RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Door Closes to Open Internet, but All May Not Be Lost Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=22195"><span class="small">Michael Winship, Bill Moyers & Company</span></a>   
Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:42

Winship writes: "The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a potentially lethal blow to net neutrality - the principle that the Internet should be available equally to anyone who wishes to use it."

Internet address bar. (photo: file)
Internet address bar. (photo: file)


Door Closes to Open Internet, but All May Not Be Lost

By Michael Winship, Moyers & Company

16 January 14

 

n the words of Howard Beale, the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves in the movie Network, "Woe is us! We're in a lot of trouble!" And, as Beale would shout, we should be mad as hell.

Issuing a decision that triggered dismay and anger among supporters of an Internet open and free to all, a federal appeals court on Tuesday overruled the Federal Communications Commission and set the stage for a near future in which such service providers as Verizon and AT&T could give preferential treatment to websites willing to pay a higher price for access and speed.

The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a potentially lethal blow to net neutrality - the principle that the Internet should be available equally to anyone who wishes to use it as a medium for creativity and information, regardless of who they are and no matter the size of their checkbooks.

The court ruled in a lawsuit filed by Verizon that "the FCC cannot subject companies that provide Internet service to the same type of regulation that the agency imposes on phone companies," The New York Times reported. "It cited the FCC's own decision in 2002 that Internet service was not a telecommunications service - like telephone or telegraph - but an information service, a classification that limits the FCC's authority."

The entertainment industry news site Variety noted, "The decision has broad implications for Internet businesses of all kinds, including Google, Yahoo, Netflix, Amazon.com, Apple and Facebook — as well as traditional media companies that rely on broadband networks for content distribution. The ruling for now establishes that government regulators can't dictate how Internet service providers manage their networks and how they choose to prioritize data."

In an Ask Me Anything discussion on Reddit Tuesday afternoon, telecommunications policy expert Susan Crawford further described the implications of the court decision:

It means that the major providers of high-speed Internet access in the US, who have systematically divided markets and tacitly agreed mostly not to compete with one another, can treat high-speed Internet access like a cable TV service. They can be gatekeepers, charge content providers (any business) for the privilege of reaching us, the subscribers; and, of course, charge us. A lot. For lousy service compared to, say, Stockholm or Seoul.

In an official statement, Craig Aaron, president and CEO of the media reform group Free Press added, "[The court's] ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies — and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers' communications at will… They'll establish fast lanes for the few giant companies that can afford to pay exorbitant tolls and reserve the slow lanes for everyone else."

Nonetheless, the court's decision could be reversed, either on appeal to the Supreme Court or by the FCC backing away from decisions it made during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations and taking a stronger stand on behalf of the American people instead of the Verizon's and AT&T's. In an article for The Huffington Post, Craig Aaron notes:

New FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently stated that the FCC must be able to protect broadband users and preserve the Internet's fundamental open architecture. Now he has no other choice but to restore and reassert the FCC's clear authority over our nation's communications infrastructure.

… Now the free and open Internet is flat-lining. But Wheeler has the paddles in his hands and the power to resuscitate Net Neutrality. We'll know soon if he has the political guts to use them.

Wheeler, after the court's decision was announced, said, "We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans."

But there will be congressional opposition. And the FCC has a long, sad track record of spinning pro-industry positions to make them sound good and good for you. It's too soon to tell on which side Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the mobile phone and cable TV industries, ultimately will come down. Which means that once again, as has been the case so many times since this fight began, people have to stand up and be heard.

You can start by contacting the FCC chairman's office and demanding that he and his colleagues stand resolute and forthright in favor of net neutrality, an Internet open to all.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
TPP: The Fast-Track to Poverty Print
Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:35

Gerard writes: "The corporations that stand to profit and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support the current TPP scheme, as they did the other job-destroying trade deals. And so do corporate politicians."

(photo: unknown)
(photo: unknown)


TPP: The Fast-Track to Poverty

By Leo Gerard, AlterNet

16 January 14

 

American workers need a new trade philosophy, one that protects them and puts people first, not corporations. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be a disaster.

hat giant sucking sound predicted by Ross Perot commenced 20 years ago last week. It is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) vacuuming up U.S. jobs and depositing them in Mexico.

Independent presidential candidate Perot was right. NAFTA swept U.S. industry south of the border. It made Wall Street happy. It made multi-national corporations obscenely profitable. But it destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of American workers.

NAFTA's backers promised it would create American jobs, just as promoters of the Korean and Chinese trade arrangements said they would and advocates of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal contend it will. They were - and still are - brutally wrong. NAFTA, the Korean deal and China's entry into the World Trade Organization killed American jobs. They lowered wages. They diminished what America cherishes: opportunity. They contributed to the very ill that President Obama is crusading against: income inequality. There is no evidence the TPP would be any different. American workers need a new trade philosophy, one that protects them and puts people first, not corporations.

After 20 years, Americans know in their guts the damage NAFTA did to them, the destruction it caused to American manufacturing. There's also concrete proof. In a study titled "NAFTA at 20," released this month, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch concludes:

"After two decades of NAFTA, the evidence is clear: the vaunted deal failed at its promises of job creation and better living standards while contributing to mass job losses, soaring income inequality, agricultural instability, corporate attacks on domestic health and environmental safeguards, and mass displacement and volatility in Mexico."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7FcRth3-Jo

 

It points out that the NAFTA snake-oil salesmen at the Peterson Institute promised it would create 170,000 jobs a year. A year! Instead, it cost America at least 845,000 jobs. That is the number of manufacturing workers who were able to jump through all of the red-taped hoops necessary to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) after corporations moved their jobs across the border. The study's authors believe hundreds of thousands of additional workers lost their jobs because of NAFTA but did not qualify for the federal TAA aid.

The study also notes that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics determined that two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who secured new jobs in 2012 did so at slashed wages, the majority at a cut of more than 20 percent.

The result is rising income inequality. It happens like this: workers lose their good-paying factory jobs and take lower-paying positions. This increases competition for low-skill, low-pay jobs that can't be offshored, such as hamburger flipping and shelf stocking. While a small number of corporate executives and wealthy shareholders profit from moving factories across borders, it forces increasing numbers of workers to vie for minimum-wage jobs. As a result, income inequality now matches the level it was during the robber baron days before the Great Depression.

A study last year by the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI) supports the Public Citizen findings. EPI determined that trade reduced wages for workers without college educations by 5.5 percent in 2011, costing the average worker $1,800. Meanwhile, trade with developing countries like China increased the wages of the smaller number of college-educated U.S. workers. The upshot is a widening gulf between Americans' earnings, particularly as more and more Americans can't afford the costs of higher education.

NAFTA actually encouraged corporations to abandon the United States. The Public Citizen report explains: "NAFTA created new privileges and protections for foreign investors that incentivized the offshoring of investment and jobs by eliminating many of the risks normally associated with moving production to low-wage countries."

What that means is that U.S. corporations contribute to the trade deficit by manufacturing in Mexico and importing their products into America. Before NAFTA, the United States had a small trade surplus with Mexico. Now it's a trade deficit. A huge one.

The Korean trade deal, which took effect nearly two years ago, is no better. Like NAFTA, its promoters said it would boost exports and create jobs. In its first year, U.S. exports to Korea fell 8.3 percent. Imports from Korea rose, increasing the trade deficit with Korea by nearly 40 percent. That cost Americans 40,000 jobs.

This is not what Americans want from trade. And yet, the United States is negotiating a NAFTA-style deal called the TPP with 11 Pacific Rim nations, including Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The negotiations are occurring in secret. Average citizens have no access to what's going on. Without significant changes, TPP will just be another American factory shuttering, dream shattering trade deal.

Of course, the corporations that stand to profit and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support the current TPP scheme, as they did the other job-destroying trade deals. And so do corporate politicians.

Three of them - U.S. Rep. Dave Camp and Senators Orrin Hatch and Max Baucus - introduced legislation last week to speed passage of TPP - put it on the fast track. Under fast track, Congress excuses itself from its Constitutional duty to supervise international trade.

The fast track bill empowers the President to sign a secretly devised trade pact before Congress votes on it. Fast track also limits Congressional debate to 20 hours and forbids amendments.

In addition to the anniversary of NAFTA, last week was the 50th anniversary of Lyndon B. Johnson's call for a War on Poverty.

In that address to Congress, Johnson also appealed for more balanced trade, for foreign countries granted access to the American market to open their markets to American goods. That's what Americans want from trade - fairness. They know they can compete when given a level playing field.

Americans want trade deals to ensure equity. They want trade policies that increase American innovation, American manufacturing and American jobs.

They want trade policies that help America win President Obama's war on income inequality, not schemes that grant special favors to corporations at the expense of people.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | How Many Ways Can Maureen Dowd Embarrass Journalism? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Thursday, 16 January 2014 11:06

Pierce writes: "I should have stayed working at the state park. I could've retired at a full pension 15 years ago and I wouldn't have spent my working life in what amounts at its highest levels to a Chronic Ward."

 (illustration: Huffington Post)
(illustration: Huffington Post)


How Many Ways Can Maureen Dowd Embarrass Journalism?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

16 January 14

 

should have stayed working at the state park. I could've retired at a full pension 15 years ago and I wouldn't have spent my working life in what amounts at its highest levels to a Chronic Ward.

I'm not saying it's right. I know it's wrong. I'm just saying I do it, too. I eat pizza with a knife and fork because I want only the gooey stuff on top, not the crust. (When I first started in The Times's Washington bureau, I soothed my nerves by noshing on pizzas slathered with mashed potatoes, a dish that required a spoon and bigger jeans.) I almost didn't become a Times columnist because of a de Blasio-like faux pas. When Arthur Sulzberger Jr. took me to breakfast to discuss the possibility of a column, we were talking when he suddenly looked dismayed. I thought it was my ZERO knowledge about NATO, but it wasn't. "Why," he asked me, "are you eating your muffin with a knife and fork?"

The instrument capable of measuring the microscopic shit I care about this anecdote has yet to be invented.

I thought I was being ladylike, which might have been de Blasio's problem as well. The photos looked way too ladylike for the 6-foot-5 mayor. It seemed more like the prissy move of Warren Wilhelm Jr. of Cambridge - his original name which he changed because of his estrangement from his alcoholic father - than the paesano Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn.

Fag-baiting. It's not just for Obambi any more.

Pizza can be hazardous to an administration. We all remember what happened when a Clinton intern delivered a pie to the Oval Office during a government shutdown.

Of course "we" all remember it. But "we" all don't relive it, over and over again, with dramatic pauses, every time "we" are in our cups. It all comes down to Why-Monica-And-Not-Me? Get over it, Mo. Jaysus.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Supreme Court to Decide the Future of the Entire Obama Presidency Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Tuesday, 14 January 2014 15:35

Pierce writes: "It is not much of an exaggeration to say that, while the rest of the country's political class remains fascinated by the Passion Of Big Chicken, the future of the entire Obama presidency today is hanging fire before the United States Supreme Court."

The Supreme Court. (photo: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images)
The Supreme Court. (photo: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images)


Supreme Court to Decide the Future of the Entire Obama Presidency

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

14 January 14

 

t is not much of an exaggeration to say that, while the rest of the country's political class remains fascinated by the Passion Of Big Chicken, the future of the entire Obama presidency today is hanging fire before the United States Supreme Court. Only real SCOTUS wonks saw this one coming but, should the court decide in favor of the plaintiff in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning, there simply will not be much left for Barack Obama to do in office except greet NCAA championship teams and drone people to death in Waziristan.

At issue in the case is the president's power to make recess appointments to various executive branch positions. Frustrated by the fact that he has an opposition party that is a) dedicated to nullifying wholly the results of the 2008 and 2012 presidential election, and b) insane, the president resorted to recess appointments in order to staff his government, as other presidents have before him. Republicans in the legislature then argued that the recess appointments were constitutionally illegitimate because they were holding kabuki "sessions" of the legislature and that, therefore, there was no recess at all. Three of the appointments in question were to the National Labor Relations Board, which could not function with three positions empty, which was rather the obvious point of blocking them. The full NLRB then ruled against the canning division of the Noel Company in a contract dispute. The company challenged the ruling on the grounds that three of the commissioners held their office illegitimately. Spectacularly, but unsurprisingly, the company got the D.C. Court of Appeals to agree, and up to the nine wise souls the case went.

Bear in mind. The D.C. Court overruled over a century of settled practice within the government. The opinion was written by Judge David Sentelle, whose long career as a political hack stretches back to the 1980s, when he helped confound the investigation into the Iran-Contra scandal. (Sentelle believes all financial regulation to be unconstitutional, which must keep him in dinners, anyway.) In fact, to call Sentelle a hack is to insult most of the people who worked for Huey Long. This is an attempt to create a legal exception through which this president will not be allowed to govern effectively. If Sentelle's hackery is upheld, the ramifications are enormous. Among the president's other recess appointments is Richard Cordray at the Consumer Finance Protection Board. If the ruling goes against the administration, and Cordray's appointment is declared illegitimate, then the CFPB may go down as well. Which is, of course, rather the point of the whole exercise. And you would not be remiss if you were to recall that this president is the only one in 50 years who has not been allowed to fill seats on the very court that launched this whole mess -- the D.C. Court of Appeals. Which is, of course, rather the point.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Thank You Dennis Rodman Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 14 January 2014 11:30

Ash reports: "So Dennis Rodman has returned from yet another visit to North Korea and President Kim Jong-Un. Rodman is predictably under fire from mainstream media for entertaining a dictator, for treason (via former boxer Mike Tyson's assertion), and for generally sticking his pierced nose where it could not possibly belong."

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets with former NBA star Dennis Rodman in Pyongyang, North Korea. (photo: Rodong Sinmun)
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets with former NBA star Dennis Rodman in Pyongyang, North Korea. (photo: Rodong Sinmun)


Thank You Dennis Rodman

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

14 January 14

 

o Dennis Rodman has returned from yet another visit to North Korea and President Kim Jong-Un. Rodman is predictably under fire from mainstream media for entertaining a dictator, for treason (via former boxer Mike Tyson’s assertion), and for generally sticking his pierced nose where it could not possibly belong.

Well, Kudos to Dennis Rodman for doing what the American government has cynically refused to do since North Korea transgressed by attempting to drive US, Russian, and Japanese forces from all of Korea following World War II.

Rodman spoke to the North Koreans and reached out. Proving that it could always have been done and still can by any US official bold enough to buck the American War Industry.

We needed to know that while Rodman was there hobnobbing with Kim, Kim took time out to summarily execute his uncle, whom he accused of corruption, but probably did not feed to hungry dogs, but probably did dispatch by firing squad within 72 hours of arrest. None of which changes the historical record. Korea is a land long dominated by foreign armies. The sense of rage there, in North and South, is little understood by Westerners.

Western right-wing talking heads – primarily American – are quick to point out that North Korea engages in acts of torture and summary executions. Quite serious if true, but worse than Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, or drone strikes?

What is the point of continuing to isolate North Korea? It’s been clear for decades that the North Koreans would be receptive to talks with any US official willing to participate in good faith, or Dennis Rodman for that matter. North Korea wants to rejoin the world community, there can be no doubt. What prevents it from doing so is American imperialist will. Are we safer with an isolated North Korea left to endure unending economic hardship, or a North Korea rebuilding its economy as part of the international community?

By continuing to keep North Korea isolated we maintain a military foothold in Asia, but we also invite the instability we often cite as the rationale for continuing the very same conflict.

It is time to reengage North Korea and allow a pathway to Korean reunification. The world would undoubtedly be safer for it.

Thank you, Dennis Rodman, for doing what no US official has had the courage or the vision to do since Japan surrendered.


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 Next > End >>

Page 2986 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN