hey all,
if you care about keeping the internet open, uncensored and free, equal for all users, do us all a favor and boycott google and verizon. the google part is pretty easy, just change your search engine preference to yahoo or bing or whatever. obviously, if you have phone or internet service with verizon already, that is a little more difficult. call or email them and tell them they will LOSE YOUR BUSINESS TO ANOTHER PROVIDER if this deal with google goes thru. it's the best way to get these mega corporations to hear you - thru your conscientious control of how you spend your money.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html

Somehow, the official filing to the FCC didn't sound as bad as the doomsayers you pointed to.

Official Report

The problem is that in many areas, there are few choices of ISP.

Wow.

What a classic example of really every single person talking about this getting it completely wrong. 100% WRONG.

1) That Huffington Post article that Michael linked to gets pretty much every single detail completely wrong - like, Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent was not "widely denounced," there is absolutely NO portion of the proposal to "effectively split the Internet into 'two pipes' -- one of which would be reserved for 'managed services,'" or many of the other suggestions.

Seriously, that reporter should be fired for filing that report.

2) The link to the "Official report" that Joe provided is almost a year old and is only to the joint comments filed in response to the initial FCC inquiry on the Net Neutrality standard.

3) Everyone in here, as copyright owners/people who make their living off of the distribution and monetization of copyrighted content - and MUSIC, at that - had better think long and hard about how much you want to defend the ability of sites like Demonoid and Pirate Bay to go unchecked.***

And finally, I have to point out that the internet was NEVER "free or open" or "equal for all users." It's a sophisticated, expensive network that was BUILT, by COMPANIES, who ALWAYS expected to be able to PROFIT from their INVESTMENT in it. Your internet was not built out by your town, State or Federal Government. It's not a public utility. It's a business investment, undertaken and built by private, profit-seeking businesses.

People should recognize that fact.





***If the irony that the Huffington Post article appears on a commercial website and links to a locked Scribd version of a freaking PUBLIC DOCUMENT that Google and Verizon issued is lost on you, you have NO BUSINESS even discussing these issues.

i'd just like to know when the anti-trust laws became completely beside the point...
google & verizon, rupprt murdock with newspapers, tv networks, etc., what does it take for these laws to actually prevent monopolies with clear conflicts of interest that make the competition unfair?
i'm sure anti-trust laws are also subjectively mis-interpreted by me and millions of others, and actually aren't even anti-trust with some explanation of superior knowledge...

please educate (and no doubt cut) me oh learned knife...

Wow ... I know January feels like a long way off (considering it almost hit 100 degrees here today), but my calendar says it is not nearly a year.

Yes - I think maybe the government should start filtering all the content on the web to help protect your copyrights. While they're at it, they should watch for anything that might be "linked" to terrorism. And maybe the stuff that kids shouldn't see either (they already tried that once).

Then again, I guess as long as you pay someone you should be able to see that copyrighted movie. And maybe buy that copyrighted song. And isn't the porn business one of the most profitable things on the Internet? I guess it would really kill some ISPs if we cut that out...

Every company / ISP is being paid for their investment in the Internet, and is making a profit off it, whether by direct subscriber billing, advertising revenue, or value added to their business. The problem comes in when one of them wants to try to unfairly kill their competition by restricting access to it.

Considering the backbone of the Internet is still owned by a very small handful of telecom companies ... can you imagine what happens when one wants to eliminate traffic that helps one of their competitors? This has never been allowed in the past, and should not be allowed in the future.

The twist of adding the mobile broadband into this mix IS a new variation. They are providing the entire connection, and have a history of modifying the data they provide (such as using proxy servers and compressing graphics) to try to reduce the amount of data on their networks. I would think the correct answer for that is they can do what they want for their internal phone data service, but if you're paying the extra for a tethering service, it should be unfiltered/unmodified data.

Just as we have learned what happens when we let the big government regulate business, e.g., Fannie and Freddie.

Actually the problem is what happens when we let big business regulate government. And (closely related to that) what happens when the income inequality gets as extreme as it did in 1928 and 2007.

Fannie and Freddie were doing what they all were doing: packaging bad loans.

Google and Verizon are making plenty of money without this crap, I think.

And this government is making things worse - just as FDR's policies caused the Great Depression to drag on for almost 15 years.


... more like pushing bad loans.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.


Please. Not that stupid argument again.

apparently, corporations ARE the law AND the government by "virtue" of paying them off. faux "news" shouldn't even exist based on the anti-trust laws. instead, murdock has been able to pay off the laws and create and support a false reality through broadcasting and publishing by propagating lies and misinformation, creating a huge chasm between people in this country who didn't used to be vehemently (and likely soon to be violently) against each other. in a 1 minute political conversation, one can almost instantly discover the faux talking points of their dedicated viewer.
that's not even considering being able to pass off completely inaccurate garbage as fact. how does the FCC reconcile false (what is passed off as) journalism?!
lies are truth. truth is a lie.

I heard there is a name for it... "Fox Derangement Syndrome".

Recommended read: Economics and Politics in the Weimar Republic

History repeats itself.

And it's worse now that everyone is - justifiably - deathly afraid.

But it's always been much easier to peddle lies. Solutions to the complicated problems of the world don't fit on a bumper sticker, as I may have said once or ten times.

Oh, and by the way - just so the Fannie and Freddie "pushing bad loans" comment doesn't go unpunished:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/

Not Mr. "know it best" Krugman again.... !

He's very sharp.

Okay, trying to get the thread back on track.

There's a lot of misunderstanding going on here.

In the first place, the announced Google-Verizon "deal" isn't ANY type of a business arrangement. It is simply a jointly agreed-upon and filed suggestion by Google and Verizon on how the government might handle the net neutrality issue. They are not doing anything together here other than agreeing on a suggested course of action to recommend.

THAT'S IT.

And for further background, so that you understand where this comes from and where we are now:

There is currently NO regulation of the internet. Except for the existing regulation of the telcos and the cable providers regarding how they provide service to your house as "telecommunications providers," (which is minor) there is absolutely no regulation of the internet, itself.

There are no rules governing how, where, when, why, for how much, to whom, etc., etc., etc., internet service should be provided. There is no regulation of the service or the content, no regulating bodies overseeing it - nothing.

The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction, the FTC doesn't have jurisdiction. Nobody has jurisdiction or regulatory authority over the internet.

So, a few years ago, some people started to get worried that, as the internet was becoming more and more important to everyday people, that leaving it unregulated would allow it to become some type of monopolized, high-priced conduit only for big corporations (never mind that in 15+ years of unregulated development, it seems to be doing just fine, but...). As is the case with things like this, others warned those who were seeking regulation of this communication network/business/social environment at this stage that demanding regulation now would probably do way more harm than good, but, that didn't stop the interest.

So, for the last couple of years, Congress and the FCC have been trying to figure out how to regulate the internet, to keep it "safe" and "fair" for everyone.

And they haven't been successful. At all.

The FCC - under Pres. Obama's appointee, Julius Genakowski - has announced the FCC wants to get into the business of regulating the internet. Genakowski has announced some ideas about how he might do it and asked the public and Congress to comment on his proposals. So far, he's been told - by many of the companies that have interests in the internet, some of the public, by Congress and by the Courts - that none of his ideas are likely going to be adopted and/or work.

And that's where it stands right now. Some people think the internet should be regulated, like a utility, but everyone realizes that no one has the authority to do that and some people, like the FCC and some members of Congress, are trying to figure out if/how it can be done.

So, what you have here now, is Google and Verizon having gotten together to respond in the wake of all of that, and making this public suggestion that says: "We think you might be able to regulate the internet a bit, and here's our suggestion on how Congress and the FCC can and should do that."**


So, with that backdrop, so that everyone understands where we are and how we got here, let's pick up the discussion:



See above. This is not even close to an anti-trust issue. Google and Verizon are not doing anything anti-competitive here. This is not a business deal and it does not affect a market. They have merely agreed on a joint suggestion for a framework under which Congress and the FCC might be able to move forward with some type of regulation of the internet, generally.



Anti-trust laws, like many other Congressional Acts (but even moreso with respect to the Anti-trust laws, in particular, for several reasons) are subject to the vagaries of court interpretations, political and economic climates, etc., etc. Look into the history of the anti-trust laws and you'll see a VERY checkered history of application and interpretation, with the laws going virtually unused for decades and decades, then being enforced lightly, only in the strictest terms, then being used quite liberally, then going unused for another decade or so, then re-applied with more force, etc., etc.



8 months is closer to a year (12 months) than not.

But what you are missing is everything that happened in between (i.e. the Comcast decision, which essentially rendered the initial FCC inquiry on Net Neutrality, which the response you linked to was from) virtually moot.

That was the point. The item you linked to is basically a response to an already, long-dead initiative.



Nope. Exactly the opposite.

Much like the recorded music business, the traditional porn business has been gutted by the advent of the internet and high speed data access. Sure, there are new "upstarts" that are making money, that never did before - just like iTunes is making money while the traditional record business swirls around the bottom of the toilet - but the established porn business has been trampled by the ability to get the stuff fast and free over the internet (and the porn producers/distributors are way less sympathetic plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases than even record companies are).



Really? I don't think you really understand these issues, either with respect to how the internet was built out, or with respect to the regulation of certain industries.






Finally, you have to read some of the comments that follow those Krugman screeds. One of my favorites on that one simply says: "Paul Krugspin."

Ha!

The guy really has just become a horrible, horrible propagandist. It's why he has zero credibility anymore, as an economist and in Washington.






**As a political reality, "Net Neutrality" is dead for now. Even Democratic proponent of Internet regulation have basically said: "We're not prepared to tackle this, right now." The Google-Verizon proposal will likely go nowhere. At least for the foreseeable future (and it will likely NEVER be adopted, as suggested, in any event).

So sad to see so much brain power waisted.

No, he's absolutely right about 99% of the time. It's not a waste at all, in fact he always backs up his opinions with real economics - unlike the other side, which just spews fear and hype.

Yes. Always.

With "real economics" like this recent gem:

"Our increased deficit is driven by one thing - anticipated health care increases."

Yep. Pure, "real" economics...




The guy should be taken out and shot to put him out of his misery.

I remember once upon a time, his writing was somewhat more intriguing - Lately he seems to be on some kind of acid trip. It sounds as if he's found his calling in debunking common sense.

What the fuck are you talking about, Knife? And Josef? Acid trip? He's one of the most prominent voices for reason - and that's around the world, where these stupid governments are hurting their economies with unnecessary austerity measures.

Note that he's 100% right about health costs - but also note that that's not what he said. What he said is that health costs will be the biggest thing driving future deficits; we need to get them under control.

That is a fact, and if you'd like I'd be happy to find other sources confirming it.

See below.



No. He's not.

He's largely (and correctly) regarded now as an extremist with a clear agenda that forces him to editorialize and avoid/manipulate the facts.

A well educated guy that, like many before him, has kind of gone off riding into the sunset rambling on about his pet issues while the rest of the world watches, waves bye-bye and thinks: "What a waste."

Seriously. No one is listening to him, anymore. He has ZERO influence. For good reason, now.



Yeah...

As I asked about this when he orginally posted that blog (to deafening silence, I noted):

So all of the budget projections that foretell of deficits are driven by JUST ONE THING: rising health care costs?

No wars.

No government spending on military buildup.

No government spending on agriculture.

No infrastructure.

No trade imbalance.

No bailouts.

No stimulus packages.

No reduction in tax revenue (yeah, watch that one...).

None of that.

Just anticipated increases in health care costs. That's it.

Health and Human Services is the largest single item, but it's followed very closely by military spending and then several others. It's not even half of the deficit - now or projected - by anyone.

That's just plain bullshit.

Fuck off, Knife.



You're just an idiot.

Yep.

Dumb enough to know that health care costs - a single Federal expense that NEVER exceeds 1/3 of our total expenditure/defit, even in the most damning estimates - can't POSSIBLY be the reason "troubling long-run budget projections, are not driven by some generalized problem of overspending. Instead, they largely reflect just one thing: the assumption that health care costs will rise."

Yeah, I'm an idiot, like that.

So, are you still "happy to find other sources confirming" that?


Yeah, I didn't think so...

Sorry, I should have said you're a major league professional idiot, not just an idiot.

Thanks for that.

So, what kind of an idiot is it that thinks a guy who baldly suggests that 33% of a total deficit is the "one thing that is driving that deficit," is a a genius, that is making pure sense?

You know, the type of idiot that can't respond to that simple observation and STILL can't supply the "other sources confirming that" that he said he would "happily" provide.

The type of idiot that spews on and on - loudly, confidently and COMPLETELY INCORRECTLY - about things that he has know knowledge or comprehension of.

The type of idiot that consistently gives us all a good chuckle in here.

What type of idiot is that, again?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahaha

Hahahaha!

Ahem....



You've again, made some great points in this thread, Nick!

*snicker*

So it's the largest single item, driving one third of the deficit, but he was an idiot for claiming it is the biggest single thing driving the deficit? I didn't read the article, but what are you guys arguing about, the words "the one thing"?

That's what Knife does: pick up a word or two and make a federal case out of it, ignoring the point.

By the way, this is not something Krugman pulled out of his ass. The one thing we need to get under control is healthcare costs. If we do that and not a whole lot else, the projections are that we'll be fine. It's true: we don't need to dismantle Social Security and eliminate public education.

Christ...

Can ANYONE in here read and actually THINK about what is being said?

Krugman didn't say that anticipated increases in health care costs are "is the biggest single thing driving the deficit." He said it is "the ONE thing, driving the increasing deficit."

And contrary to Nick's lame excuse that I'm "picking up a word or two and make a federal case out of it, ignoring the point."

That IS - and was - Krugman's point: That the increasing U.S. deficit projections are ONLY driven by anticipated increases in health care costs.

Again, his ENTIRE AGENDA was to a) promote a Keynesian economic approach and b) promote the adoption of the health care overhaul.

So, I'm not "nit-picking." It was KRUGMAN, who nit-picked, saying that anticipated rises in health care costs are the "[/b]ONE[/b] thing" we need to be concerned about. Clearly trying to dismiss everything else.

Hard to say I'm picking on that one word, when his use of that word is his ENTIRE PREMISE, isn't it?

Even the CBO - in predicting lower deficits in the next few years attributes only a small portion of that anticipated reduction to reduced health care costs. Instead, the budget office projected that annual deficits will fall by 2014 as the economy recovers, citing that a growing economy means higher federal revenue and lower spending for unemployment benefits and other programs.

Also, health care costs don't necessarily drive "one third of the deficit." In the first place, there's wide disparity about exactly how much of the Federal budget they occupy. And it changes every year. The most generous estimates are that those costs could reach as high as 1/3 of the budget. They could be significantly lower.

In addition, their overall impact on the deficit (not the budget) should take offsets into account.

In other words: Military spending has no offsets. If we spend $664 billion on military, there is no (or very little) offset. We don't make any (or very little) money on having or producing our military operations. It's all deficit.

But when we spend $740 billion on Medicare and Medicaid, a good deal of that is offset by direct payments into the fund. It's not all deficit financed (although it's been mismanaged enough that soon it probably will be - if they don't just shut it down).

ALL of this (and more) is stuff that Krugman just skated right by, while trying to jam his: "Listen to me, don't worry about ANYTHING ELSE, just pass health care reform and the deficit - which is ONLY health care costs - will go away" message.

But some people...

...yes, I'm looking at you guys...

... don't really pay attention and THINK about what is ACTUALLY being said - especially if what is being said sounds like what they already think or want to believe. They just go: "Hey, that sounds right!" without thinking critically about the issue.

Bottom line: if you think Krugman is right that anticipated increases in the deficit are driven by "one thing: increased health care costs," then let's just watch.

We now have a new health care plan that we were told would REDUCE health care costs, and the deficit, directly. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag argued that the estimates of the savings from the healthcare bill would reduce deficits by well over $143 billion (which, incidentally, is a tiny, tiny fraction of our overall deficit of $1.3 trillion this year - is any of this sinking in yet? No?...) in the first decade and by more in the second decade.

So, let's see if these "reduced health care costs" will really be "the ONE THING," driving our reduced deficit, over the next few years.

My prediction: Not likely (in other words: Krugman was lying).

You're an idiot.

Good response, Nick.

Paul Krugspin is "99% right and always backs up his statements with sound economics."


I wonder why the guy is left to simply blog for the NYTimes, now...

And you're digging yourself deeper into the hole.

Yeah, I know, Einstein. You did.

Nick, why do you bother wasting your time with Knife? He doesn't want to have a discussion. He's just a blowhard that's more concerned with impressing himself and living up to his name than actually hearing what anyone else has to say. His vanity and condescending tone get in the way of anything useful he might have to say.

Does anyone actually read all of what he writes anymore? They're just long-winded tributes to himself and his imagined mental superiority. It's like he's on stage, just finishing off an exceedingly long, self-aggrandizing monologue. He takes a bow in appreciation of the three people in the audience. He then exits stage left and then comes back out for an encore that nobody asked for.

Wow.

Just...


Wow.

There really is no response to any of that.

I'll move on by simply reiterating: Let's just see if our new "reduced health care costs" will really be the "one thing," driving our reduced deficit, over the next few years.

Good question, EWF.

Yes Knife... why bother. As far as all the Krugmeisters in the world go.... Some people are just too smart for their own good. Their arrogant little self-importance and self-indulgence prevents them from learning anything useful from history. And then there are those who are just too busy to care or just simply too lazy or stupid. They just need to create their own brand new shiny universe, together with their own brand new shiny lessons to learn from- if they ever do. It is what it is, that's life.

And then there is this "Countess" Pelosi:

While the photos in that video are sad and charged with emotion they have zero to do with the mosque in NYC or Pelosi's rational comments about the resistance to a mosque being built in the general area.
It's an obvious and offensive attempt to link a group of people to an act of terrorism based on their legal and protected religious preferences.
Plenty of atrocities have been committed by "christians" in the name of "god" without the backlash we're seeing here.

It wasn't Muslims who bombed the trade center. It was Assholes who were deluded into thinking they held the moral high ground here on earth. That is not a muslim trait, it's a trait of the extremists in all religions.

That ridiculous waving of the fear flag for political gain is childish, repulsive and IMO the greatest evil that threatens us as it divides and weakens us with lies and misdirection making us less likely to stand up to assholes in the future.
Like the ones that made that video.

Well said Hopi! Strange how this thread has devolved into another healthcare/terrorism/Democrat vs.republican argument...

i should have known better than to think a completely non-partisan topic could actually be discussed without the politics. i guess because it was a HuffPost article that was initially sited for the story, that was that.
One of the few people in the Senate who still seem to have a brain that functions independently and with an understanding of public service agrees that this is a real problem.
Here's what Al Franken wrote a few days ago:

"You may have heard that, a few weeks ago, Google and Verizon announced a proposed policy framework that they claimed would protect net neutrality.

Unfortunately, that's simply not the case.

The Google-Verizon "framework" was written so as not to apply to wireless Internet services. If you use wi-fi or access the Internet on your phone, this is a serious problem. Their framework could even allow for corporations to pay for premium access to the "wireline" Internet.

This framework doesn't protect net neutrality -- it undermines it.

This evening, I'll be speaking at an FCC hearing in Minneapolis. I'll urge the commissioners to reject the Google-Verizon framework, stop the Comcast/NBC merger, and take action to keep the Internet free and open.

We can't let corporations write the rules they're supposed to be following. Corporations are responsible only to their shareholders, and they will always act to maximize profits. The government -- which is responsible to the public -- has to write tough rules to protect net neutrality and reverse the trend towards media consolidation. And you and I might have to be the ones to force the government to do it."

This last paragraph is the part I attempted to put up for discussion, which has nothing to do with partisanship in my eyes. Perhaps the lines are drawn such that all repugnicans are rooting for the corporations OVER the people. It does sort of seem that way, particularly with the way the wrong wing reacts to practically every issue that has to do with people's rights OVER the corporations: insurance, healthcare, banking, GMO's, the EPA, the FDA, the environment... i could go on - guess i answered my own bewilderment.

these fuckheads don't care about anything or anyone but themselves and the almighty dollar.

how's all of that working out for you?

The threat level is currently at orange.

Did you miss the point?

She wants to investigate who is financing the voices of opposition....!

You can't be frigging serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael..... You guessed right - I don't like Al Franken, but I do agree with him on this issue, as it's presented. But I do want to learn some more about it.

Fuck that.

Krugman is one of the brightest voices in the country. He isn't talking out his ass at all, he's saying that all the arguments against Keynesian economics are false (or v.v.) - and he's absolutely right. Every time someone tries to bring up a historical example of why he's wrong, he is ready with the answer for exactly how that situation is totally different. And his answers include hard analysis of the economics of the time, not just shouting like you hear on the right (because they're wrong and have nothing else left to do). The same applies to arguments in principle - he has totally sound arguments to support what he says.

It's arrogance to call that arrogance, because it's absolutely true: the ONLY way out of this mess without waiting for years and years is Keynesian.

If you have real arguments with what he's saying then fine. You'll be wrong, but at least we'll have a discussion. But saying Krugman is a fool is an indication of the poster's lack of understanding, not anything about Krugman.

And by the way, it's not like he's some lone lunatic out on the fringes. There's no shortage of other economists who say the same thing - and the reason is that it's reality. They may disagree about some things, for example Jamie Galbraith argues that the government could simply write checks to people, preferably to do something useful; the only difference if they issue a bond to cover it is that the banks make some interest. Krugman disagrees with that, because eventually - and not now! - it will lead to inflation. But they both understand that the government needs to spend money to create jobs right now, since monetary policy has reached its limit.

And Knife is an idiot in any case. The sum total of his arguments is that Krugman has an agenda and invents facts. Not only is that moronic, saying that is the exact definition of a stupid asshole.

Meanwhile the argument over the Moslem cultural center near the WTC is a national embarrassment.

Robert Reich expands upon exactly what I've been thinking all along:

http://robertreich.org/post/984323698/the-anatomy-of-intolerance

Reich: Most Americans approve of Arizona’s new law allowing police to stop anyone who looks Hispanic and demand proof of citizenship.

You do realize that the above is a filthy lie. Right? I'm kind of tentative to read the rest of his well assembled words.

SB1070


You knew I would :-) ... but of course bad economy makes people jittery. One doesn't need to be a Harvard scholar to realize that.

What about that statement is a filthy lie?

It's not a filthy lie, but the bigger point is that times get tough and people look for scapegoats. You can't deny that this law is exactly about that.

I've read the SB1070 twice. Neither time I saw anything resembling of that "the police is allowed to stop anyone who looks Hispanic and demand proof of citizenship"

Propaganda is bad - outright lies are insulting and stupid.

Enough said.

I understand that Reich's statement is not in SB1070 verbatim, and certainly I'm no expert on all things legal, but the following part of the bill pretty much covers what Reich says:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

This part of the bill is stated in a very general way as it should be, however, considering the circumstances, there is no question what ethnic group the bill is primarily targeting. The way I'm reading this is:

1. Law enforcement officials are the police in this case.

2. "WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES" - It does not specify an ethnic group, which is as it should be, but the problem they're having is from south of our border, so there shouldn't be any doubt who this bill is targeting.

3. "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON" - This is the stopping.

In fact the bill sounds like it is saying that the police are allowed to stop ANYONE and demand proof of citizenship. Obviously, in and of itself, there is nothing really wrong with that. The problem is the "reasonable suspicion" part. Some people are afraid, for good reason, that there isn't a really good way to determine "reasonable suspicion" other than ethnic background in this case. This of course could lead to racial profiling and discrimination against many innocent people.

Sorry, I don't see the problem with her comment. As far as I'm concerned she's free to be curious about that. (cough in hand and mutter palinfox)
What I do see is that the response to her comment is, like the building itself, being used as an excuse by some to rant and create a divisive atmosphere.
Her statement isn't actually the point of that stupid video, it'sjust the pretext to allow the hateful thing to be made.

Josef: why was that shitty law passed?

Because this is an emergency? Because those damn Mexicans are ruining everything? Because 9/11?

Answer: because people are scared and want to lash out, and asswipe politicians are capitalizing on that.

Why is it a "shitty law" Nick? Oh yhea, that's right...because you employ illegal aliens...

IMHO everyday folks are hurting economically in ways they’ve never experienced before. With this loss comes an overwhelming insecurity and emotional angst looking to the crumbling, less-fruitful future reality.

Where are the holes? Plug them now to save the dam!

Illegals are vilified as they’re consuming jobs and services needed by legal citizens and residents.
Muslims' Sharia law is diametrically opposed to the inalienable rights embraced in the US.
Etc....

Can't we take a look at our country's past successes and sins to mold viable solutions for tomorrow, rather than just reacting? Personally I've been pondering quite a bit about Lincoln's leadership during the Civil War.

Right now there seems to be very little civility...... and it feels like an all-out cultural war.

beautifully exemplified by the stupid google ad at the bottom of this page asking who is right, az or Obama...

how about a war on everyone that isn't you? (as long as there's money in it)
how about a war against the planet for money?
how about a war on ethics for money?

civilization is an oxymoron.

Exactly (last two posts).

Meanwhile, this is the beginning of Paul Krugman's blog today, and it's a perfect example of why I find Knife's and to a lesser extent Josef's posts so frustratingly ridiculous:


August 23, 2010, 10:42 AM
Making It Up
According to Bloomberg, Raghuram Rajan is now getting specific: he wants Bernanke to raise the Fed funds rate by 200 basis points in the face of 9.5 percent unemployment and inflation under 1 percent.

Let me try to explain what bothers me about this sort of thing, aside from the fact that it would be an utter disaster for the economy: it’s the way Rajan — and many other economists — seem to be making up new doctrines on the fly to justify their policy prejudices.

I’m all in favor of innovative thinking. But my view is that what you say about policy at any given time should be based on some kind of model — and furthermore, you should be willing to apply the same model to other situations, not make it a one-off used to justify what you happen to favor right now.


My writing on policy in this crisis has been based on the same model of macroeconomic policy I use in normal times; it’s just that the situation is different. The quick-and-dirty version looks like this:

(mildly wonkish stuff follows)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/making-it-up/#more-12027

And here is why Krugman is so laughably ridiculous:



followed by:



What a fvcking moron.

Hey Paul? What is "consistent" about you changing the rules - only for yourself - when YOU say the "situation is different"?

So, you can admit that YOU "make it up," to get you YOUR desired result, but everyone else is held to some other standard?

Hypocrite imbecile.

How about this? Rajan's innovative thinking is for YOUR "different situation."

"a lot of the people who want monetary tightening start from a prejudice and then look for some arguments to back up that prejudice. And that’s no way to do economics."

...unless they are doing that in order to back into an argument that I happen to like..."


Several of the comments to his blog already pointed out this overt, blatant hypocritical slide.

You've got to be pretty short on your own ability to think critically if you can keep reading tripe like that - and not ask yourself: "Hmmmm.... Is Mr. Krugman REALLY being consistent here? Should I think about this a bit more?"

Just swallow it all, like it's some type of Gospel, and not the agenda-driven propaganda piece it is (and he's actually labeled it).


Whatever...

You are the biggest jackass on the entire internet, Knife.

Why don't you try to understand what he's saying instead of just farting? His views are based on reality. And the reason he rails against stuff like Rajan's demagoguery is that it's dangerous and too many stupid people like you take it to heart.

Yes I'm a big jackass Nick.

Despite your inability to accept it, I understand EXACTLY what Krugman is saying there. And it is:

"Rajan has maintained that raising interest rates is the best way to combat an economic bubble and all of the bad post-bubble-burst effects that come with it - consistently - since well before te current economic crisis.

But I've always disagreed with that theory, because well, I'm the type of economist who actually titles my "economics" blog "The Conscience of a Liberal" (no political or non-economics-driven agenda here!).

So today, I'm going to just outright lie and say that Rajan's CONSISTENTLY recommending higher interest rates didn't really happen, and I can re-characterize that as a "new position" that is somehow a convenient switch on his part, driven by his desire to fulfill a personal agenda (what?...).

In doing so, I'll (correctly) assume that my readers are so dumb, that I can characterize my OWN change of position on the issue as "being consistent - but having changed circumstances."

Like I said, if you actually read the COMMENTS to that entry, several commentators already pointed that out.

Not the imbeciles who think Krugman is a God.

The folks who actually have brains and can think for themselves.


He does crap like that ALL the time. And he gets called on it, ALL the time.

Gawd. You are an idiot.

Yep.

And Krugman is just a good "economist" who doesn't have an agenda:

Tyson:

"I often find that folks who are impressed with his columns or who agree with his point of view would quickly point out that Krugman is an economist. However, a surprising number of people don’t realize that Krugman is an opinion columnist for the paper. In fact, Krugman’s column is titled “Conscience of a Liberal.”

If the title of Krugman’s column isn’t a big clue to his extraordinary liberal bias, there is a study of his columns to back it up done by Cary, N.C., researcher Ken Waight, who operates the website “Lying in Ponds.”

Waight ranks the most partisan columnists every year based upon an analysis of all of their columns and the number of positive and negative references each columnist makes to Democrats and Republicans.

From 2002 through 2008, Paul Krugman was ranked the No. 1 most partisan Democratic columnist for seven consecutive years! (His Republican counterpart has most often been Anne Coulter). For 2009, Krugman dropped to the No. 4 most partisan Democratic columnist. The reason for this decline is the same reason that Krugman is now saying that we’re in a depression.

Krugman wants even more government spending than what the Obama administration has been supporting. This may be hard for political moderates and conservatives to believe, but Obama isn’t nearly liberal enough for Krugman!

...

Krugman has a horrible track record when it comes to his economic predictions. Like Nouriel Roubini, year after year beginning in 2002, Krugman would say that we were still mired in a recession or about to re-enter one. In a July 14, 2008 column, just as the economy and stock market began a terrible slide, Krugman predicted that concerns about a possible collapse of the government-sponsored lending agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “overblown.” Months later, both Fannie and Freddie required a massive government bailout that ballooned to more than $100 billion.

Besides that huge blown call, Krugman also erroneously stated in that same column that Fannie and Freddie had no involvement with risky subprime loans...."


Lap it up...

And keep offering up poorly-written Krugman spin-pieces as justification for your ideology.

You don't even recognize good writing, never mind absence of spin.

In addition to abject stupidity, this is what is known as discrediting the messenger.

Riiiiight.

Being THE MOST partisan columnist in the entire United States (and the survey INCLUDES EVERYONE, even political columns and pure editorials) for basically a DECADE, means he's got "no spin."

To quote someone else:

Gawd, YOU'RE and idiot.

Knife's twisted brain:

That looks like what was on Knife's shoe, he had it so far up your ass.

Actually it looks like Nick's breakfast!

Thanks Tim, for contributing this to the actual topic of this thread - it's a good article that discusses the issues with a point of view I happen to agree with. (it was written by a musician, go figure) It always seems to go back to corporations selling us out if we don't protect our rights by paying attention to every despicable ploy they want to use to control us and take our money and our minds. In every genre. No matter the cost.
Boycott google and verizon!

The rest of you may return to playing with shit, eating it, or sticking your virtual foot up someone else's virtual ass...

Great article, Tim. I especially like how he puts in the free market stuff to fight poop with poop, because mark my words: Republicans in Congress are going to be on the side of non-neutrality, and they're going to use rhetoric about how the free market should allow big corporations to have their way.

Sorry Michael, but Knife is such an exquisitely annoying dick that I just can't help insulting him. He has a unique talent for bringing out the worst in me.

Thanks Tim, nice article.

Skimmed through it though. Hmmm excluding Wireless networks, I can see their reasoning (its not right but think ATT's system being overloaded) but...

The marketers have got you locked in with smart phones and GSM Tablets. Little did we know that this would cost us more money (no more unlimited data plans, Service providers testing the waters with data limits etc...

We are victims of our own desires

Good article. But why can't the subject stay frigging Party neutral as well?

Btw, this must be the trash that can't make it to the airwaves... he was talking about in his article.

no politics here. i did complain that the #1 cable "news" programs are all on a network that purchased some sort of immunity from the anti-trust laws, as well as from complying with the FCC laws that govern everyone else. must admit i find it extra aggravating that their political agenda is one i completely disagree with as well as one that is filled with lies, half truths, and a very divisive sleazy approach to presenting their point of view, which shouldn't even be part of this type of programming anyway. it's not the news.
this all seems like a topically appropriate thing to bring up, considering the issues are very similar, and the end results would likely be equally disastrous for our country and profitable for other corporations.

Thanks, Nick.

It's always interesting to see supposedly tolerant people as first/loudest to lose their sh|t when someone simply disagrees with him - and provides actual facts (that can't be refuted), to support their position.

Always good for entertainment, even if it doesn't lead to actual understanding.

Anyway, if we like to hear musicians and songwriters talk about Net Neutrality - and not just hear what WE already think/agree with (right?....) - then, here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-carnes/net-neutrality--can-we-tr_b_609392.html

I was more than a bit surprised when I saw that the Songwriter's Guild of America took this position.

But after speaking with them, it became clear that they are rightly concerned, because many of the "Network Neutrality" principles would prohibit network services from discouraging rampant internet piracy of music and other copyrighted works. Going further, SGA - which represents SMALL SONGWRITERS - individuals (not big corporations or record labels - and not even anyone as big as the guys in "OK Go!") - has said that they WANT to have paid high-speed access, as it may very well be the only way they will be able to provide a "value-add" to their potential music consumers, who otherwise will just go to the cheapest (i.e. free, pirate sites) to get music and other content, if it all gets to them the same.

Think about it...

Has the FCC done a good job of "protecting the public interest" in the areas that they've regulated so far (TV - broadcast and cable, radio, telephone)?

Does ANYONE really think that this system actually furthers the stated ideal that we, as citizens, "own the airwaves," and that the FCC is actually enforcing OUR priorities and protecting the public interest, above all else?

Going further: Is the internet and the way we access it broken right now? Do we need the FCC to fix it?

If say, Exxon could be convinced by Verizon to pay 4x as much as you do (which is NOT happening now, BTW), to have their website or advertisements delivered over the web faster than your site, would it really make your friends or customers go to the Exxon site instead of yours? Would it make YOUR access speed any slower?