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.

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.

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

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.

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.

About a week ago, Congress just renewed the Patriot Act without any additions to the protection of our privacy. The Senate approved the measure without any debate on the topic, and the Democrats chickened out again and left their improvements to the bill, which would restore most of our privacies, waning in the wind due to the lack of a supermajority. 97 bold members of the House of Representatives stood up against this legislation, and voted not to extend the provisions of the bill, but the legislation passed easily, and President Obama signed it without hesitation.

The Associated Press reports that the the main three sections of the Patriot Act that will remain enforced are

–Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

–Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

–Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

While many people would say that these provisions should be enforced, the lack of debate about this issue is quite astonishing. Where are all the Libertarians, the supporters of Ron (and now Rand) Paul? Where are all the liberals? I would assume that the people who want terrorist suspects tried in a judicial court would want the law rescinded.

Many people say that they don’t care about their liberties being infringed on the basis of security. However, those people do not realize what a slippery slope that actually is. Let’s hope people who speak out against the government, are not defined as part of a “terrorist” operation.

We have to watch our liberties closely or they may disappear. Benjamin Franklin said it best “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The only good news is that the renewal is only for a year, we better be ready to oppose this piece of horrendous legislation when it is up for renewal next February. Keep Your Eyes Open!

We all talk about how “dissatisfied” all Americans are with “Obamacare” and the oncoming socialist/quasi communist takeover within our government, but do any of you obstructionists begin to wonder how frustrated and fed-up many other Americans are at you?! In the end, your dreaded “Obamacare” will pass despite the fact you tried to hold the bill, and the nation, hostage with your promised “filibustering.”

But just to be clear on the whole matter, I have severe issues with the current health care bill, such as how it short changes many states which have great Medicaid programs (e.g. New York). Also, I am kind of worried as to how this whole bill will affect small businesses. (There are plenty more, but these are the ones that pop to mind as of right now…although we shouldn’t forget about all the healthcare lobbyists’ fingerprints on this bill either)  Nevertheless, some of the positives of this bill, such as expanding coverage to tens of millions of more Americans and eliminating all that pre-existing conditions garbage, makes it better than having no bill at all.

As for what Republicans had to say about all of this, listen to Mitch McConnel, the Senate Minority leader, when he says, “They’re making a vigorous effort to try to jam this down the throats of the American people, who don’t want it. We think that’s a policy mistake, and we think resorting to these kind of tactics, to thumb your noses at the American people, is something that ought to be resisted.”

Oh, shut still your quasi-turtle face, Senator McConnel! You’re partly the reason we’re in this mess.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html?hp

                The SFL Conference, jointly held with the Ivy League Alliance for Liberty and sponsored by the Columbia University Libertarians, took place on October 10^th at Columbia University, with events lasting from before 9:00AM to well after 9:00PM. Topics of discussion included issues regarding economic freedom, personal liberties, governmental tax policy, and foreign policy, among others.

                Students For Liberty, a recently-founded organization dedicated to promoting liberty-orientated values on American college campuses, ensured that the event progressed swimmingly and without any major hiccups in programming. The speakers, diverse in their specialties and all at the forefront of their fields, were particularly engaging. Dr. Nigel Ashford of the Institute for Humane Studies and CJ Maloney, a Mises.org contributor, were particularly well received for both their humor and wisdom. Among the more educational of the presenters were Damon Root and Mario Rizzo. Root, a Reason magazine employee, conducted a wonderful lecture regarding libertarianism and the fight for racial equality in America, with emphasis on historical figures who operated using pro-liberty ideals in order to combat racial injustice. Professor Mario Rizzo of New York University went in depth about governmental economic paternalism and how it affects individuals today. The keynote address was delivered by Fred L. Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a speech which ended the evening on a humorous note.

President Ahmadinejad and his cronies belong to the longstanding conservative moment in the country. It is ruled by the Ayotollah with an iron fist, complete with the Gestapo-like henchman who compose the Revolutionary Guard. Secondly, we have the reform movement, which has been spearheaded by Mr. Mousavi. Lastly, we have nearly everyone else, who are lumped into the group called, “Regime Changers”, these are the brave youths running around the streets of Tehran in protest. Until recently, the conservatives and reformers were nearly identical (Mr. Mousavi was the PM of Iran twenty years ago and was close friends with the Ayotollah). The interesting thing happening now, is that the conservative leaders are becoming marginalized by the vast majority of the population. What we have here is the fracturing of Iran, a nation whose people overwhelmingly oppose the government.

Let me transition to the American state of mind in which Iran is considered an enemy. Iran’s nuclear ambition is simply one of the most dangerous issue facing American foreign policy. We, or President Obama, have tough decisions to make, and I am here to analyze the outcomes of each.

First, we must acknowledge that a nuclear Iran not only bolsters its status as a rogue nation, but increases the chance that terrorists may acquire nuclear technology.I doubt Iran would ever launch a missile at the United States (maybe Israel), but stateless actors (Al Qaeda, etc) certainly possess the stubbornness necessary to attack the US via dirty bomb, suicide attack, or however they wish. That’s why the United States must be involved in nuclear non-proliferation, not because of the “Axis of Evil”, but beacuse of the inforamtion those states may share with terrorist counterparts. You may say, “Ok then, what about North Korea”? Well friend, North Korea does not have ties with Islamo-fascist militias, nor does it play an important role in geopolitics. However, Iran’s relationship with these savage militias makes me unconfortable, and for this egotistical regime to obtain nuclear capabilitis would be dangerous for all mankind.

Option 1 – US stays out of Iranian Affairs and Tries to Contain Movement

This may seem to the be least violent of the upcoming options, but it may prove to the most hazardous to world peace. If the Obama administration allows this dictatorship to flourish and revel in its self-perceived rightousness, the tyrant that is Iran will only become more deadly. How is it possible to contain terror? How can jihadists be prevented from spreading their ideas? They have the internet, they have political leverage, they have a wanna-be hollywood director filming Osama bin Laden. Containment here will be like containment during the Cold War. Containment is unattainable. (Nice play on words huh).

Option 2 – US warns Iran of Nuclear Development. If it is not stopped, let the Air Assault begin.

This method would be conducted in a similar fashion to the 1998 US attacks on Iraq and the 1981 Israeli destruction of Iraqi nuclear plants. In no way possible should Iran develop nuclear capabilities, and the US and its allies must do everything it can to prevent the construction of such dangerous weapons. This option, however, may further infuriate the Islamo-fascists across the Middle East, leading to even greater amounts of hatred towards the US. This plan may include an ultimatum, say a year or to to cease nuclear production.

Option 3 – The US must beg, borrow, and deal with other nations to ensure they will not help Iran build nuclear weaponry.

A path was taken in the right direction today, when President Obama and Dmitri Medvedev  agreed on stricter sanctions when dealing with Iranian trade. We must not let sanctions get in the way however, as they hurt all Iranians, not only the ruling regime. This route will must likely include other neutral nations at the roundtable. To avoid war, the West must be able to make some concessions- only however, if Iran halts its nuclear ambitions.

I seriously hope war can be avoided. Israel however, has its trigger finger ready. The new task at hand may not be preventing the Iranians from getting weaponry, but preventing Israel from prematurely attacking Iran. If that were to happen, their is little the US can do. It seems the only way to avoid war would be to concede something to Iran, but wouldn’t that be appeasement?* If Iran wants a greater share of Caspian oil revenues, so be it. It it wants more trade with the West, fine. The US must do everything it can to avert nuclear proliferation in Iran, but it must not become a push-over. This is the greatest nation in history, and I would like to see it live on into eternity. Peace and diplomacy must always come before aggression. However, the Iranians are giving us little choice. 

*By no means do I believe the US should admit its wrong (I do not) , or act as Britain during the 30s and appease Mahmoud like what was done with Hitler. No, the US must stand strong and put all options on the table. The most important thing is preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear technology, which they may then pass off to terrorists.

Water boarding is the new fad when it comes to interrogating suspected terrorists nowadays, but to hold such of view of this ancient practice is to be just plain ignorant.  Contrary to public belief, water boarding is not a “new” method of “enhanced interrogation” but is actually a torture practice dating back to the 14^th century.  Now of course, back then there were definitely harsher interrogation techniques, but nevertheless water boarding was believed to be a form of torture.  As in matter in fact, the phenomenon of calling it a form of “enhanced interrogation” is actually quite recent.

First, let’s look at the history of water boarding.  It was the Spanish Inquisition that first implemented it and since then it has been used throughout the Middle Ages.  Once the Enlightenment hit however, some people became “enlightened” and thought the practice as barbaric and inhumane.  So soon after, the practice moved away from the public eye and was done rarely and secretly.  In the 20^th century however, water boarding made a comeback as the Brits used it in Palestine, the French in Algeria, the U.S. in the Philippines, the Japanese in World War II, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Focusing more on the U.S.’s history with water boarding, during the Spanish American War, a U.S. major implemented it.  Consequently, that major was suspended for a month and fined; the reason was, according to the judge, because “the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture.”  It’s also important to note that the U.S. convicted a Japanese official in 1947 of war crimes for water boarding an American civilian. The criminal was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.  Another case of water boarding happened in the Vietnam War, when an American soldier was found to have water boarded a North Vietnamese soldier to extract information.  The U.S. military promptly investigated and had the soldier court martialed. 

So, this all begs the question, why is water boarding torture?  Well I think common sense alone can explain this quite sufficiently, but for those more in tune with the artificial legality of things, perhaps this will help.  According to the UN Convention of Torture that President Ronald Reagan signed, “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him…information…” Now if you’re at this point in the article and still don’t think water boarding is torture; I highly recommend you go and experience water boarding.  Perhaps then, after you undergo simulated drowning with your throat being filled with water 83 times, or in the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammad, 183 times; maybe then you’ll realize water boarding does actually cause “severe pain” and “suffering” that is both “physical” and “mental.”  And please, don’t pull any Orwellian shenanigans. 

            So recently I attended an event where eminent Harvard historian, Niall Ferguson, and senior fellow at Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, Jeff Madrick, spoke about the current economic crisis.  These two men are both highly regarded individuals when it comes to academic matters, especially when it concerns economic history.  Madrick, it seems, is a liberal Keynesian academic while Ferguson is very much conservative and classical on economic matters; the guy thinks the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.  Overall it was very enjoyable to see these two intellectuals spar when it came to the issue of debts, Keynesian economics, the outlook of the American economy, and President Obama’s economic policies.

            On debts the two men differed greatly.  Ferguson, the more articulate and charming of the two, lambasted America’s absence of “thrift spending” and called for people to save more out of their income.  He argued, that according to basic economics, saving would in the long run better serve the American economy.  Madrick, in response, said the average American income, adjusted with inflation, has flat-lined and perhaps even decreased since the late 1960s; thus by in large, the idea of there being an overly consumerist American is a myth.  Ferguson shot back saying regardless, data proves debt is increasing when compared to previous decades, and that Madrick’s focus on middle class spending is the wrong way to approach it.  Because in reality, according to Ferguson, the debt is largely from the rich, upper class, and that it is precisely the mishandling of this money amongst the rich that greatly contributed to the current financial mess.  The two men continued to argue over whose data was “more right”, so the moderator moved on to a different topic.

            As for Keynesian economics, Ferguson handsomely critiqued it as mainly a form of economics that has become too politicized and simplified to be efficiently utilized by the government.  But more fundamentally, he believes the long-term effects of intensive Keynesian economics, such as large deficits and debt, eventually hamper and stagnate the overall economy.  He cited the current state of the Japanese economy to support his view.  Madrick, in defense of Keynesian policies and now Obama’s, said the massive intervention and regulation of government both fiscally and monetarily is necessary.  The loss of entire businesses, financial structures, and the economic lives of individuals must be avoided if possible, and it is Keynesian policies that do exactly that.  Both Madrick and Ferguson did agree however that Keynesian economics has become oversimplified and too politicized though.

            As for the outlook on the American economy, both had very pessimistic views, and Ferguson said the Obama Administration’s predictions of economic growth next year were that of “fairy tales.”  They both blamed economists, yet surprisingly not themselves, for being unable to see this financial hurricane coming.  Although on a lighter side, Ferguson remarked that the United State is doing much better than many other countries, especially the East Asian ones, where GDP is expected to fall about 10% and that the U.S. bailout, when proportionately compared to China’s, is relatively small.  The U.S. will instead, in Ferguson view, will have a GDP contraction of only around 2 or 3 percent.

            Now as for President Obama’s policies, both had their criticisms, but it was really Ferguson who had the harshest words.  The man said the main issue now was the incoming collision that would occur between Obama’s monetary policy and his fiscal policy.  Ferguson warned that the tremendous debt resulting from Obama’s massive fiscal increases and the Federal Reserve dropping the interest rate to near 0% would cause very high interest rates in the near future.  The Harvard academic was very concerned about this, because such a future will harm the economy over the long run.

            I must say though, Niall Ferguson, despite the fact he’s opposite me when it comes to economic matters, is a man whom I greatly admire and respect.  His intellectual prowess and charming wit, not to mention his great ability at articulating himself, always leave a deep impression upon me.  Jeff Madrick was great too, but Niall was really amazing; it’s people like him that make me want to become a renowned academic. I recommend all you guys check out Ferguson further; he’s also a great history writer!