EnvisionMore

Why Net Neutrality is Good and Why You Should Care

Tabish Talib — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:45:02 +0000

Net Neutrality is a term that pretty much describes the status quo of the internet today. That is to say that the Internet is neutral and there is no restriction on what websites and content the consumer may view. However the ISPs that provide the internet in your home want to change things. They want a tiered internet in which they want to create different levels of the internet in which if you want “premium” content you will have to pay more.

What this could easily lead to is the ISPs putting certain websites and types of content on one tier and other content on the other. Let’s say content which they or their parent companies own. So while the lower tier of one company allows you to stream video from Hulu, you cannot stream videos from Youtube unless you’re paying for the higher tier of internet.

This will create inequality, something that is shared on the web might be available to some people but not to others, this will be vastly different from the internet we use today where one voice is equal to another and not smothered by the companies controlling major assets in the Internet.

Image via CrunchBase

Recently, Google and Verizon announced that they wish to create such a tier, in order to get Google content (which includes Gmail, Youtube and Google Docs) faster to individuals if they are willing to pay for it. This would start to replicate the Cable subscription model, which has risen in costs since the deregulation that has occurred after the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

You should care because the equality that allows all of us to share our ideas with everyone will fade away and only the ideas that a certain ISPs like will allow to perpetrated to the masses. I want to be able to see Youtube videos, read from the New York Times, check my Facebook, and share things with everyone through this blog. I don’t want that to change even if the Big Media Companies whine that there is not enough bandwidth for it. It’s not true! There is enough bandwidth for it, they just want more money for providing content. This is exemplified by the proposal by Google and Verizon. Let’s take a stand for Net Neutrality and against the corporations trying to take this equality away from us!

Conservative think-tanks have stated that forcing Net Neutrality is unconstitutional as it seems to violate the First amendment, and seeing as how the Supreme Court stated that use of money falls under free speech (Citizens United v. FEC) the equality of the internet could be in jeopardy in the near future.

The FCC has not taken a staunch position for Net Neutrality and with pressures from large media conglomerates it could fall over quite easily and allow Net Neutrality to diminish and endanger our liberty to express ourselves on an equal playing field. Let’s not allow another bill to pass similar to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, what a blunder that is been for the United States.

Podcast of August 9th

Mike Jaskot — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:47:07 +0000

Michael Jaskot hosts Alex Fitzsimmons, Tabish Talib and Jin Woo Chung to discuss election predictions, the tea party, the Bush tax-cuts and the effects of trickle down economics. They discuss the Wiki-leaks story, yell about Elena Kagan and finish it all up with the Girls (yes, plural) We’d Like to EnvisionMore of (hint: they’re from Jersey)!

Where has the discourse gone?

Tabish Talib — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 01:42:16 +0000

This is not a rant, this is a quiet resignation of the fact that the “survival of the fittest” mentality that has perpetuated every fiber of our being, in which the discourse between differing opinions doesn’t occur and only the want to drive your opposition into the ground motivates you. I know that this has occurred in politics for centuries, maybe even millennia. However, I always thought that there would always be a place where Socratic ignorance was dutifully practiced, and not transgress into the ignorance of Socrates’ interlocutors.

: Image via Wikipedia

Unfortunately, all we have now is Fox News, and MSNBC pandering to the left and right respectively. The blogs have followed suit. You either read The Drudge Report, or the Huffington Post, never both. And it’s not if had you read both consistently you would get a the whole picture. Adding parts from the either ends of the spectrum doesn’t make picture whole. Rather it creates a sad picture indeed, a picture in which news reporting ceases to exist but fosters news creating. Creating stories where there isn’t one.

Isn’t that why we had talk of death panels with the health bill? Isn’t that why the Sherri Sherod story took off? Whatever happened to journalistic integrity? Where are the Edward Murrows and Walter Cronkites of this generation?

I don’t wish for all news organizations to become nodes of objectivity. What I wish for is something close to Pirsig’s Quality. I want news to be news, reported and reacted to, not to be incited with emotion and used to blame political opposition at every occasion.

If I have to rely on satirical news shows and obscure blogs for intellectual discourse on the problems our society has to face in the future, I find the future very bleak. However, hopefully… hopefully we (laymen) realize that news organizations when chasing after ratings will always try to create conflict and never properly report the news and that we (in the news business) realize that true discourse and Quality will move this nation forward. Let’s take two steps forward without taking a step back.

American History MMX

Mike Jaskot — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:56:18 +0000

It all began with the Tea Party. Left-wing pundits threw around the race card quicker than Stephen Strasburg could fire a 100 mph fastball across the plate. Allegations of institutional racism among the tea-party participants soared through the airways dominated by the ‘progressive’ media. But is it true? Are these grassroots campaigners fueled by a deep-seated hatred for minorities?

The answer is an obvious no. First, the tea-party movement is not as uniform as one may think. Certainly, some groups do communicate with one another and plan gatherings, but there is no single national movement, and most importantly to this debate, no Tea Party political party. So the claim that thousands, if not millions, of Americans are uniting to create a neo-nazi inspired crusade against black America is absurd and insulting.

I will concede however, that some Americans do possess racist beliefs. Whether it is a poster here, or a fiery town hall meeting there, racism is present in our society. We must remember these people are the fringe. So far right, or so far left that they hold no allegiances to political parties. With them, we have little to worry about. They will marginalize themselves and expose everything that is wrong with discrimination.

But there may be more to the racism debate in America. Does anyone remember the 2008 presidentia

: Image by jmtimages via Flickr

l election? Yes. Does anyone remember the voter intimidation exercised by the New Black Panthers? No. Here’s why. If that story broke two years ago, the liberal movement would have suffered a serious blowback. Organizations like

these, focused on hate and bigotry are the disease rotting away at America. We must do everything we can to push these radicals away from the mainstream and into a region where the public will immediately disregard their actions.

So in the long run, I do not expect to see race wars across the United States. After all, we recently elected our first African American president. As Americans we must remember to retain a bit of skepticism with everything we hear in an effort to prevent misinformation, one of the many reasons for discrimination and wrongdoing. As we expose these radicals it will become more evident to the American people that prejudice is not welcome in a democracy and every effort to isolate it will be encouraged.

Podcast of May 25th

Alex Fitzsimmons — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:41:22 +0000

Alex Fitzsimmons hosts Michael Jaskot, Dan Downs and Tabish Talib to discuss the latest news stories.

World Cup Predictions Podcast

Tabish Talib — Tue, 25 May 2010 17:39:38 +0000

Michael Jaskot hosts Greg Traina to discuss their predictions for the Football World Cup being held in South Africa.

Mike and Greg discuss who they think will qualify out of the first round, and then go through their brackets. Listen and find out if you agree with their predictions or think they are foolish. Comment below with your own predictions and upsets.

The Homogenized and Vacuous Court

Jin Woo — Thu, 13 May 2010 13:54:37 +0000

The upcoming battle over the Supreme Court will be something to see on the idiot box since school’s just about ended for me. But as awful as the confirmations hearings were over current Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, I predict that the one over Elena Kagan maybe even worse. The reason being that these hearings illustrate how vacuous and homogenized our Supreme Court may become.

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m all in favor of confirming well-accomplished and superbly educated individuals to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States). And I’m sure Obama’s hand picked candidates are hard working men and women, in this case all women, whose lives showcase the upward mobility possible only in America. The problem though is that all of that simply isn’t enough. As David Brooks of the NY Times points out, the recent Supreme Court nominees under Obama lack much when it comes to being a member of the highest court in the land. He says the biggest issue is the simple fact that both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are ultimately products of professional American meritocracy, a system where only those who are overly cautious about not stepping on anyone’s toes succeed; one where only the submissive, crowd pleasing, and non-risk-taking rise to the top. Elena Kagan perfectly fits this description; her collegues report her as being very cautious, especially in her dealings with other individuals, and she really is not known for any remarkable or unique intellectual positions she has held in regards to the law and politics.

So the problem is that I fear more and more Supreme Court nominees in the future will be like Kagan or worse. Sure they got the credentials, such as an Ivy League education and elite positions within the government and academia, but do they have the right personality and set of experiences that can lead the nation to having a dynamic and truly effective Supreme Court? This I heavily doubt.

Lifestyle: Small Business in New York City, Part I

Daniel Downs — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:01:13 +0000

While the prestige and glamor surrounding Wall Street and New York’s financial district presents to the world at large the image of a city dominated by multinational corporations and other gargantuan businesses, it is small business that is truly the beating heart of the city itself. With media focus drawn to Downtown Manhattan’s Financial District, it’s easy to forget that Midtown Manhattan is above and beyond the largest commercial center in the United States. Midtown, while home to such tourist attractions as Times Square and the high-end shops on Fifth Avenue, also houses more small businesses than any other place in the United States.

Continuing our Lifestyle series, Envision More looks at small businesses in and around the New York City area, chronicling the work done by both raggedy upstarts and long-established family businesses. It is these outfits that compose the backbone of America’s service economy and, consequently, they drive the American economy as a whole.

DayTraderJobs.com Inc. currently is run out of an office in Manhattan. Founded by Ara Mehetarian, a veteran of the financial services industry, the business itself exists solely on the web (daytraderjobs.com) as a platform to serve businesses in finance. Designed and operated to be purposefully niche, DayTraderJobs.com focuses solely on providing services to the core of the financial trading industry.

“Easy to use interface, quick information, and low intervention from the
service provider,” explains Ara Mehetarian, founder of Day Trader Jobs Incorporated, “After years of working as a Quality Assurance Manager for software development in the financial services industry, I learned how the business works, what the people need from a technical perspective. [With DayTraderJobs.com] we created for the recruiter and the prospective jobseeker an interface that allows them to complete their business with ease.”

Mehetarian, after years in the financial sector, was inspired to start the business after he noticed that many large companies had trouble with recruitment. “[Throughout the course of my work], I became involved in recruiting business developers in the insurance and mortgage industry. Here I became acquainted with the needs of recruiters in the financial sector,” explains Mehetarian. DayTraderJobs.com, a brain-child fostered after years of dealing with improper and inefficient recruitment techniques, was created to streamline the process of recruitment within the financial sector.

Running small business in New York City has brought its own set of challenges, as well as unique opportunities. “Like with all dot-coms the biggest hurdle is reach, and providing real results,” says Mehetarian. More optimistically, he notes that, “operating from the center of the world, connections are consolidated through sound and transparent business dealings. New York City amplifies the results necessary for expanding our business and helps us to reach those who will greatly benefit from our service.”

Envision More also sat down with Daniel Dabek, one of the few employees Mehetarian has hired to help run the fledgling operation. “I am a full-time proprietary trader and also a full-time business development manager through DayTraderJobs.com Incorporated. I basically incubate ideas and make them a reality,” Dabek explains. He further notes, “for me, as a day trader, DayTraderJobs.com resonated with necessity; a hub where the world can connect to day trading. I just had to become a part of it.” Dabek, a full-time day trader, was intrigued by the idea of such an integrated job-application system and noted that, like Mehetarian, the industry needed a better process for the recruitment of new individuals.

Both men, having long and successful careers behind them working for other individuals, have jumped feet-first into this new endeavor, exhibiting extraordinary optimism for the work they are doing now. Regarding the near future of the company, Mehetarian states that “[Within five years], there is no doubt that DayTraderJobs.com will be a standard in this industry. No hedge fund, proprietary trading company, or financial services firm will find their candidates through any other recruiting service.”

The Pence-Hensarling Spending Limit Amendment

Alex Fitzsimmons — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:53:19 +0000

As Democrats scramble to cobble together a governing majority and Republicans jockey among themselves for the conservative mantle, a serious public policy issue slides into obscurity.

America’s debt and deficit are mounting, ever so steadily, and most politicians in Washington don’t seem to care. In fact, it is in their best interest not to care, as pork-barrel spending and special interest handouts have long been the lifeblood of many political careers.

But at least two members of Congress are prepared to go against self-interest and atone for their colleagues’ reckless ways. Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) are poised to introduce the Spending Limit Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would limit annual federal spending to one-fifth of national economic output.

In an editorial appearing on the Daily Caller, Pence charts the rapid growth of government in recent years and spells out his plan to fix it.

“After a decade of runaway federal spending, the appetite in Washington to spend without regard to the taxpayer is still strong,” writes Pence. “Lawmakers from both political parties have broken their promises for fiscal responsibility and therefore have broken all historical records for deficits and debt. Our children will soon pay the price.”

Pence says setting the one-fifth standard would reflect historical precedent since World War II, allowing the federal government to provide vital goods and services while forcing politicians to spend within their means. As a safeguard, the limit could be exceeded by a declaration of war or by a supermajority in Congress.

Tying the practical with the philosophical, Pence writes, “The burden of proof falls on those who believe the government deserves more than $1 out of every $5 of an economy built on the strength and sacrifice of American workers and businesses.”

He continues: “No doubt, some will try to make such an argument. Many in power believe government spending is the only sure foundation for economic growth. The philosophy of John Maynard Keynes is alive and well in Washington. But it’s clear that government spending is not ‘picking up the slack,’ it is holding back any economic recovery we hope to achieve.”

Pence also expounds on the national security implications, arguing that China is exerting considerable leverage over the United States because it owns almost $800 billion in our debt.

“We should never be forced to sacrifice our moral responsibilities out of economic necessity,” he writes.

While the Pence-Hensarling amendment would undoubtedly curtail federal spending and help stave off an impending fiscal disaster, its short-term political prospects, to put it lightly, are less than probable. However, if Republicans take back the House, as Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report predicts, and close the gap in the Senate, the amendment would put Obama in an awkward rhetorical position. On the one hand, the president supports a limited freeze on federal spending. On the other hand, most Democrats, particularly the progressive elements in the party, could never sign on to such an amendment as it directly conflicts with their Keynesian worldview.

Republicans, even with a House majority, would need Obama to sign on to the amendment for it to have a chance. But even if the president invested his political capital in it, the amendment would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the country’s state legislatures. This task, while daunting, could be made easier after the 2010 elections if Republicans hold firm in Red states and capitalize on the anti-incumbent mood in key states.

If nothing else, Pence-Hensarling will elevate an oft-ignored policy issue to political relevancy and compel reckless politicians in both parties to reconcile their records with their rhetoric.

UPDATE: On the Pentagon shooter: take a collective breath

Alex Fitzsimmons — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:20:55 +0000

WASHINGTON–Twice a week I take the Blue line train toward Franconia-Springfield and ride through the Pentagon Metro station near Pentagon City, VA to get to work. Yesterday, a disturbed man named J. Patrick Bedell approached the main entrance to the Pentagon, located just outside the Pentagon Metro stop, and opened fire, injuring two armed officers and sustaining fatal injuries himself.

While my proximity to this horrific event coupled with reports that the shooter was a 9/11 Truther and a Bush hater grips me with fear and anger, I am careful not to overreact. For someone in my position, the reflexive response to this event is to condemn the shooter as a radical left-winger with an ax to grind against conservatives and supporters of the Iraq War. But to do so would be hypocritical.

When the liberal media attempted to associate the IRS bomber with conservatives, many conservatives like myself were disgusted and outraged. A cursory examination of the IRS bomber’s online rant revealed grievances against both liberals and conservatives. But this didn’t stop liberal outfits like MSNBC from fancying this troubled man a symptom of conservative rage.

Instead of allowing political zealotry to seize control, conservatives should pause, take a collective breath, and move on to more relevant things. With liberals on the brink of dramatically transforming our health care system and a midterm election only eight months away, we can ill-afford to grovel about some grand liberal conspiracy.

Ultimately, it was wrong for the liberal media to throw the IRS bomber in with the conservative ilk, and it would be wrong for conservatives to characterize the Pentagon shooter as a liberal extremist.

UPDATE (2:42pm): In the battle to label the Pentagon shooter, the Christian Science Monitor is the first to draw blood, dubbing the man a “right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings.”

After leading with this presumptuous and inflammatory declaration, the paper feebly attempts to qualify its assertion, but the intent is clear: go on the offensive by connecting the dots as early and often as possible and let the other side play defense.

Hopefully the American people will see through this thinly-veiled smear against the right and swiftly reject it.