June 26, 2014

I was with you 100% until the last sentence. The Founders were plutocrats.

Who but plutocrats would have kept abolition of slavery out of the Constitution and restricted the vote to about 3% of the then population of the colonies, only white male who could afford to own land AND pay a poll tax?

They set up the electoral college to elect the President and Senators were elected by state legislatures--also made up of plutocrats, at least more plutocratic than others. State legislatures also got to vote on ratification of the Constitution. The people got to vote only for Reps, but the Senate got to vote on ambassadors, treaties, convictions in impeachment, etc., as well as the ability to kill things passed by the House.

We've been brainwashed all our lives to practically worship these people, most of whom were wealthy, especially the slaveowners, slaves being the single most valuable thing in the colonies. But, I'm over the brainwashing.

True, they could have overthrown the British, then set up another monarchy, if they wanted. Instead, they invented something that had never existed in human history. (They did want to make Washington "President for Life," but he refused--and that's close to another monarchy with a Congress, instead of a Parliament.)

I'll give them brilliance. Geniuses, yes, but they weren't egalitarians by any means. And they feared "the mob," which is why the Senate got more powers than the House.

June 26, 2014

"You can thank President Clinton...

You can thank President Clinton...

...for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - which was one of the drivers behind the domination of right-wing talk radio today.

And NAFTA - a huge sell-out of the working person in this country, and I would propose one of the reasons for the shrinking middle class we're experiencing now.

And the current "Third Way Democrat" who used to talk like traditional Democrats but economically (and for some, foreign policy) are just as bad as the Repubs. Rather than confront the fat-cats, he catered to them (for the most part.)

He may have done some good things (even broken clocks...), but NAFTA and the Telecom Act created HUGE holes in our society for which we may never recover completely.

And he and the establishment Dems expect me to get all excited about Hillary? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Thank you, eizenmahn. I quoted in full because I want to add this post to my journal. I hope you don't mind. If you do, pm me and I will delete it from my journal.

And then, there was the Fairness Doctrine. Until the Obama administration, Democrats were calling for its reinstatement by the Executive Branch. However, under Obama, the FCC killed it. Whereas before, it could have been resurrected by the Executive Branch, after Obama, it will take an Act of Congress. And we all know, as we knew when the FCC put the nail in the coffin, that it will never pass Congress.

And much more recently, the FCC blew it with the internet, too.

But, sure, let's make believe that only Republicans are to blame for all our ills. That's great for professional Democrats, not so much for ordinary Democratic voters.

June 25, 2014

No, I think we agree activism is important. Question is,

what kind of activism?

Demonstrations, marches, signing internet petitions, calling your Rep? Don't get me wrong, I do do some of that, even though, as I am doing it, I ask myself why am I doing this when I don't think it will matter. The answer is, because I can't help myself. But, I don't think that will do the job.

Some of the things that have occurred to me:

Two huge websites, one for the US, one for the world. Not to discuss anything but what is going on in activism at the moment and maybe to exchange ideas on the most effective kinds of activism.

Economic boycotts.

Demonstrations, but really big ones. It could be local for everyone. "Show up at your town halls with signs next week at lunch hour," for example.

Ten people show up at a town hall, pffft. Five or ten people show up at every town hall in the country, though--maybe something gets shaken up? Maybe by the tenth week or so, media will even admit it's happening?

Iching and True Delphi are good evangelists for acting local and I really want to do more of that, too.

Anyway, those are some things I Have been mulling.

And so on.

June 24, 2014

Hippie probably was not the correct term.

It was my shorthand for people who took part in quite a few peace marches, maybe civil rights marches in the 1960s. Not necessarily the druggie, Haight Ashbury types--"not that there's anything wrong with that," or the "Can you spare some change?" group.

The persistent demonstrators could have been accountants, for all I know. I do know for certain that some were doctors and lawyers. And members of the military, etc. And some kids of multimillionaires, too.

The ones I mean are the ones who believe with 100% certainty that they fought the peace and civil rights battles for 5, 10, 15 years and finally won. When I tell them maybe it only looked as though they won, maybe the same things would have happened if they stayed home, they get furious. I don't blame them.

Same thing for those who go to a lot of demonstrations today, though most demonstrations today seem kind of puny. Even those who don't demonstrate, but keep telling us to call the White House or sign this internet petition or call our Rep. If any of that did anything, the bill that went to Baucus would have had a public option.

No one seems to want to even consider for a minute that they may need to change their M.O. What was good enough for the 1960s (or so it seemed) is going to do wonders in 2009-2016 and maybe forever. Or so they seem to think.

Um, how is it been working for us, so far? If I ask, that, someone will point to some vote or other of his or her rep. However, that doesn't mean the rep changed his or her vote because of calls and internet petitions. It was how the rep was going to vote all along.

Not to mention the damned D.C. kabuki. "Here, Emma, this vote is going to pass no matter what. You live in blue state, so go ahead and vote No. " or "Gee, the Dems out there want this vote to pass, but screw that. Let's make sure it's damn close, though, so it's looks like we REALLY tried. If you are in a solid blue state, or very, very popular, vote no and help out your fellow Dems in the pale blue states who have to vote yes or get primaried next time."

Anyway, the bottom line is, whatever did or did not work in the Sixties, that was a long time ago. It's not working today, so we have to find things that might work. At that point almost everyone is pissed at me and I get reamed as negative. Why? Because I think we should stop doing things that don't work and try to think of things that might?

June 24, 2014

Not true. Then again, neither it is true that only centrists can win elections.

Don't you people ever get tired of pushing memes that are untrue?

Obama defeated Ciinton by portraying himself as well to the left of centrists. The fact that he governed as a centrist has nothing to do with what got him elected. And the climate in the country is shifting. You and the DNC need to keep that in mind as well.

Besides, I would wager that about 80% of the country never heard of the DLC and has no idea that the party has changed. All they know is Democrats--FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, yadda yadda. New Deal, Fair Deal, Social Security, unions, civil rights, Great Society. Not mortgage derivatives.

Each party could run a hobby horse and they would get roughly the same number of votes, just based on the bitter partisanship that has been ginned up by both sides. So, please don't tell me that only a centrist can win. It's imaginary.

June 24, 2014

Thanks, Koko

Iching has also reminded me that local is the way to go and I have neglected that stupidly.

As far as the 60s, I don't see them as most people do. I think the PTB was fearful that the civil rights movement--not all of which had problems with violence--the Black Muslims, the hippies, the anti-war, anti-draft group that weren't hippies could easily form a coalition around 1) stop killing people of color in Vietnam; 2) stop the draft; 3) give everyone equal rights and 4) give us more economic justice.

Later, the fiscal conservatives and neocons who thought a volunteer, more professional military would serve them better than the draft opposed the war and the draft too, but not by demonstrating publicly. That was back room stuff. And I believe that was what actually stopped the war and the draft, not the demonstrations.

But, I'm also willing to say it was 11 years of demonstrations that finally stopped both, not that the conservatives accomplished it quietly and it only looked like demonstrations finally wore down Congress. It happened a long time ago and it's long moot.

Though most of both programs were dismantled, we still had Social Security and Medicare--and you know what was happening with them during Obama's first term, before OWS, even though they were supposedly untouchable, even during Bushco's reign.

Thing is, it's not the 1950s, the 1960s or the 1970s anymore. So many things have changed, especially the need of the PTB to fear an uprising. And the nature of the Democratic Party. And the nature of lobbying. And the nature of big business. And the cost of elections. Many, many other things, too, but I don't think the strategies of the 60s are going to work in 2014. (And maybe it only seemed to people that they worked in the 60s.)

Whenever I give my real thoughts, some hippie or group of hippies wants to strangle me, as do people who believe that their demonstrations and their internet petitions are going to trump billions upon billions in campaign donations, but that is honestly how I see it.

June 24, 2014

Campaign promises don't mislead?

I don't think our politicians have misled anyone, certainly not me. I think they generally represent the aggregate views of their constituents.

That is repeated again and again by politicians and therefore here, but it simply is not true.

If people are polled on issues, without labeling the issues as conservative or liberal or anything else, and if they are polled before anyone cranks up the propaganda, people poll more left than right.

For example, shortly after Obama was elected the first time, over 70% of Americans polled of both parties--over 70% of both parties--indicated they wanted a public option in a health care bill (which meant they also wanted a health care bill). The same majority, over 70% of both parties--said they wanted taxes raises on income over 250K a year.

The problem is not that a majority of constitutents are rightist on economic issues. Or that a majority of constitutents are demanding wars out of the blue. Or defeat of Warren's student loan bill. It's that the vast majority of very rich people are rightist on economic issues and make money from wars and they buy the politicians.

June 24, 2014

Someone already posted a Clinton list, but the problem with those lists is that

few to none of the items on the list is clear cut.

You can cite Obamacare and I can counter that it is a health insurer/health provider welfare program. You can then say he's not a king and I can counter with he would not even try. And on and on. I'm sure you've already seen all that. Hell, even "He got his daughters the dog he promised them" was on one of those stupid lists during his first term and the reality was that Kennedy gifted the dog.

But the huge lists are out there for cutting and pasting, no more than minutes, start to finish. On the other hand, countering every item could take a week or more because you'd have to do the research and write from scratch.

So, the person who posts the list wins, at least in his or her own mind and in the minds of people who already agree with them. I have no idea what they win, but people on message boards seem to think they win and someone else loses.

June 24, 2014

Okay, I'll walk into the trap. I don't believe you can understand

what it is to live like a poor person unless you've been a poor person.

You can have sympathy. You can care. you can be willing to "transfer wealth", but, unless you've lived it, you will never get what it is like to worry every day of your life that your kids might need something that you can't provide, let alone almost never being able to give them what they want. Or that your fever might go high enough that you won't be able to work and you'll miss a day's pay.

And no, living in your mansion on a welfare budget for a week by choice doesn't come close. Not even the same universe. It's the grinding poverty, day after day, the stress, the fear for your kids, etc.


Nor can I understand what it is to have more money than I or the next several generations of my descendants will need unless that somehow becomes my reality someday.

Seriously, is this really a controversial concept?

The expression "until you've walked a mile in my [his][her] shoes" did not become an expression for no reason.

But, Hillary and Chelsea make a couple of tone deaf comments, so we are going to deny the existence of something we once all assumed without question was true? Something most or all of us have probably said or posted or thought ourselves more than once, believing it to be true?

This is about the most ridiculous I've seen this place get.

April 27, 2014

"The Buck Stops at the FCC"-(Net Neutrality)

Until this, I've never wanted to write an OP here. However, myths about net neutrality are abounding on multiple DU threads. Trying to refute the same myths on one thread after another solely with replies is too time-consuming and, candidly, too boring. Hence, this post.

The subject is complicated, so I hope that you will bear with me.

Analysis must begin, of course, with Verizon v. FCC, decided by United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Court) in January 2014.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

I will deal in this post only with the majority opinion (60+ pages). Unless I give a different reference, things stated below about the law are things that the Court said in the majority opinion. When I capitalize the word "opinion," below, please know that I am referring to the majority opinion in Verizon v. FCC (2014)


Some Initial Background.

The FCC has only the power that Congress gives the FCC by statute. However, courts give federal agencies considerable leeway in interpreting the statute(s) that apply to the agency. Consistent with the prior sentence, the FCC has full power to change its own rules, but rule changes also require a rule-making process that includes notices and public hearings. In other words, the FCC can change its own rules, but it cannot do so in a second. It takes time and money on the part of the FCC and others and is, well, a process.

The FCC has power to regulate something called a common carrier. It's not a perfect analogy, but you might think of a Greyhound bus, operated to take members of the public where they want to go, as opposed to a bus owned by an individual for his or her own use. With a Greyhound, you can hop on and ride to your chosen destination as long as you pay the standard fare and behave reasonably. On the latter, the individual owner has a lot more to say about who has access to the bus and under what conditions. Greyhound is a common carrier. The other bus is not. The power of the federal government to regulate common carriers relatively heavily has been recognized for a very long time.

The FCC has power to classify companies as common carriers, as long as the classification is permitted under relevant federal statutes. The FCC also has power to regulate companies that are not common carriers. The FCC also can change the classifications that it has previously given companies, aka re-classify. Re-classifications, like other changes, require a rule-making process.

Here is the crux of the Opinion: The FCC has no statutory power to impose common carrier-type regulations on a company that is not FCC-classified as a common carrier. Please plant that one firmly in your mind because everything in this lengthy post depends on that: The FCC cannot impose certain common carrier-type regulations on companies that the FCC never classified as common carriers.

Here is another one to plant firmly in your mind: The FCC has never classified broadband providers as common carriers. In one or more previous rule-making processes, broadband providers were instead classified as information providers.

Something I will mention only in passing: A company like Verizon is both a broadband provider and provider of telephone services. In its capacity as a provider of telephone services, Verizon is indeed classified as a common carrier, but the classification does not apply to its broadband operations. For convenience, let's pretend for purposes of this post that broadband provider companies do not engage in any other activities.

At some point after Obama's first inauguration, the FCC instituted a rule-making process affecting broadband providers. Again, the FCC did not, during this rule-making process, or at any other time, seek to re-classify broadband providers as common carriers. For that reason, broadband providers were not classified as common carriers when Verizon sued the FCC; and they are still not classified as common carriers. This rule-making process of some years ago did, however, result in some new rules that we like to call "net neutrality" rules.

Okay, I hope at least some of you got this far.

Truth # 1: No court "struck down net neutrality." Part A

The term "struck down net neutrality" creates a very false impression of the Opinion.

In the initial portion of the Opinion, the Court noted that the FCC had not classified broadband providers as common carriers. Because of that failure to re-classify, the FCC could not impose on broad band providers certain common carrier-type regulations.

A lot of the opinion after that point is devoted to determining whether or not some of the new rules that the FCC tried to impose on broadband carriers were common carrier-type regulations or not. The net neutrality rules themselves were never declared outside the current statutory authority of the FCC. Rather, only the FCC's attempt to apply the rules to companies that the FCC had not already classified as common carriers was deemed to exceed the FCC's current statutory authority.

The L.A. Times articulated this as follows:

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the first two of those rules in January, saying the commission didn't prove it had the legal authority to impose such restrictions on information services.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-net-neutrality-fcc-fast-lane-20140423,0,3906798.story#ixzz306QZvrla

To omit the last three words of that sentence is to mis-state the Opinion.

Can the FCC re-classify broadband providers as common carriers at some future date, without further Congressional action?

The Court did not hold on that, one way or the other. Doing so would have been an advisory opinion and federal courts cannot give advisory opinions. The Court said only that the FCC cannot treat broadband providers as though they are common carriers while the FCC still has broadband providers classified as information services. (The italicized part of the prior sentence apparently escaped some readers.) But please keep reading because some very knowledgeable people have spoken about it.

If the FCC should re-classify broadband providers as common carriers in the future, can the FCC then force net neutrality on broadband providers without further action by Congress?

The Court did not hold on that, one way or another, either. That, too, would be an advisory opinion and, again, federal courts cannot give advisory opinions. But, again, please keep reading.

Is there a Constitutional issue?

Verizon did raise the issue of a taking without due process, given that net neutrality would prevent broadband providers from making more money. Given how the Court decided, it did not need to reach the Constitutional issue and therefore did not. I will just note that common carriers have been heavily regulated for decades in ways that prevent them from maximizing their profits. And companies, such as Netflix, that want access to a common carrier without being charged a premium, can raise their own Constitutional issues, including the First Amendment.

Also, federal courts owe deference to Congress, which has put the FCC in charge of this, and to the FCC. However federal courts do not owe deference to Verizon or other broadband providers.

I am certain that authors cited below read the Opinion and noted that Verizon raised a Constitutional claim. None of them seem to think it an obstacle.

At the very least, I don't see any rationale for keeping the FCC from at least trying re-classification, given what is at stake.


Truth #1: No court "struck down net neutrality." Part B How can I assure you that my above description of the Court's decision is correct?

First, on February 19, 2014, FCC Head Wheeler issued a statement about the Opinion. If the Court had forever precluded the FCC from forcing net neutrality rules on broadband providers, that surely would have been in the statement about his plans to make new rules. (Why would the FCC or the Executive want all the blame?) It wasn't in his statement, though.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-fccs-open-internet-rules

That statement, of course, was before Wheeler's April 23, 2014 statement, leaked by the WSJ, saying that the FCC would not be promulgating new net neutrality rules after all.

Next, an article by Michael Copps, the title of which is quoted in my post.

Copps is a Phi Beta Kappa college graduate with a Ph.d, IOW, both smart and highly-educated. For 12 years, Copps was Chief of Staff to Democratic U.S. Senator Hollings. Then, Copps was an Assistant Secretary in the Commerce Department. IOW, very used to dealing with federal statutes and courts.

Most relevantly, Copps became a commissioner of the FCC in 2001. Cops served as a commissioner of the FCC for a total of 10.5 years. When Obama took office, he chose Copps as acting head of the FCC until Genachowski could be formally nominated and confirmed. Copps served as acting head of the FCC for six months.

In 2011, Copps distinguished himself by being the only FCC Commissioner to vote against allowing giant Comcast to join with NBC Universal. Said Copps at the time:

In sum, this is simply too much, too big, too powerful, too lacking in benefits for American consumers and citizens.... I would be true to neither the statute nor to everything I have fought for here at the Commission over the past decade if I did not dissent from what I consider to be a damaging and potentially dangerous deal (..) At the end of the day, the public interest requires more-much more-than it is receiving. The Comcast-NBCU joint venture opens the door to the cableization of the open Internet. The potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, access fees to reach end users, and a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Copps

FYI, Wiki is not clear about how long Copps served on the FCC in all, but about 10.5 years is correct. http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/michael-j-copps

Truth #2 The FCC can act further on net neutrality without further legislation by Congress.

Here is a link to the article written by Copps entitled, The Buck Stops With the FCC. http://benton.org/node/172880 The article was published January 22, 2014, after the decision in Verizon v. FCC, and before either of the statements by FCC Head Wheeler referenced above.

Former FCC Commissioner Copps' article states, among other things, that the FCC can legally re-classify broadband providers to common carrier without more legislation by Congress and should do so.

http://benton.org/node/172880

In light of Copps' intelligence, experience in government in general, and as FCC Commissioner and Acting FCC Chief in particular, I cannot imagine anyone much more qualified to make that determination.

Some may object that Copps is not a lawyer. Fair enough, which brings me to Tim Wu.

Tim Wu is not merely a lawyer, but a law professor at Columbia University in the fields of internet, media and communications. He wrote The Master Switch (2010) and Who Controls the Internet (2006), and Net Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination (2002) And, he is a former legal adviser to the FCC.

http://www.law.columbia.edu/fac/Tim_Wu and http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/the-end-of-net-neutrality.html

In a post at The New Yorker (link above), Wu accused President Obama of having broken firm campaign promises about net neutrality. The post was made the day after Wheeler's April 23 statement about not promulgating new net neutrality rules after all. Some DUers have suggested that the article did not mention the court ruling, which is true. However, looking at the timing of Wu's article--less than a full day after the news of Wheeler's plans hit the media--and Wu's own credentials, it seems almost bizarre to contemplate that Wu was not familiar with the January Opinion when he posted the article in April.

Some DUers also thought that Wu should have offered the FCC, an arm of the federal government, advice on how to get around the January Opinion. I hope this post and the sources cited in make very clear that there was nothing in the January 14 Opinion that the the FCC had to get around before beginning a new rulemaking process to re-classify broadband providers as common carriers and to adopt net neutrality rules. (The LAT article linked to above also states that as one of the three options that the Court left the FCC.)

I must acknowledge that it was DUer villager who brought the Wu/New Yorker post to the attention of DU by posting about it in an OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024866734

I acknowledge as well DUer Koko, who began a very informative thread urging our activism in this matter. (Our activism in this matter is another reason for this post: if you believe the mischaracterizations of the Opinion, you may not even try activism.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024874164

Commissioner Copps' article, link above, also urges our activism and provides us with a petition that we can sign if we wish. (I have mixed feelings about internet petitions, so I am only letting you know that it's in the article.)

While I have not yet read the thread begun by DUer Ichingcarpenter, I include it here because some DUers have argued that we should be looking forward to a future with tiers; and I strongly disagree. Therefore, I liked the title of the thread and, sight unseen, I have confidence in DUers to produce a great thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024873446 ("Why you don't want tiered Internet costs.&quot

Other Truths?

Other statements posted in various threads deal with whether or not the FCC and/or Obama bear any blame/responsibility for the current state of affairs. Those determinations may or may not be subjective, but they will be a lot more controversial than this thread should be, especially if people actually look at the writings to which I have linked. So, I prefer not to address issues of blame in this post, but may (or may not) do a separate post on that subject.

For purposes this post, suffice to say that the FCC had the option of proceeding to a rulemaking process without additional action by Congress, but the FCC chose tiers instead.