Thursday, February 26, 2015

Net Neutrality Vote today - UPDATED

Today the Federal Communications Commission is set to vote on whether or not to save Net Neutrality on the Internet.  Net Neutrality means that service providers have to allow every website no matter how big or how small equal access to the public. What this means is that someone surfing the net can access any website at supposedly equal speeds.  For example, in this framework a small independent business' website can sell its goods with equal access as a large commerce web sites.

Today's vote will be on whether the Internet will be regulated as a public utility and keep the net neutral, thus allowing every website to be equal rather than the possibility of service providers controlling which websites get faster access to consumers.  While some forces claim this is a government tax that will interfere with the Net, Net Neutrality proponents claim this merely protects the status quo.

What is interesting here is the forces in support of Net Neutrality.  It has fairly wide public support yet is also being supported by large websites, and Internet start-ups.  More importantly it's being supported by those who fund Internet start-ups: venture capitalists who may invest in something reportedly started in a garage but are definitely hoping for a return on their investment.  Because of this crossroads there may be a chance that Net Neutrality is preserved via regulation as a public utility.

I'll likely update this later today once the vote is known.  However, here's some information on what the vote means.  Keeping my fingers crossed on this one, even if it appears likely that NN will be preserved. 

UPDATE: The FCC Panel voted 3-2 in favor of the proposed plan to make broadband a public utility and keep strong Net Neutrality protection.  While some opponents are talking about lawsuits or Congressional undoing, this is still an example of rare good news out of Washington.

Monday, June 30, 2014

A Brief Thought on The Hobby Lobby Ruling

Been at work at the paying job today when I learned that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood that employers can object to covering contraception in their health care plans if it goes against their "deeply held religious beliefs."  Because of that I haven't been able to comment until now.

While I will go into this in further detail in the new print issue (this had to fall into my lap just at deadline time), there are a few things I want to point out.  First, this was based on a claim that brith control is the same as abortion (it isn't).  In addition, until the last few years contraception was required to be covered in health care plans in 28 states since the mid 90s (passed in part out of fairness because of coverage of Viagra in health care plans). 

Does anyone else find it both humorous and fucking nauseating at the same time that these employers feel their beliefs are against something that can stop pregnancy but have no problems with a medication that can lead to creating pregnancy.  I guess a sanctified stiffy is a fucking god given right. 


Monday, December 23, 2013


By now I'm sure you 've heard the big news.  Today  Maria Alyokhina (Masha) and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova (Nadia) were released from prison camps in Russia as part of Vladimir Putin's "amnesty."   While the Amnesty was obviously more of a PR stunt for Putin than any actual attempt to correct injustice (especially in their case given they only had a few months left until their sentence was up), I am happy that they are finally out of jail.

A lot has been written already on today (and more will likely unfold with time), I do feel its say to say that whatever Putin and the ROC thought would happen to Masha and Nadia while in prison has backfired.  Instead of breaking them, they left prison even more opposed to Putin and with plans to become human rights activists with a focus on prisoners rights.  While it can be assumed that the powers that be felt that Pussy Riot's memory would disappear once locked up, the International pressure from people from musicians to human rights organizations meant that the machinations of Russia's prison system ended up getting some exposure that wouldn't have happened if Pussy Riot had been given a fine (which before then was the precedent in terms of penalties) or if they'd let the group's Punk Prayer slide.

As Nadia and Masha begin the plans for future programs and connect with the people around them, it's important to realize the story isn't over.  As the story unfolds it will be interesting to see how the work these two ladies do will change the world around them, both in the big picture sense and in how things hope to be run.  In the meantime they plan to fight for their acquittal (which, if achieved, would reverse the injustice that happened when they were convicted and sent to prison in the first place.).

Wednesday, December 18, 2013


This news has been circulating around the internet but since the details have been a little uncertain, I decided to wait until news was certain.  However, now it can be told.  A proposed amnesty bill has been approved by the Russian that will either cease legal proceedings or release from prison many nonviolent offenders, including those convicted of hooliganism.  A final version that would extend amnesty to those facign trail who have not yet been convicted was approved unanimously today.

While there had been conflicting reports on whether this would apply to them, apparently the imprisoned members of Pussy Riot (Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova) will be released from prison under this amnesty, as well as the Greenpeace arctic 30 (who were awaiting trail on hooliganism charges for an arrest at an Arctic drilling protest). 

While the government has six months to implement the Amnesty, some sources have suggested that Nadia and Maria might be released tomorrow or by the end of the week (I'm cautiously optimistic on this and hope this is the case).  We will let you know when they're released.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

One Week Down - A Couple of Thoughts Regarding The Government Shut Down

As I type this today marks we are entering the second week of the U.S. government shutting down over demands by Republicans in the House of Representative to defund the Affordable Care Act in order to pass a budget.  Put aside the irony of the day we went into shutdown as the exact same day that the website for what's commonly called Obamacare went live (and that several elements of the Act are already in effect) October 1st marked the start of the latest example of governing by crisis, if not chaos.   As the debate over the debt ceiling and the chances of the U.S. going into default in a week or so gets heated there are a couple of things to consider.

First up is the question of who is behind the shutdown.  The obvious answer is a House of Representatives which controlling party (in this case, the Republicans) have been taken over by Tea Party backed candidates, some of whom even ran on a platform that included a shut down.  However, as the week has continued on more of what has gone down behind the scenes has become public.  

Outside of the typical plans to push for shutdown emerging shortly after Obama's second term started, it turns out other forces behind the scenes played a part as well.  The Conservation Action Project, a coalition managed by the Heritage Foundation and the Council for National Policy, originally floated the idea of tying finding for the ACA to the budget, working with Tea Party politicians to maintain this goal.  With backing from right wing think tanks as well as elements related to the Koch Brothers, the push to get to where the government is at now was bubbling under the surface and moving further to the surface as politicians who originally refused to negotiate continued to push their demands as the shutdown neared.

While the GOP claimed the battle over the budget was simply over Obamacare, as the shutdown deadline neared they unveiled a list of 21 demands that included approving the Keystone XL pipeline, Stripping the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, defunding Planned Parenthood, and removing the employer contraception mandate from the ACA, among other things.  In other words, they went from merely wanting to get rid of a law that was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court (still claiming it’s unconstitutional despite the ruling a couple years back) to basically demanding that a good chunk of the 2012 GOP election platform be enacted by the Obama administration 

That the strange coalition between the extremists in conservative Christian culture (a/k/a: the religious right) and their corporatist backers are willing to drive things to a halt over not getting what they want, there was a surprise of sorts.  It was reported that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a letter to House republicans urging a shutdown unless a CR over the budget allowed private employers to not allow contraception coverage in healthcare plans for reasons of religious conscience.  Given the Conference’s desire to be viewed as a voice for the hungry, their willingness to force people to remain hungry and not get help unless they get their way on an issue many Americans (including a number of Catholics) disagree with them on is disgusting to say the least.

Which leads us to the demands themselves?  Were they really expecting the Obama administration to cave on the ACA in order to pass a budget for the next year?  Yes, Obama had a dirty habit of seeking common ground way more often than he should’ve, but after winning re-election, it should’ve been obvious to the Republicans that their platform wasn’t desired by the majority who voted.  However, the GOP and their tea party/corporatist base still acted as if they had control of everything and that Obama still wasn’t really elected by the people.   With the final list of demands they had to be thinking either one of two things.  One, they’re trying to convince their base that Obama will give the GOP their platform, despite being the minority party in the Senate and not having the White House.  Or, more likely, they knew damn well Obama wouldn’t cave on this and finally would draw a line in the sand; thus leading to a shutdown.  It’s possible that it’s a combination of the two but they had to have known this would happen.

This leads us to the upcoming debt ceiling battle next week in hopes of avoiding going into default.  While the Obama administration finally realized that extreme compromising for the purpose of keeping things functioning may only lead to more demands from the GOP and their tea party backers that leads to constant crisis (including the 21 demands mentioned earlier), what happens here is anybody’s guess.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

A Brief Thought Regarding Syria

Like many of you, I've been concerned over many of the potential ups and downs regarding a possible attack on Syria from the U.S. government over the possible use of chemical weapons against their own people.  While President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry spent the last week or so pushing for a limited military strike against Assad's targets, things may be changing for a couple of fronts as Obama decided late last week to go to Congress before acting on his desire to enact a military strike that seems murky at best as to what their goals are and what may blow back as a result.

In the past day, it appears things may take a different path when an apparent offhanded remark about Syria turning over chemical weapons to international control by John Kerry led to a Russian proposal that Syria reportedly agreed to.  While this has delayed the vote in Congress while the Obama administration reviews the proposal, it has created a possible step away from a seemingly inevitable attack that the majority of Americans opposed to some degree,  Whether this is due to the threat of a military strike (as the Obama administration has claimed) or that the votes simply weren't there in Congress remains to be seen in the long run.

At this point it's hard to say what will happen.  The UN weapons inspectors haven't released their report (which could prove chemical weapons attacks and who used them) so that could impact things.  In addition, the review of the Russian proposal could also change how things unfold.  While this could be a step towards an actual diplomatic solution to the situation in Syria, circumstances could change at any time. 

Right now, things have come a long way but only time will tell what will happen in this situation.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

48 Hours (give or take a few) 'til Sequestration.....A Few Slightly Connected Thoughts on the Matter!

It's the middle of the last week of February and, due to a temporary delay over the debt ceiling, we have two days before the dreaded "sequester" could possibly go into effect automatically.  If a deal isn't made by March 1st, then $1.2 trillion in budget cuts across the board goes into effect with massive cuts through a hard cap on government spending.that emerged as part of the 2011 Budget Control  Act. 

These cuts will affect a wide range of programs.  From civilian employees at the Pentagon and military bases to teachers, there will reportedly be some jobs lost as a result.  Employees in a number of other government agencies will reportedly be forced to take a day off without pay to save money. In addition, air traffic control towers may be shut down at some smaller airports.  Some pundits worry that the cuts on non military programs may hit the social safety net.  While some sources report that the sequester will be gradually implemented, the fact that we're facing something unfamiliar means we likely don't know what to expect if the sequester goes down.

Some supporters of the sequester claim this will be a minor budget cut and place the blame on President Obama, even accusing him of campaigning (despite the fact that he can't run again).  Opponents claim that it will drastically effect the economy with massive job losses for those working for the government (civilians at the Defense Dept, for example) as well as possibly hitting Social Security and Medicare.  Amongst the rank and file (i.e.: those of us that aren't elected officials) many people view this as a form of partisan bickering and a lack of compromise.  While current polls seem to find the majority of those surveyed would blame the Republicans for the sequester, there are also polls showing it might hit Obama as well.  Putting aside polls and the perceptions given to us by the mainstream corporate owned media, there is one thing about the sequester that a lot of people (including some of those people in Congress) seem to not understand.

This was supposed to be a doomsday scenario of sorts.  The massive cuts on both sides was intended to be something allegedly so horrible that both sides would do their best to make sure it didn't happen.  What Obama didn't count on though was the transformation of the Republicans by the Tea Party into embracing the right wing's worst elements, including a tendency to make the poor sacrifice over problems created by the top 1%.  Expecting this doomsday scenario to be avoidable was one thing when one assumes both sides are trying to be reasonable, but these are different times.  Right now, most of the Republicans are either firmly in teabagger clutches or so afraid of being primaried on the right that any sign of compromise or willingness to meet halfway is considered treason.  In this climate, you have factions in the tea party movement that are taking credit for what's about to happen.

The irony is that this can all be easily avoided.  Since it is a man made scenario, Congress can always repeal it and dodge the bullet that way.  They could also put aside the rhetoric about the deficit and raise the debt ceiling (as was business as usual before the teabaggers decided to make the houses of Congress even more like elementary school than it already is by digging their heels in on this even further). 

What is likely to happen if sequestration happens is that the U.S. enters a form of austerity where a lot of people who are near the bottom of the economic ladder take the brunt of the hits the cuts entail.  Supporters of the sequester will say this is needed to get the deficit under control.  Yet, ironically, the deficit has gone down under the Obama administration.  Also, the job layoffs will hit in areas the right normally seems to have wet dreams about (hint: there are civilians that work on military bases).  While the GOP has wanted to exempt the Defense Dept from the sequester, they have been more than willing to throw everyone else under the bus.

So if this is so horrible why is mostly one side willing to bring things over the cliff to get their way?  Sure, Obama has decided to go forward but when you're facing an opposition that seems hellbent on making sure you get absolutely nothing done (or as Obama might call it, most of his first term in Congress).  Given that many of them went on record as saying their main goal was to make Obama a one term president, I personally wonder if this is a temper tantrum of sorts for not getting the election results they wanted.  I really hope that's not the case but sometimes you have to wonder about that.

We have a day and a half before the sequestration cuts kick in and take the country into unknown territory.  In this time a deal could possibly be made at the last minute to make this much ado about nothing.  However, it's just as likely (probably more likely) that this could go into effect and affect thousands (if not millions) of people in the process. 

I don't know what will happen but I worry about the future if the worst case scenario goes into play.