same files it is downloading and can be highly demanding of bandwidth. If a residential server doesn't exceed a reasonable amount of bandwidth how is it any different?
People should be allowed bandwidth proportional to their rate package and that should be all the provider has to do with it. While you rent it not Verizon's anymore and they shouldn't be allowed to set terms as to what you can do with it. Its Congress' job to handle any limitations on the content transmitted over that bandwidth--you know, those guys who we elected to define legal limits.
Endorse Barack Obama So We Can Move FORWARD
Straight Shooter, your font is very large and bold, but your eagerness to end this highly democratic contest is sad and unfortunate. Democrats need to learn to stand up for the values their name suggests and Clinton is doing just that. When she's done they should all pull together (behind Obama presumably) and take a lesson from how hard she has fought into the general election.
Even though I think Obama might be the slightly better canidate, I completely respect what Clinton is doing. If Al Gore had shown the same fortitude in 2000 we never would have had 8 years of George Bush.
Hopefully Obama will learn a lesson from her courage and indefatigability before it comes time to confront the polling shenanigans we are sure to see on election day. Otherwise McCain is headed for the White House no matter how good a fight the Democrats put on.
A pledge for both Democratic hopefuls
I would really like to hear both Obama and Clinton pledge not to cede the general election to McCain under any circumstances. They must pledge to fight for victory until they win or lose legally, until every doubt has been quelled, every accusation examined, and every count or recount completed. If voting fraud is found serious charges must be brought.
This country has gotten into the habit of taking criminal politicians very lightly and this must change. This country deserves fair and free elections regardless of the expediency of political considerations. We will never know for sure if the last two elections were won fairly because of Gore and Kerry's lack of fortitude.
(Sorry Al, I know you were meant for bigger and better things than the mere Presidency of the United States, but you dealt your supporters a bad deal.)
If we allow the book to be closed on this issue we guarantee ourselves a future of vote stealing on the part of both parties. Even if both elections were legitimate they revealed considerable apathy from Americans on protecting their voting rights which is an invitation for corruption from our politicians.
Please post to this forum and contact your canidate in support of this pledge. Democrats must make it plainly clear that they won't stand for anything suspicious; otherwise they're begging for a suprise general election loss and many reports of voting problems in heavily Democratic districts in key states.
A pledge for the Democratic hopefuls
I would really like to hear both Obama and Clinton pledge not to cede the general election to McCain under any circumstances. They must pledge to fight for victory until they win or lose legally, until every doubt has been quelled, every accusation examined, and every count or recount completed. If voting fraud is found serious charges must be brought.
This country has gotten into the habit of taking criminal politicians very lightly and this must change. This country deserves fair and free elections regardless of the expediency of political considerations. We will never know for sure if the last two elections were won fairly because of Gore and Kerry's lack of fortitude.
(Sorry Al, I know you were meant for bigger and better things than the mere Presidency of the United States, but you dealt your supporters a bad deal.)
If we allow the book to be closed on this issue we guarantee ourselves a future of vote stealing on the part of both parties. Even if both elections were legitimate they revealed considerable apathy from Americans on protecting their voting rights which is an invitation for corruption from our politicians.
Please post to this forum and contact your canidate in support of this pledge. Democrats must make it plainly clear that they won't stand for anything suspicious; otherwise they're begging for a suprise general election loss and many reports of voting problems in heavily Democratic districts in key states.
Why Barack Obama? My Concerns...
Sorry to hit you on this same point, but I too would like to know where these claim universal health care come from.
Fourty years of well documented history show that outright socialist health care has worked well in Cuba, relative to their wealth of course. I know of American doctors who sneak into Cuba to see how they do it.
The only person I know of who has actually studied foreign universal health care is Michael Moore and what he found seemed like it worked pretty well. Now I'm not claiming that he is or isn't a reliable source, but at least he supports his claims somehow.
I've also heard that Canadians supposedly come to America for health care cause their system is so broken. I can tell you this from experience living in Maine, a state sharing hundreds of miles of boarder with Canada, and in Portland, our largest city and health care center, and from working it the state's largest and most highly ranked hospitals: Canadians are driving 300 plus miles to go to Old Orchard Beach on vacation, but they're not coming to use our hospitals.
I would like to see actual evidence in support of these claims against universal health care. That goes for everyone who brings up this point. If there isn't any maybe you should all consider not speaking up against universal health care for no reason. Ignorant or dishonest speech may be constitutional, but that doesn't make it right, especially if its contributing to hurting people.
And if you want your points on Barack Obama to get considered, maybe you shouldn't fluff them up with unsubstantiated claims.
Check your ten commandments, Bold Strike: four out of ten are specifically concerned with fidelity to the christian faith, not good living. The other six commandments are certainly legitimate, but hardly even a beginning at laying out a good and moral path for life. If you want a faith that offers wisdom for life, try buddhism.
Personally I wish we could allow exceptions to a strict seperation of church and state to preserve historical monuments. Another example would be to allow organizations like the boy scouts to use public school property, or even to allow prayer groups or discussion of intelligent design in science classes. Unfortunately organized Christianity has proven again and again that it is determined to impose its own religious edicts on everyone else by legislation or in the case of schools by peer intimidation.
Bold Strike, I presume you're a Christian; maybe if you could persuade Christianity at large to respect others outside your religion, to respect the separation of church and state, to accept American as a secular country, and generally mind your own business in matters of religion, then everyone else could be much more tolerant of occasional monuments and the like.
The law is the law--its not a matter of whether its convenient or not. Not only should Bush-Cheney be impeached, Democrats should apologize for not doing so already. Bush is a criminal and the body empowered to convict him is the Congress. They ought to do their jobs, not pick and choose which part they want to do and which they don't. Besides, there is plenty of time for Bush-Cheney to do vast harm to the U.S., especially because they are outgoing.
An impeachment would be hard. So would weaning America off of oil, repairing a broken legal system, breaking a two-party oligarchy, etc. But these things all need to happen. The attitude that the law or justice can be subordinated to practicallity may be common, but its also despicable. I wish I could be forgiving on this point, but there's hardly any issue more at the root of America's problems. Pragmatism does not mean ignoring justice, it means finding a legitimate and useful way to persue it.
There will be more Bush-Cheneys. The consequences we supposedly avoid every time we "attend to more important matters" is going to be felt eventually. If we don't face the music now, the consquences are going to be felt all at once and it's going to shake America to its foundations. Then a lot of people are suddenly going to start talking about doing the right thing even if it means taking some lumps or bumps. Its just too bad things will have to get really bad before justice for its own sake will regain favor.
Academic Community Just Doesn't Get It
p.s. I know I only addressed your ethical and legal points. I didn't want to address your points regarding students or academics specifically because... well, because your insults, disparaging language, and meaningless jabs at diversity and marxism pretty much made a joke out of that part of your post anyway.
Academic Community Just Doesn't Get It
I am an indie musician and that makes me more reliant on protecting my digital rights than most, as my only source of distribution is the internet. If no one buys my songs on-line and everyone just steals them I am literally out of a future. So why don't I agree with your post?
Today's consumers are acutely aware that the entertainment industry is a greedy mess. Its a losing battle to hold corporations accountable for manslaughter or fraud, let alone legal but dubious business practices given the political preference given them in this country. Yet many, if not most, people hold music to be of huge personal value and many are profoundly resentful of the persistant problems in the music industry, including:
--Poor artist compensation and unethical recruiting practices: most recording contracts pay pennies or even mere points on the dollar and before a musician can make any money they have to pay the label back for recording costs. Labels perpetuate a myth of the rock star life-style and prey upon young, inexperienced musicans, limiting the level of talent they can recruit. Once signed many artists find even a moderately successful single won't earn them enough to pay back the studio for recording. You can sell $100,000 worth of records and still owe the label money. Unless you are hugely successful the corporation makes way more than the musician does.And that's the industry NOW; the industry of most of the 20th century was even more crooked.
-- Unfair royalty distribution: outside radio and album sales all royalties go into a general fund paid out according to radio play. You might be playing your favorite small local artists in your small store, but when BMI comes down on you for royalty payments Elton John is the one getting paid, because he's on the radio--where the corporation put him in the first place, using...
--Exclusive business practices: from payola to the "independant promoter" system large corporations have largely succeeded in preventing individual artists and most independant labels from accessing music outlets. Major retailers are exclusively theirs through corporation distribution networks and agreements. MTV has agreements with all the major record labels only to play music from only major record labels.
--Poor products and business model: if they target very young and indescriminating consumers with mass produced generic pop and an omnipresent media-blitz they don't even need to have any taste or experience in music to make money. However they do have to lock up all commercially viable music to prevent someone else from successfully marketing the music they wouldn't get or that would require a more experienced consumer base and exposing a wider audience to better music, rendering their own products moot.
--The singles system: major labels have built a business on using one or two good singles to sell albums. This promotes singles artists who make poor albums instead of the talent labels need to support their primary product, the album, resulting in frequent disappointment among consumers. If instead they had embraced free internet singles by good artists with good records that don't make you sorry for spending your money, all of this might never have happened and indeed the internet might be promoting albums sales instead of crippling them.
The long-and-short is that the major record labels took their opportunity to gouge people for as much as they could for as long as they could and now people have found the power to resist them. They tried to control the market and people found a way to resist them. They tried to limit our ability to share and people found a way to resist them. They persued bad business and now their market doesn't support them. They profit at the expense of musicians and their market is not sympathetic. Music is far too important to too many people for a small number of executives to control and profiteer from. They might of survived if they had accepted it and learned to cater to their market like successful businesses do. Instead they fought for control and clung to their excessive profits until their consumer base abandoned them, which is what is supposed to happen to badly run businesses.
Even if it means I won't be able to make a living in music I don't blame people for their downloading and even though its illegal it's hardly as unethical as much of what the industry has done. Its also illegal to raid a ship and throw the cargo overboard in protest, but now we exault the Boston Tea Party as heroes of liberty. The same might be said of illegal downloading someday when the corporations have been entirely supplanted by individual musicians who can record and sell independently and based on the merits of their music. Corporate whining about ethics and legality rings very, very hollow indeed.
Should Superdelegates follow the will of voters?
Instead of debating this now, Democrats should address this issue by changing the rules of the Democratic party. But the agreement all Democrats have implicitly agreed to is that the superdelegates can vote however they want. Obama supporters seem eager to insist that the rules be bent to represent their own interests, but in a democratic society you make legitimate changes to improper rules, not just bend them when politically expedient.
Democrats need to pay more attention to how their party is run; individual involvement is the only counter to elitist influence.
All that said I don't think the democratic party's rules on this issue are fair; superdelagates should be eliminated all together. These people should vote in primaries just like the rank-and-file.
Obama Needs to Speak Out On Impeaching Bush/Cheney NOW
Every senator's job is to impeach Bush-Cheney; they are supposed to be a check on the power of the other branches of government and that is the power they have been given to address a loose cannon President. Its not an optional priviledge; its the obligitory duty they swore to when they took office. It's Obama's responsibility just as much as every other senator. But why should he take the politcal heat alone?
The answer is he shouldn't, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't do his job, any more than it means Hillary shouldn't do hers. What it means is that the left in general needs to get out of the politics game and do what is right for its own sake. For a hundred years "conservatives" have proven they will make continuous in-roads towards establishing an oligarchy by playing politics. Political expedience is not only the curse of the country, its also a game the left will continue to lose overall, regardless of regular swings in conservative-liberal electoral success. The only way this country is headed in any direction other than oligarchy or civil war is if lefties start having the nerve to really stand up for what's right. The so-called "right" is never going to.
The deceased in Iraq, especially our own young men and women, deserve justice for the flagrantly criminal acts involved in creating this atrocity. Every liberal who says otherwise is proving themselves just another member of the one ruling party of America, the Republocrats. I'm sorry if my language seems strong, but more people need to start standing up for what's right and not just their own interests if we're going to keep the creeping decline of American righteousness from becoming a free-fall. And in a free, just country public servants act on their obligation to prosecute corrupt politicians.
I'll probebly vote Democrat regardless, but I don't expect Obama will do anything other than Clinton did: make a few minor improvements, a few major mistakes, and then hand the country back to the Republicans. But iIt might help though if his supporters held him to the standard he pretends to represent now, instead of just abandoning him later when they realize they were fooling themselves all along.
REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT RULING
There are no ands, ifs, or buts that indeed the 2nd admendment entitles citizens to individually own weapons, but this is an evasion of the point. There is a requirement for this right being, quote, "well-regulated" according to the 2nd amendment. Simply put:
not only are regulations on the licensing, qualification, and safety requirement of firearms constitutional they are REQUIRED by the Constitution. It states that a well-regulated militia is necessary and that is the reason for individual weapon ownership.
While I do believe this requires participation in a militia, I don't think this is as heavy a burden as many gun owners might fear. "The Militia" could simply be state programs that serve to qualify people to own weapons and weild them responsibly. You qualify for Assault Rifle rank and you can thereafter buy these weapons with no burden more than showing your qualification and your i.d. Honestly I'd support individual weapon ownership of everything from throwing stars to apache helicopters, given that the following requirements are fufilled:
1) Qualification for the safe handling and deliberate discharge of attacks individually 2) Qualification for the deliberate discharge of attacks with others or around bystanders 3) Qualifications for the safe storage of weaponry given the environment they are kept in and danger they pose. 4) Education on the ethics of using force and de-escelation of conflicts 5) Education on respect for the Constitution and the Rights of Others 6) Degree of qualification and education proportional to the power of the weapon qualified for 7) Licensing and regular refreshers required proportional to the power of the weapon qualified for
I certainly think most people should be able to qualify to responsibly own an assault rifle and I think if they didn't they would be failing the requirement for having a militia--we are supposed to have weapons and be well prepared to use them responsibly. Basicly we could just license various gun clubs to provide the necessary qualifications and equipment.
But the totally unregulated ownership the NRA supports is both entirely unconstitutional and irresponsible. Frankly the best information I've seen shows that there is a significantly large portion of gun owners who are a danger to others, mostly their own loved ones, because feel no obligation to behave responsibly and in honor of the constitution.
This constitutes negligent homicide on their parts and on the NRA's for encourging them. Gun ownership is both a privilege and an obligation. How can anyone in good conscience argue otherwise? Those people who shirk that resonsibility should be in where the relatively harmless drug users are in prison.
Is this even an issue domestically?
I understand sex slavery still rears its ugly head in this country from time to time--women being imported from third world countries with promises of work or marriage, then being sold and forced to work as prostitutes. I don't know that this is or isn't a frequent problem, but I was easily able to find several news stories in the U.S. ranging from the Seventies to 2007. I get the impression that in Eastern Europe this may be quite common.
It just goes to show that now matter how far one thinks society has come, vigilance against evil is always necessary.
As for the rest of the world, that raises another topic entirely, that of global interferance or engagement, depending on your pont of view. I won't venture an opinion yet on what we might do about slavery world wide, as I was as suprised to encounter this issue as ffdesmond.
I'm left thinking about the "topical" nature of our society. At large Americans seem to have only passing interest in any issue. Its no suprise then that slavery isn't even on the American public's radar, when more obvious issues such as health care, civil liberties, etc. quickly pass in and out of fasion in American discourse.
Ron Paul as Vice President For Barack Obama
Scribbles says:
"To J.K. Bowman: Yes you are free to organize as a group and negotiate for health care. But health care is a personal choice, nobody has right to force a socialist medical system on the American people. One that puts all the power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, taking it away from doctors and patients. I fully support you if you intend on starting some kind of private medical co-op, or private medical charity, but; Don't tread on me."
The system we have now forces corporate greed on the American people. Theoretically I'd like to agree, but frankly "privatization, deregulation, and market solutions" have long been cover for hand captive markets over to greedy profiteers. Single payer health has its downsides, but at least that bureaucracy would be nominally answerable to the electorate, unlike what we have now which answers to no one but their own profits. It would certainly limit people's personal health care choices less than making them dependant on your income.
I could go on, but this isn't the right forum. Check out the Universal Health Care forum.
gueb says:
"As far as Obama and Hillary, it's a similar circumstance, they are not campaigning for the hearts and minds of the people, but for the bank accounts of the military industrial complex."
I got to say though, that gueb has it all wrong about the military industrial complex. Both Obama and Clinton are merely misguided, but I have never seen more shameless corruption, cronyism, and corporate favoritism than in the upper tiers of the Republican party. Come on Republicans, who do you think you're kidding?
I can never understand why people respond so much to rhetoric over real positions and arguments, but Barack Obama is just the latest proof of this. I've heard Kucinich talk straight, I've heard Ron Paul talk straight, even Nader on occasion, but that's about it. I don't always agree with any of these guys, but at least they don't feed us bull.
I can't understand why anyone who says anything of substance is automatically relegated to the fringe--possibly this is just evidence that the press really is just the "fourth estate" of American ogliarchy, using their influence to diminish canidates who actually see what's going on and therefore threaten the status quo.
Frankly, Obama's popularity is proof that the American public is just as much to blame for the poor condition of our democracy as corrupt politicians and corporations. Most people are apparently content to be patted on the head and told everything will be O.K. so they can go back to watching T.V. with a false sense of accomplishment until the next time the mess we're in catches their attention.
It's especially sad that Democrats are just as vulnerable to this as anyone, despite holding generally humane and civilized positions on most issues. I inevitably vote Democratic over some Republican pursuing a thinly disguised policy of "survival of the most ruthless" and I'm sure Obama will be a big step up from Bush and probebly even a little better than Clinton.
But if anyone thinks this guy is going to do much to halt America's decline into poverty, illness, ignorance, and tyranny, then they're just as much a part of the problem as everyone else. His appeal rests solidly on being too green to have gotten his hands dirty--yet. It sure looks like he was willing to participate in the shady business of power and influence when Tony Rezko was willing to help him get the house he wanted.
Everyone who thinks this guy is a revolutionary is in for the same old disappointment. I can already see the grim look on his face when he gets caught being just another politician. Is it too much to hope for that well intentioned Democrats will learn their lesson this time?
I would say that on Constitutional grounds alone I'm opposed to an assault weapon ban, but I don't believe unregulated firearms possession is required to the degree that it exists in the United States. With all firearms, not just assault weapons.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is the text in the second amendment that states what our rights actually are, and I'm quite certain that says the people can own and fire weapons.
However "the people" is a communal phrase; the right of the people to own and fire weapons individually, rather than as a group, is not protected. This is supported by the the statements regarding the militia.
Its also not specified that people can own any type of weapon at all; hence an Assault Weapon Ban is Constitutional.
However this right was granted in the context of being a check and balance against the possibility of a standing Federal Army, which now is the most powerful and advanced military in the world. On those grounds it seems as though access to advanced weaponry could justifiably be expanded, greatly.
Hower I think the key is in establishing that individuals do not have the right to just carry or keep most weapons at home; instead they have the right to join a state militia. Essentailly that means an orginization like the National Guard serves the Government's obligation to the Second Amendment providing that every one is entitled to enlist, even on an occasional basis, and everyone may own their own weapons thereby.
However in order to more adequately serve the constituants of the United States, the people, the allowance by the government should be more inclusive. We could enac a general prohibition if we then encouraged gun clubs, volunteer militias, and other sorts of public organizations that can see to the responsible disposition of any sort of weapon, allowing members to own weapons.
Here's my idea: ban the insecure storage of most weapons, taking weapons off the street and out of people's homes where they're most dangerous, but expand access to all sorts of weaponry in public venues to more people who can learn safety and skill, not only allowing Americans to have guns, but making guns most available, safer, and more responsibly used, including creating an actual counter-balance against federal military might as was originally intended
The spectre of "government control" is frequently raised as the objection to universal health care. On the surface it does seem alarming, raising images of heartless, impenetrable bureaucracies.
However, you are mistaken when you say your employer controls the cost of health care; its health insurers who control this cost. Our health care is already in the hands of heartless, impenetrable bureaucracies, companies which don't answer to voters, but to stockholders and profits. As for Rudy's line, its just that, a witty line that sounds good and turns attention away from reality. I live in Southern Maine, where Canadians come in great numbers to vacation and even just to shop, but not to use our health care, because their system works just fine. If you want more proof, I'll get my nurse mother to write you a reply.
Ultimately doctors need to be the ones who oversee our health care system; the government's only role should be to manage the fund that pays for it. But Dave is right; the financial incentive needs to be taken away from reactive care.
Only taking insurers out of the equation will reduce our absurd health care costs. Do you have a third way, besides insurers or the government, to fund this, or do you believe that only the wealthy should have health care?
