Archive for February, 2015

Those not celebrating secret legislation vs the ‘But this time it will be different’ crowd

At Breitbart Big Government: ‘Net Neutrality’ is a problem, not a solution.

“The oldest trick in the collectivist playbook is to create a problem through government regulations, let it stew for a while, and then propose even bigger government as the only possible solution to the “crisis” it planted, nourished, and harvested.

“We watched government tinkering in health care make it more expensive and complicated, year after year… until the time was ripe to stuff the biggest, sloppiest, most poorly-thought-out Big Government power grab of the modern era down our throats. Are we really going to fall for that again with the FCC’s new Net Neutrality regulations?”

“For the mid-range companies pushing Net Neutrality, this is all about bringing the government Goliath into the market to stop the telecom giants flat. It’s a crony capitalist arrangement, and like most other cronies who have used coercive government power to control the free market, they’re going to learn that Big Government makes a far less friendly and cooperative business partner than they anticipate. Political agendas will be forced down the tubes of compulsion our Net Neutrality boosters want to implant in the Internet; it won’t be long before baffled supporters are wondering why websites with dissident political views are having such a hard time obtaining government licenses. They’ll be absolutely astounded at how much web content suddenly runs afoul of the “decency standards” Cuban warns about.

“But most of all, they’re underestimating how energetically Big Government will use its control over the Internet to deliberately create crisis that only Even Bigger Government is allegedly capable of resolving.”

“You can already see some Net Neutrality advocates short-circuiting when confronted with extremely sensible questions about why companies would be more eager to make titanic investments in a marketplace frozen by government regulations and chopped into pieces by redistributionist ideology.”

But what can you do? The propaganda machine is out in full force but, it seems, very few listen to more than the emotional appear to consider questions or be skeptical about assumptions and interpretations. Meanwhile the debt rises and the freedom level lowers. The frog is cooking and seems quite content with the warming waters.

Leave a Comment

Secret massive governmental industry takeover: Internet edition

It is just like the previous, massive, partisan forced, regulation of an industry where you are told you won’t know what is in it until after it gets past. The Register has two items on the topic: Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved (but Google has a good idea) and Net neutrality: The world speaks its brains on secret ‘open’ ‘net rules. On the secrecy:

“Analysis US watchdog the FCC formally approved new net neutrality rules on Thursday for America. But you’re out of luck if you want to know exactly how your access to the internet will be now be governed.

Despite getting the green light, the exact rules have not been revealed and will remain a mystery for some unspecified length of time.”

“In fact, the chairs of both Congressional committees that deal with telecoms issues requested that the rules be put out for public review, as did two of Wheeler’s four commissioners, who complained they wanted to publish the documents but were barred from doing so.”

“But that’s not all. Both commissioners expect changes to be made to the document after it has been formally approved by them, with the “OGC” – office of general counsel – given extraordinary leeway to edit and revise the rules even following formal approval.”

The second item is a bit whimsical

“Comment Look at this photo of FCC chairman Tom Wheeler holding hands and smiling with the two Democrat commissioners who backed his “open internet” regulations, the pair wearing vivid blue outfits. It sums all that was both good and worrying about the decisions today to pass secretive net neutrality rules.

Here, we see a historic debate on internet access in America, a crucial complex technology, jump the tracks and career into a quagmire of politics. Jubilant Dems on one side, the Republican commissioners who voted against the net neutrality rules on the other.”

“What do mean “once it’s released”? This is all done and dusted. We’ve got net neutrality, baby! The internet is free again! Rejoice!”

deja vu all over again.

Leave a Comment

An Alinski Jam

Neo Neocon asks What can the Republican Congress do?.

“As soon as the Democrats ended the filibuster for judicial appointments, arguments for Republicans to retain it became weak, because the reason for keeping it was always to protect one’s own minority rights when the time came. This required that both parties support the rule, knowing that someday it would be their turn to benefit from it (when they were in the minority) and another day it would be their turn to be stymied by it (when they were in the majority but not the supermajority). Respect for the rule also required a modicum of compromise from whatever the minority party du jour might be if Congress wanted to get any work done at all. But that sort of thing ended a while ago, too.

So there is no longer any reason to uphold something I always had defended. Now the situation is such that Republicans are fighting a battle where the implicit rules of the game have changed. As “Harold” puts it, they are in an Alinsky jam here. And they better study up on their Alinsky or they’re going to be in huge trouble (they already are in trouble, actually). But I don’t think most of them have the temperament, or perhaps even the interest, to go bold.”

“To recap: they can impeach but not convict. They can pass bills in the House that can’t get through the Senate, or that can get through the Senate but not get past the veto. They can…they can…what? They can decline to fund important parts of government, and try to bully the Democrats and Obama into blinking, but Obama rests secure in the fact that the public will be manipulated by the press into blaming Republican “obstructionism” for any lack of funding. That doesn’t mean the Republicans shouldn’t do it anyway, but it does mean they run an excellent chance of taking the hit for it rather than Obama and the Democrats.”

It is much like the terrorism problem. Just what does it take and just how much does it matter to prevent disaster? When you are up against opponents who do not care about anything but winning at any cost, there is no deal making. There is no effort to resolve issues. That approach is either broken by absolute defeat or you get what you see in Cuba or Venezuela or the many other examples where opposition to the Left decided it wasn’t worth the effort. 

Leave a Comment

Witch Hunts

Seven academics who had the audacity to speak to Congress about climate change are targets of US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) who is the ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Roger Pielke, Jr. is one who says I am Under “Investigation”. Stephen Hayward is another target who see it as asking Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?. Here is what Pielke says:

“The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”

When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.”

This inquiry makes McCarthyism look tame. Climate scientists are not the only game in this sort of hunt either. 

Leave a Comment

Net neutrality: the warning

First up is Karl Bode at TechDirt with a warning: Wireless Usage Caps (And Creative Abuses Of Them) Are The New Global Net Neutrality Battlefield.

“So while neutrality supporters here in the States are generally pleased to see that FCC boss Tom Wheeler is embracing Title II based rules, the discussion doesn’t end there. In fact, it’s only just beginning. Regulators truly interested in protecting net neutrality need to be every bit as tenacious, clever and intelligent as carrier executives who tirelessly look for creative new ways to abuse their uncompetitive telecom fiefdoms. Given the regulatory quality in most countries, that’s a damn tall order, but in the all-too-common absence of truly healthy and competitive broadband markets, there’s really no other choice.”

The warning is that the struggle will continue no matter what. The assumption on which this is based is “in the all-too-common absence of truly healthy and competitive broadband markets.” TechDirt represents the Left in this issue and they clearly illustrate the ‘attitude’ and tactics that are commonly found on that side of the issue.

William Teach at Right Wing News explains Net Neutrality: A Solution In Search Of A Problem (That Will Create More Problems) as an example on the other side of the debate.

“by turning the Internet into yet another heavily regulated industry, the government will not only stifle innovation and investment, but will be in a position to pick winners and losers, rather than as it is now, where competition reigns to pick winners and losers. No, the Internet is not perfect, nor are the companies involved. But, do you think it will get better, do you think minor problems will be solved, especially those problems that pretty much only exist within the minds of people who are saying “this could happen!!!!!!!!!”, by making it a highly regulated utility? “

The fact is that the proponents for regulation assume without evidence and without any significant support that I’net services are “uncompetitive telecom fiefdoms” and do this by creation of conspiracy and denial of economic realities. The basic problem is highlighted by the secrecy by which the FCC’s proposal is being held. The public will not know what is in it until after the FCC votes on it. That secrecy is part and parcel of manufactured presumptions, ad hominem argument, an army of straw men, and censorship of an questions or alternative ideas.

The persistence in trying to foist this ideology on the public, that of government knows best and much be in control, is evident and explicit by Bode. As long as that exists, and honest debate to determine real world actions of a productive nature will be difficult.

Leave a Comment

Jeff Sessions describes the situation

John Hinderaker sites Jeff Sessions as ;standing up for the Constitution and American Workers;.

A number of things have been happening today with regard to the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. There’s been a lot of spin about that and that somehow the Republicans are blocking the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. This gives new meaning to the word “obfuscation,” I suppose, or “disingenuousness.” The truth is, the House of Representatives has fully funded the Department of Homeland Security. It’s provided the level of funding the President asked for. It’s kept all the accounts at Homeland Security as approved through the congressional process. It simply says, but, Mr. President, we considered your bill, this amnesty bill that will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security numbers, Medicare benefits. You can’t do that. We considered that and rejected it. So we’re not going to fund that.

There is a Democratic Party minority in the Senate acting as a solid block using filibuster procedure to prevent the funding bill from even coming to the floor for debate. It is time that they were forced to the floor to explain themselves in proper debate on the issues at hand.

Leave a Comment

The oligarchy and necessary response

Selwyn Duke explains Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President. The basis is that it is because they do not carry out nullification of unjust judicial rulings. In explaining why this is relevant, history is explored.

In recent times federal judges have ruled that Arizona must provide driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, states such as Utah and Alabama must allow faux marriage, and a Wisconsin voter-identification law is unconstitutional. And these are just a few examples of judicial usurpations that continue unabated and go unanswered. But the answer, which needs to be given first and foremost by governors, is simple:

“No. No — I will not abide by the court’s unjust ruling.”

What do you think “sanctuary cities” are?

They’re places where liberals have decided they’re simply going to resist federal immigration law.

Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by and for the people if 9 unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The idea that the courts have review authority for legislation comes from the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. As with any decision, there is always the fine line. That line is being pushed and a response is gathering. This should be a major concern of the courts and a tempering influence on their reach and grab, their oligarchic tendencies. There are several cases in front of SCOTUS that are on the edge and the decisions in these cases will likely guide much more than just the ruling itself demands.

Leave a Comment

Cronkite to Williams: a sad tale of deception

Alicia Colon describes When Network Lies Kill.

“Whether Williams is a fabulist, an incestuous voyeur who bragged about his daughter’s soft porn role on HBO’s ‘Girls’ or simply your average liberal is less compelling to me than wondering if a more dangerous anchor will ever be exposed for his lies.

Unfortunately, Walter Cronkite is still revered as the most trusted man in America even though his lies about the Vietnam War caused countless military deaths by prolonging the conflict.”

Cronkite is becoming known for his false assessment regarding the outcome of the Tet offensive and military success in Vietnam. But he was only a starting point for the sad saga of the modern era’s news anchor. Williams is just the latest. The propaganda machine exists. It is not a machine of the state but rather of an ideology backed by a lack of intellectual integrity in a band of brothers leading the major media. Death and destruction as its effect is becoming more obvious.

Leave a Comment

Apocalypse? Going Galt? or Rebuild Civilization?

Professor Hanson on; The Reckoning.

“For bewildered and increasingly quietist Americans, the center holds mostly in family, religion, a few friends, the avoidance of the cinema and nightly news, the rote of navigating to work and coming home, trying to stay off the dole and taking responsibility for one’s own disasters — as the world grows ever more chaotic in our midst.

All sorts of escapism from the madness is now epidemic. Home-schooling. Gun ownership. A second home in the mountains. A trunk of freeze-dried food. Kids living in the basement. A generator. Some gold coins. A move to Wyoming. An avoidance of the old big cities. A tough choice between death and going to the nearby emergency room (at least your relatives are safe as you pass away at home). A careful and narrow selection of channels on cable TV. A safe room or escape plan. And on and on.

There is a strange new and dangerous sentiment brooding below the spoken surface that whatever is going on in the world and in America today cannot go on much longer — although as the sages say, there is a lot of rot in the West to enjoy for some time yet.

The postmodern world of our new aristocracy and the premodern world of those they both avoid and romanticize won’t hold. The old caricatured middle shrinks and turns inward. Even if the doomsday mood is a mere construct of the new instantaneous media, it is a dangerous mood nonetheless.

We all know what follows from this — either the chaos grows and civilization wanes and tribalism follows, or the iron hand of the radical authoritarian Left or Right correction is just as scary, or a few good people in democratic fashion convince the mob to let them stop the madness and rebuild civilization.

I hope for option three. I fear option one is more likely at home. And I assume that option two will be, as it always is, the choice abroad.”

Will anyone stand up?

Leave a Comment

Tactics: King v. Burwell on the legality of Obamacare

It’s a court case. The law is clear. The outcome threaten’s the desires and fantasies of the Left. William Levin describes  Battle station alert on the left.

“Steven Hayward correctly spotlights the panic on the left as King v. Burwell enters its final phase, adroitly terming it working the refs. Others call it battlespace preparation. In all cases, it is establishing the Narrative, which in the case of King v. Burwell is dedicated to the simple proposition that ending Obamacare subsidies will hurt the poor, even resulting in public epidemics and possible deaths. The move is a concession that the case is legally hopeless and it is on to politics.

This makes for a worthwhile moment to pause, because the case is like a control in a science experiment. We can view in slow motion the steps in the game book.

First, delegitimize the law. …”

“Second, ignore the facts. …”

“Third, create victims. …”

“Fourth, make it easy for the press. …”

“It matters not that the allegations have no relationship to the law passed by Congress, the legal controversy committed for review by the Supreme Court or the continuing harm done by the government itself to workable alternatives. Nor to be missed are the amici briefs as self-serving calls for interviews by the press, led by prominent lawyers and institutions, with throngs ready to help on background, and the full resource of notes listed in the citations of sources. Petitioner amici briefs offer the same, but except in rare occasions, their services will be duly ignored as partisan.”

There does appear to be some understanding of the tactics being used by the Left. That means they can be exposed, dissected, and put on display for everyone to consider as to their value for proper decision making in a just society.

Leave a Comment

Tell a lie often enough …

But some don’t need convincing through repetition: Scott Johnson on Fournier’s Lie provides an example.

“When I heard former AP Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier state in passing on a recent Fox News Special Report panel that “Bush lied us into war in Iraq,” I just groaned. Fournier has moved on from the AP to become senior political correspondent and editorial director of National Journal. Fournier presents himself as the moderate voice of reason and common sense, and he is a distinguished journalist, but the “Bush lied” is a staple of the hard left. I believe that the evidence in support of the proposition approaches nil.”

“If you’re going to charge that “Bush lied,” decency requires that you be able to back it up with a relevant fact or two. Fournier’s response does more than call his own judgment into question; it calls his good faith into question. Judge Silberman’s reference to “the likes of Ron Fournier” justifiably passes a harsh judgment, not just on Fournier’s statement, but also on Fournier himself, and there is no one more qualified than Judge Silblerman to render this judgment.”

When it is no longer a matter of facts and evidence but rather a matter of faith, decisions go sour. The litany of issues where the decisions will have significant social importance is large. The damage from sour decisions is also significant. On the ‘Bush lied’ meme one only has to look at the turmoil in the mid-East to see this. Then there is the anti-vaccination sour decision results showing its odor in California. Climate change, energy production, safe and inexpensive foods, health, … the list goes on and the cost of the sour decisions mount.

Leave a Comment

Corruption of the judiciary

When the law does not respect the people, the people will have disdain for the law. Some concerns have surfaced recently about how the courts are getting involved in overturning plebiscites without clear and direct guidance in written law. The ‘gay marriage’ issue is one example. This is compounded when senior judges toss aside ethical considerations and express opinion on current cases. Ed Whelan describes Ginsburg’s Astounding Indiscretion citing a Bloomberg interview. “With the high court set to rule on the issue by June, she said it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans should the justices say that gay marriage is a constitutional right.

It is not the court’s role to lead the people in ‘adjustments’ of their morals. Such an approach does fit with the ideas that the ‘elites’ – in this case an oligarchy on non-elected judges – can tell the people what to think. That is symptomatic of leftist thinking.

Leave a Comment

Chemicalz! Toxins! (and cranks)

It’s the Food Babe: “There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever” Orac describes with “Respectful Insolence”.

“The Food Babe makes quite a pretty penny spreading her ignorance and has become sought after to feature in various media appearances, such as magazine covers.”

“Hari was featured in a fairly long feature article in The Atlantic by James Hamblin. ‘The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals.’ It’s a relatively amusing title, to be sure, and there’s a lot that’s good about the article. Unfortunately, there’s a lot that’s downright infuriating as well, the more so given that Hamblin is a physician and really should know better. To some extent, he does, but unfortunately in this piece he shows himself far more respectful of pseudoscience of the sort promoted by The Food Babe than a physician should be.”

“Of course, it’s great that Hari cleaned up her act, lost a bunch of weight, and saw her health problems go away. However, as all too often happens, she also attributed her health problems to more than just a poor diet and lifestyle. She blamed the evil chemicalz! She blamed processed foods, various food additives, and basically any synthetic chemical. Over time, as I’ve observed, this belief has morphed into a seeming concept that anything with a long chemical name that she can’t pronounce must be bad. Indeed, it’s evolved, as Hamblin notes, to include even things that are perfectly “natural,” such as isinglass derived from fish swim bladders. Hamblin just doesn’t seem to note that the reason isinglass is bad to The Food Babe is nothing more complex than her revulsion that a product of fish swim bladder is used to make some beers. Ditto the product of beaver anal glands and others:”

“Another thing that drives Hari is an intense competitiveness, which she attributes to her talent as a high school debater. Of course, as I’ve mentioned before, the goal of a debater is not necessarily to come to find out what is accurate and true scientifically. It is to defend your position. It is to attack your opponent’s position. It is to win”

“And why are we giving so many vaccines so early? It’s “too many too soon.” What are all those chemicals in vaccines? They’re “toxins.” Truly, Vani Hari is the Jenny McCarthy of food.

“And like Jenny McCarthy, Hari thrives on the opposition her crusade provokes. She thrives on victimhood. It’s how she rallies her troops.”

It’s another case study of the crank, the snake oil salesman, the deluded and blind to reality types struggling to find simple solutions in a complex world. Health is particularly ripe for this sort of individual but you’ll also find them elsewhere. Look at the climate change controversy, or net neutrality, or vaccines, or large scale energy production, or environmentalism. The plague is expensive and even heartbreaking but, it seems, the purveyors of ilk never seem to notice except to blame the consequences on somebody else.

Leave a Comment

About trust in government

Murray made the point that the ties that bind America to their national government have been “uniquely idealistic.” The federal government let us live our own lives as we saw fit without much interference, and we loved our national government for it. What Murray called this “happy state of affairs” rested on three compacts, all of which are now broken.”

Karlyn Bowman on Gay marriage: The court, the Alabama decision, and public opinion.

A lack of trust is a recipe for disaster in a relationship.

Leave a Comment

Cooking frogs

“I would like to ask her and every single person who was in attendance: Why did you sit through that? Why did you remain in a room where the speaker was insulting your faith? Why did you allow yourself to be verbally raped, as you put it?”

in these perilous times, an insidious kind of weakness and cowardess has taken hold of far too many in the populace.

Americans need to know where the line in the sand is drawn. They need to find their spine. And they need to stand for the values they purport to hold near and dear. Because this seemingly infinite level of tolerance for menacing leadership does not bode well.

Just how much are we willing to sit through?

Apparently, quite a lot.

That’s Carol Brown wondering – Which is more disturbing: Obama’s speech at the prayer breakfast or the audience response?.

It is good to see these ‘when are we going to wake up?’ wondering. Maybe, one day, more will pick up on the example of the NYC Police when confronted with dishonesty and verbal “rape”. Maybe, one day, but hopefully not before that slowly raising water temperature incapacitates the frog who seems willing to just sit through the entire cooking process.

Leave a Comment

The ‘Free Internet’ movement: Looking for governmental solutions

Ryan Radia says Don’t Extend the Dead Hand of the FCC to the Internet — “Entrusting the FCC with broad and ambiguous regulatory powers was, and remains, a grave mistake“.

“On February 26, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote on a proposal to regulate companies that provide Internet access as public utilities.”

“Why the sudden march to regulate? In 2008 and again in 2010, the FCC tried to impose somewhat less onerous rules on Internet providers, but both times, a federal court found that the agency exceeded its authority. Rather than admit defeat and move on, the FCC took a third stab at rulemaking in 2014—this time proposing more modest rules that hewed to the court’s rulings. But last summer, the White House began making its own plans for the Internet, as if it were a “parallel version of the FCC itself.”

“The rallying cry behind the FCC’s impending rules can be summed up in two words: net neutrality. According to this superficially benign concept, coined by the left-leaning law professor Tim Wu, Internet providers should be barred from discriminating against applications, services, content, or devices without an extremely good reason. Over time, net neutrality has morphed into the broader notion that Internet providers shouldn’t even be allowed to accept payment from content companies such as Netflix or Amazon for priority traffic handling.”

“Why the drive to handicap Internet providers’ business models? Because, the argument goes, infrastructure is special—so much so that it deserves comprehensive federal oversight. Internet service providers are supposedly all-powerful gatekeepers with the incentive and ability to pick winners and losers online.”

As a general rule, the government is a last resort for solving society’s problems. Advocating governmental involvement when you can’t really define a problem should raise many questions. Creating conspiracies and imagined collusion in order to assert monopoly is not a good basis for action. The record of the government in regards to telecommunications regulation was only adequate when there actually was a monopoly and technology needed a gateway. The heyday of that for telephones was forty years ago. Twenty years ago, technologies provided a means around the established infrastructure. But we still have taxes from a hundred years ago, taxes that hit the small and less capitalized persons and businesses the hardest. Getting government to let go is even more difficult that getting it involved in the first place. That is the threat with this effort to implement socialist theology on the I’net.

Leave a Comment

Social infection. integrity erosion

Paul Mirengoff says Lying isn’t what it used to be.

“Lying used to be an offense that caused people to stop trusting and believing you. Now, it’s a “mistake” that’s to be weighed against the liar’s virtues before deciding if he is to be trusted.”

“I noticed this in my law practice. When I first started out, you hit the litigation jackpot if you could show that the opposing party had lied about any semi-material fact. … As time went on, I noticed that judges and juries were less impressed by a showing that a party lied.”

“It was understandable that people who liked the Clinton presidency didn’t want it terminated over a lie, even one made under oath. But the forgiving of Clinton seems to have had a spillover effect.”

“Whatever may be true of a U.S. president, dishonest behavior, one would have thought, trumps quality sermons in a spiritual leader. One would also think that making up events trumps all other qualities in a television news presenter.”

It’s the Williams Iraq helicopter exaggerations that started this musing. The effort is to try to understand it. Then other episodes come to mind including job experience in the courtroom. Integrity is suffering erosion, it seems.

Leave a Comment

Irrational patterns on rational issues

David Harsanyi provides a good summary of politicized science based issues in describing When Liberals Ignore Science — “Media are largely silent about their fear of vaccination and their belief in astrology and UFOs“.

“How do we deal with the false perception that liberals are more inclined to trust science than conservatives? Also, how do we approach the media’s fondness for focusing on the unscientific views of some conservatives but ignoring the irrational — and oftentimes more consequential — beliefs of their fellow liberals?”

“if you walk around believing that pesticides are killing your children or that fracking will ignite your drinking water, or if you hyperventilate about the threat of the ocean’s consuming your city, you have a viewpoint that not only conflicts with science but undermines progress. So how do we approach matters that have been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by liberals?”

“The perception that one political group is less science-savvy than another is predominately driven by the unwillingness of many conservatives to accept alarmism about global warming and the policies purportedly meant to mitigate it. But when it comes to climate change, volumes could be written about the ill-conceived, unscientific, over-the-top predictions made by activists and politicians. We could start with our own Malthusian science czar, John Holdren, who once predicted that climate change would cause the deaths of a billion people by 2020 and that sea levels would rise by 13 feet.”

“It doesn’t end there. What are we to make of people who mock religion as imaginary but believe an astrological sign should determine whom you date or are concerned that they will be whisked away in a flying saucer?”

The political bifurcation is right in front of your face – consider the Californication meme, for instance. But that doesn’t phase most media reporters whose reports ignore the obvious evidence. For any paying attention, that is a serious issue of cognitive dissonance.

Leave a Comment

Solving nonexistent problems

It’s the net neutrality debate. Like human caused catastrophic climate change, the proponents are advocating massive government controls in order to prevent a problem that might occur in the future, maybe. For a bit about this nature of debate, see 3 things to know about the FCC’s net neutrality plan.

[FCC Chair] “Wheeler believes this principal of fairness, known as “net neutrality,” can be best protected by thrusting Internet service providers under some of the same rules that have applied to telephone companies for more than 80 years.”

“what if the major cable companies that provide much of the nation’s broadband had free rein to load some files faster than others? It is easy to imagine scenarios where these providers might favor content produced by their affiliates or start charging “tolls” to move data. Consumers naturally would gravitate toward faster sites and services that pay those fees, while smaller startups or nonprofits get shut out.”

“Unlike the 2010 rules that were struck down by the courts, Wheeler’s proposal doesn’t exempt wireless carriers from these open-access requirements. That’s important given that cellphones are becoming the primary way for many people to access the Internet.”

A primary stimulus for promoting net neutrality is that the greedy large corporation cable companies have a monopoly on providing end user I’net services. That basis is contradicted by the idea that the cell phone network is “becoming the primary way for many people to access the Internet.” The addition of the cell phone network was done because court cases failed without its inclusion.

Ask Radio Amateurs who tried to interface their equipment to the telephone network back forty years ago and have watched what happened to the telephone company under government regulations about what they witnessed. Ever wonder why the landline is now nearing extinction? 

The issue here isn’t “open access” but rather governmental control over service and pricing. That is an oxymoron.

Leave a Comment

On that ‘white privilege’ thing …

Selwyn Duke on The Real White Privilege and My Radio Race War

“accepting white privilege as supposition is prejudice itself. If someone wishes to claim this phenomenon exists, the burden is on him to prove it; it is not on those who would have to prove a negative.

This proof is never forthcoming. The only argument offered is that whites are more prosperous and healthier socially than are blacks, which proves white privilege as much as blacks’ numerical dominance in the NBA proves black privilege. After all, Hindus (exclusively non-white) are the highest-earning religious group in the U.S., and Jews are number two, yet no one today takes this as proof of Hindu or Jewish privilege. In fact, in a radio debate some years ago I challenged a different guest — who cited whites’ higher incomes as proof of privilege — to be true to his rationale and speak of Jewish privilege (which he wouldn’t dare do). His response?”

“Of course, this is circular reasoning. Higher incomes were proof of his ideology — except when his ideology said that higher incomes weren’t.

But that’s the left-reason Left for you. They don’t need facts or logic. They know white privilege exists. They know whites discriminate. It’s just a matter of accepting the terms of surrender and your place in the re-education camp. Because they know.”

“This brings us to the fact that there is black privilege as well. It’s not enjoyed by most black people, who live in Africa often in misery and under despotism. But in the U.S. it means benefitting from quotas, affirmative-action, set-asides, immunity from many kinds of criticism, and the latitude to make racial remarks and jokes that would destroy whites’ careers.”

“This returns us to my opening Lincoln line. If you focus on a person’s sins to the exclusion of his good deeds, you can make him appear the Devil incarnate. It’s fashionable today to look for the worst in whites, and because of this people are sure to find it. And the result is that we will hear things such as, to quote the late leftist writer Susan Sontag, “The white race is the cancer of human history.”

The modern era where people find something to hate and fail to think about their own envy and greed. Or is it just the modern era?

Leave a Comment