Government Broadband

Continuing the FCC theme from the prior post. I stumbled across a great article on ZDNet demonstrating a handful of negative effects of the FCC controlling cost and infrastructure of broadband. The following is an excerpt from that article by the David Gewirtz, the executive director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, founder of the ZATZ technical magazines, and the cyberterrorism advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism and Security Professionals:

But there is a dark side. First, you gotta know that the minute FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski mentioned providing broadband to another 100 million DVD-buying-cause-they-can’t-watch-Hulu-yet Americans, some movie industry executives somewhere went full-goose bozo.

And that’s even before Julius mentioned those juicy upload speeds of 100 megabits per second. Can you say BitTorrent? Sure, I knew you could. Now, think about the FCC’s stated goal of “access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools.”

In schools all across America, there will be armies of teenagers who’ll use their schools’ increased bandwidth to share every movie and every TV show ever digitized. After all, if it takes less than ten minutes to download a full-length movie, why not? Yes, I know, there’s software to prevent that. Do you seriously think any security software can stand up to an army of teenagers who want free movies?

Somewhere in Hollywood, an accountant in an overpriced suit just screamed into his latte.

Where else could this thing go off the rails?

Broadband For The Masses

The FCC is revealing its plan this week to use Stimulus money to upgrade our internet infrastructure. The problem: Too many people cannot access broadband internet. The plan will:

"provide high-speed Internet access to the estimated 93 million people in the U.S. without it. The plan, mandated by Congress last year as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aims to increase home broadband use to 90 percent of the population by 2020 (Scientific American)."

The U.S., as of 2009, had 26.7 percent of the population on broadband. That is 81 million people were using broadband. The next closest country, in raw numbers, was Japan with 31 million. 90 percent would equal 245 million people with broadband. Comparing percentage of population (or penetration), the Netherlands had the highest percentage at 38 percent. But I don't need to tell you the population and land size differences in comparing our country to The Netherlands or even Japan. Our usage already trumps all other countries. Then what is the issue of access? Now, if it was faulty infrastructure, I could understand federal concern. If goats kept chewing through the cross-country trunk lines we would all agree that would be a problem. But the United States has no issue with goats. The FCC estimates that cable TV is accessible to 99 percent of the U.S. population. Cable broadband available to 96 percent. DSL 82 percent. If 96 percent of the nation already has the option, then why aren't more people using it and what exactly does the FCC mean by "access (all stats from OECD.org)?"



Obviously they don't mean connecting to broadband.

"The number one reason people cite for being offline is cost," Clyburn said. "Some might be in the position of having to choose between paying for basic necessities or paying for broadband, while others might not see the value of broadband relative to other things they could pay for like cable TV"(Scientific American)."

Those poor people; having to choose between paying for necessities or paying for broadband. How terrible. Cost is the issue: in FCC lingo "cost" must equal "access." Until two weeks ago, I too was one of the 93 million choosing not to use Broadband. I had no desire to pay the high rates. I chose to buy camping gear instead. Why is it suddenly a federal issue that I would rather spend my money buying some other product instead of broadband?


Are costs in the United States that bad? The average monthly bill is $45.52 putting us safely in tenth place for lowest monthly costs in the world. The world average is $51.55. Sounds like we don't have too much to complain about. Remember the Netherlands, which has the highest percentage of citizens on broadband? They are paying an average of $66.79 a month.


So why is it suddenly a national issue that we have nine countries paying a few dollars less than us for broadband? I don't know.

Instead of making people decide how to spend their money, the FCC wants to regulate the costs so we don't have to choose between cable TV or broadband internet. Or 60 inch TVs. Or speed boats. Or fast food. We can afford it all.

Sounds like a good idea; it has got me thinking: why stop with the internet? We all have access to roads. Most of us have a car to get around the roads on. But those who can't afford a car have access through public transit. And some of us splurge for sports cars. But we all have access to the roads. But you know, I'm sick of not driving a Ferrari like my rich neighbor. I'm also concerned that the penetration of Ferrari's is far higher in Italy than in the United States. And they are paying less. Why should I have to drive an old Honda so I can afford to buy food? Where do I live, some third world country? This is the 21st century. I don't think I should have to suffer like this. Not when I have to watch my hard working neighbor driving his Ferrari. And the people taking public transit should suffer no more. Where are their Ferraris? Imagine how wonderful the world will be when we all can travel in more style than any other country. I hereby declare Ferraris our right. Oh, and broadband internet.

Canon Mug

Now this is a cool advertising idea. Mugs designed to look just like a camera lens. How awesome is that? Someone over at Canon has a good sense of humor. You know, if you are going to give out and design swag, why not make swag that is your product? Everyone does hats and pens. Mugs are common to, but not mugs like these.

Iran and the Bomb

Reading Joel Rosenberg's book, Inside the Revolution, I came across this stunningly concise description of the likely fallout of Israel attacking Iran this year. They are trapped and threatened. They have no where to run:

Israeli leaders may, therefore, choose a strategy similar to the one their predecessors chose in 1967. In this case, they may launch a massive air and missile strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, air bases, missile launchers, air defense systems, and possibly government offices and critical infrastructure facilities before Iran has the opportunity to strike Israel first.

Such a move may prove necessary in the end, but it could also set the whole region on fire. Israel could face hundreds of incoming retalkiatory missiles from Iran as well as tens of thousands of incoming ballistic missiles and rockets from Syria, form Hezbollahin Lebonan, from Hamas in Gaza, and possibly from the West Bank, as well. Some of these missiles could be carrying chemical or biological warheads, even if the nuclear warhead in Iran were not in the picture. Ballistic missiles could also be fired from Iran at the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, at the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and the strait of Hormuz, and at the U.S. bases and forces in Iraq. Thousands of suicide bomber cells could be activated in the region, particularly against Iraq and Israel. At the same time, sleeper terrorist cells could be activated in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States.

...Amid such global carnage and chaos, oil prices could soar to $300 a barrel or more. U.S. gas prices could spike to $10 a gallon or more, with horrific domestic and international economic repercussions. Worst of all, tens of millions of innocent civilians could be caught in the cross fire of a war they don't want but cannot prevent (p.17-18, Rosenberg).

Right and Wrong and Free Speech

I came across this today which amazingly continues on the theme of my Right and Wrong post. This is from an article in response to Obama's U.N. Anti-Free Speech resolution; as USA Today stated "the Obama administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech." From the John Birch Society, "It has been pretty clear that the Obama administration does not look with particular favor on the second amendment, but it is also becoming increasingly evident that the President is not much of a ‘fan’ of the first one, either...The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression."

Apparently, Obama described the measure as a method to stop blasphemy and to protect religion. Yet why, world wide, are people being persecuted for saying "homosexual," being "anti-gay," by classifying disagreement with abortion as "hate speech," etc? These things may show intolerance, but they do not deal with religion or blasphemy.

So what is the common thread running through all these speech prohibitions? The standard being applied is not one of blasphemy.
It is offensiveness.

Thus, what’s happening here is not religious but quintessentially secular. After all, blasphemy is predicated on the idea that external, universal, unchanging laws (God’s laws, the Truth) dictate that certain things really are sacred and that we must respect them, that we must, in a manner of speaking, avoid “offending” God. Yet [they] are only concerned about offending man. And in making “man the measure of all things,” they are guilty of a typical atheist mistake. That is, if there is no Truth (a notion that reduces morality to opinion) who is to say it’s wrong to offend people?

Moreover, making man god and then saying “Thou shalt offend no god” is far scarier than anything Mideastern Imams conjure up. This is because blasphemy prohibitions are actually fairly limited, only pertaining to impious utterances relating to a certain religion. Yet, since the secularists are using that which “offends man” as the yardstick, and since man comprises thousands of groups the world over, there conceivably is no limit to the number of speech prohibitions such a standard could spawn (Selwyn Duke).

Obama says he is stopping blasphemy, but his blasphemy has nothing to do with God. Looking at his war on Fox News, Obama seems to define blasphemy as anything that contradicts him. He has out rightly attacked Fox News, attempting to stop their reporting. The other major news agencies, having watched the circus the last few weeks, have finally banded together with Fox.

Now, I know all the articles I have quoted are extremely conservative. I apologize for that. I actively sought for a balanced perspective on this UN Free Speech discussion. Shockingly, none of the larger media other than Fox have touched this; but it is moving like wild fire on the smaller sites and blogs. And obviously my support for an eternal Right and Wrong only comes from conservatives. As Selwyn Duke put it:

An atheist would say that religionists' reasoning is based on a silly assertion; namely, that the divine exists. I won’t argue that here but will only say that the secularists’ offensiveness-based speech laws are silly regardless of the facts. After all, while secularists’ relativism dictates nothing can be wrong, they claim it’s wrong to offend others. They also claim nothing can be sacred but yet would have us treat certain people’s feelings as sacred.

They just don't make sense...

Federal Reserve Not Tracking Spending

This is a great clip on the status of oversight at the Federal Reserve. The first two minutes are a little slow but ramp up quickly after 1:56. This is crazy.

Save our Parks - Turn off the TV

Have you visited a national park lately?

"The iconic American family vacation to a national park, after 50 years of rising popularity, is now in steady decline. From 1987 to 2007, per capita visits to national parks shrank by 23 percent" (Scientific American hereafter mentioned as Sci Am).

I only went to one last year. Why didn't I go to more? Well, personally, work. I wouldn't let myself take the time off. What is your excuse?

"Surprisingly, we discovered that 97.5 percent of the decline in national park visits could be explained by just four factors: the rising price of gasoline and the increasing amount of time people spend plying the Web, playing video games and watching movies. Although correlation is not causation, the relationship was strong."

The last three of those four factors, web, video games, and movies, really blend into one. That one I call 'life.' Sci Am "coined the term 'videophilia' to describe 'the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media.'" The problem appears to be: less people coming to parks, less funding. Less ardent support for environmental protection.

As Sci Am puts it, "Nature: use it or lose it."

Well, I'm going to go watch a rerun of Seinfeld.

Proud to be an American

I sat down this morning with a bowl of Fruity Cheerios and the Saturday paper and was greeted by the following stories:

Man killed in Wal-Mart stampede
"A Wal-Mart worker was killed Friday when "out-of-control" shoppers desperate for bargains broke down the doors...other workers were trampled as they tried to rescue the man...at least four other people were taken to the hospital including a woman who was eight months pregnant."

When the police tried to make the people leave after the man's death and as the ambulances were showing up, "people were yelling, 'I've been on line since yesterday morning.' 'They kept shopping.'"

2 men shot to death in California toy store
"' I think the obvious question everyone has is who takes loaded weapons into a Toy's "R" Us?'"

As I finished my Fruity Cheerios and drank down the leftover sugary, purple colored milk, I asked myself, "Is this my America? Are we proud of ourselves?"

New American Rights

I have posted this verbatim from my buddy, Thomas Sowell. He has more authority than I, and says it better besides. My source for the text is here, and I originally read this published in Utah's Deseret News.

Take it away Mr. Sowell:

Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one seems to be a "right" to win.

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don't win.

Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the "glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.

Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is no reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the votes in the primaries had come out her way.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.

Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles -- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.

Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."

Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.

In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the polls.

In Oakland, Calif., a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco supervisor who said, "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."

Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in Orange County, California.

In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services, and their "gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.

How did we get to this kind of situation?

With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s, where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.

"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.

Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think -- and awful if you do.

Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to obey the rules, while they don't have to.

What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.

Obama and the Media

In May I did a quick study of political coverage in all the main news sources I follow. I had a hunch. Everything I read or heard seemed to be about Obama or Clinton. Clinton has since dropped out.

Some of the sources I tallied, for an idea, were BBC World News, CNN Politics, KSL, MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, Yahoo, etc.

What I found was that since March 2007, Obama had cornered 30 percent of all political stories. John McCain had only 22 percent. That may not seem like much, but the difference over one year is quite large. It equates to more than 1000 stories about Obama than McCain. Counting Hillary, the Democratic party received 61 percent of the news. The Republicans, less than 39 percent.

Glenn Beck stated for CNN today, "According to the Tyndall Report, a service that monitors the three network news broadcasts, ABC, NBC, and CBS have spent a total of 114 of their national airtime minutes covering Obama since June. They've spent 48 minutes on his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain." So Obama is getting over double the airtime.

Who is the media's baby?

I find it odd, though, that the media has so happily fawned around Obama, the same media that attacks big business and complains frequently about an interfering federal government. The irony being that Obama is funded solely by big business and promises to give the federal government more control of our daily lives.

"He's [Obama] been on the cover of U.S. News and World Report, GQ, Rolling Stone, US Weekly (twice), Time and Newsweek (a combined 12 times) and will soon be on the cover of Men's Vogue for the second time. To be fair, Men's Vogue also did an in-depth story on John McCain but, strangely, a photo of McCain didn't make their cover.

"Why the disparity? According to Men's Vogue deputy editor Ned Martel, there's a simple explanation: Obama 'is what is called in the magazine world an "interest driver." ' Translation: Obama sells magazines."

Of course. It all comes down to ratings and money. The media, in general, doesn't care about Obama. He is simply their new cash cow and they are milking him for all he's worth. What bothers me is that by doing so, they are avoiding many other important issues. I know very little about McCain because what little I find in the media is a cowering shadow of the many news stories on Obama. I know when and how Obama exercises, I know his favorite drinks; all thanks to the in depth media coverage. But with McCain, I barely even know his entire platform. To find it, I have to actively search for it.

"We've become a country that continually chooses the sizzle over the steak. McCain may not get my vote, but he gets my admiration for at least offering some substance and new ideas when he speaks. Obama, meanwhile, is like the rock star who's realized that he can just scream unintelligible words into the microphone between songs, and the entire stadium will still scream. When your fans already love you, there's no reason to risk it by offering anything that might be controversial. Remember the Dixie Chicks?

"As candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are ironically a lot like the way the media treats them: Obama is the glitzy magazine cover that screams for people to buy the issue, and McCain is the fact-filled article buried inside that makes you glad you did."

For the full article, see http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/23/beck.obama.media/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

And did you know Ralph Nader is running for President? I didn't. I found that he received .3 percent of political news coverage. That is 36 stories in the last year to Obama's 4000. In these same news sources I found Jesus Christ in 222 stories, or 1.7 percent of the political news. So He is getting better coverage, and at this rate, I'd say has a better chance of becoming the next President than Ralph Nader.

Ralph, buddy, you've got to get your message out there better.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3827127

Ilegal Immigration and Xenophobia

This is a quick thought I had reading the May 17^th, 2008 Aljazeera news PCBC(politically correct bull crap):

“Spain’s deputy prime minister [Fernandez de la Vega] has criticized the detention of about 400 foreigners in Italy in a crackdown on street crime and illegal immigration, saying it encouraged racism and xenophobia” (ALjazeera.net, Saturday, May 17 2008)(Italics added).

Italy’s Roberto Maroni, interior minister, insists that “the crackdown was on criminals, not foreigners.”

Spain’s DPM said the action exalts “violence, racism, and xenophobia.”

How does the police actually getting up off their rears, stepping outside of the cafes, and protecting people result in exalting violence? What kind of messed up place is Europe? That is a rhetorical question. Those of us who have lived in Europe know the contradictory laws and expectations the police and military have to put up with in the EU.

Now, what I am about to say may shock and anger some people, especially De la Vega of Spain. And it may class me as a racist xenophobe. But, most of the illegal immigrants that Italy is cracking down on, believe it or not, are not Italian. I know, I know. This may come as a shock. That is why I warned you. Illegal immigrants in Italy tend to be from, gosh, some other country. So I guess Italy is racist. How dare they round up criminals who happen to be foreigners? They should let them do whatever they feel like, why, because they are foreigners.

The BBC News brought up the point again in their Wednesday, May 28, 2008 article “Italy Condemned for ‘Racism Wave.’” Turns out Amnesty International “is extremely alarmed by what it calls a ‘climate of discrimination in Italy’”( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7423165.stm). The Italians this week have passed (finally) a new law giving Police the power to arrest and detain illegals and also more power to deport them (Finally!). Amnesty International is outraged that these new laws “target, above all, immigrants.” Above all? I am pretty sure these laws only target immigrants. As I already stated, to be an illegal immigrant in Italy, you have to be from some other country.

Italy cites the rising crime as the motivation for these new laws. As Maroni stated, the “crack down was on criminals” not just foreigners in general. The street crime is a delicate issue. I lived in Italy for two years, and have gone back and visited as well. I have seen a shooting, several robberies, a mugging, and been threatened at knife point. First off, can you start to see why Italy is concerned about street crime? When a foreign visitor, such as I, has had so many pleasant encounters in their otherwise beautiful country? Second, guess how many Italians were the perpetrators in these situations? You are right. Not even one. Each and every time I witnessed something ‘go down’ on the street it was perpetrated by a person from some other country. How do I know? Well, the perpetrators were the wrong color, height, build, and couldn’t speak Italian. That gives it away, don’t you think?

While Italians do mill around the streets even late at night, riot against the police every chance they get, and occasional kill people at soccer games, I have yet to meet one who isn’t friendly, if not a little sarcastic. And other than being asked for a cigarette, they have never tried to take anything from me or harm me.

I know, I know. This makes me a racist xenophobe. Sorry. I guess we should just let anybody and everybody in that wants, and leave them to do whatever they want. Whether they decide to get a job or to kill, steal, lie…They are foreigners. They don’t know better. And making them obey the laws of the country they have sneaked into isn’t fair when they aren’t even legal members of that country. Isn’t that what Amnesty International is saying?