Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Fairweather

Net Neutrality

Recommended Posts

i'm sure thomas edison would have dissapproved of it though, probably've used it to kill some poor rain-deer to make a point of it too :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The take home message I got:

 

a)People are upset about their netflix

 

b)If Obama were to suggest that he enjoys a cold beer and a hot shower after work, Ted Cruz would probably counter with his preference for a warm V8 and an ice water bath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i figured i had nought to fear, seeing how i'm fastening meself to the right side of history here :)

 

my biggest peeve is it's classic liberalism at its worst - a great cause w/ a shitacular title - "net nazism" seems more the thing, no? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like this involves free speech and free enterprise - therefore it should be up to the highest bidder - ya know, kinda like our political system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and yet a big cable lobbiest was appointed to the head of the FCC.

 

Dafuq?

 

It would be nice if all the people we elected and pay who are voting on this actually knew how the internet worked. Conversely, it would be nice if the people we elected and pay took the time to educate themselves on all the issues they vote on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

 

Unfortunately with SCOTUS recent decisions on money=speech it's getting even easier to pump more and more money into the system.

 

Given the relatively small percentage of folks who vote it's becoming more and more of a bargain to influence an election. Though you do allude to the primary problem - folks generally vote against their best interest and are not well-informed, at least those outside the upper 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

 

Unfortunately with SCOTUS recent decisions on money=speech it's getting even easier to pump more and more money into the system.

 

Given the relatively small percentage of folks who vote it's becoming more and more of a bargain to influence an election. Though you do allude to the primary problem - folks generally vote against their best interest and are not well-informed, at least those outside the upper 1%.

 

Channeling Gruber? :poke:

 

Isn't it possible that people might simply understand and define their interests in ways that are at odds with progressive policy preferences, and have legitimate reasons for doing so in many cases?

 

As dismaying as it may be for progressives to witness, say, auto workers in the South taking a collective look at gleaming Utopias that are Detroit, Flint, etc and decide that inviting the UAW in to stage a sequel in their own towns isn't in their best interests - is it entirely impossible for progressive folks to conceive of a rationale for doing so that doesn't involve the people working in that factory being too stupid to understand what their own interests are?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question - but I think you're simplifying it and make some assumptions of my intent - though justifiable based on limited knowledge.

 

I don't thing in necessarily applies to a Dem vs GOP breakdown, but for many issues it does. I apologize - I'm still searching for an interesting article I read recently that looked at a broad spectrum of what people wanted out of government and then how they voted, and how their representatives then voted. Maybe it's just that they forget their aspirations once the check the box.

 

Even from a conservative perspective - balanced budgets, foreign adventures, and over-bloated military budget, increased surveillance, and a war on science all don't seem to be in line with traditional conservative values.

 

Flag waving, terrorists, ebola, negative ads -- targeted attach ads work and generally the pol with the most money wins.

 

As far as the rust belt cities and their (so far) inability to make a transitions - I'm not seeing a collective vision from either side on that one. But I'll bet that shifting some minor amount of pentagon contractors off the federal teat to some investment and business partnerships in those cities would make a decent difference. IMO>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Though you do allude to the primary problem - folks generally vote against their best interest and are not well-informed, at least those outside the upper 1%.

 

...

 

Even from a conservative perspective - balanced budgets, foreign adventures, and over-bloated military budget, increased surveillance, and a war on science all don't seem to be in line with traditional conservative values.

 

 

Jim, you've hedged here, but I think you are far, far off base. Particularly re surveillance. In fact, from the conservative perspective, it is the American left that is hell-bent on spying on the citizenry. Obama's NSA is exhibit A. And his efforts to stifle speech (spying on and investigating numerous reporters) lends itself to the idea that we should probably just take our chances with the market's invisible hand--rather than a bureaucracy with an agenda. In fact, imposing a new version of the "Fairness Doctrine" has been a dream of those on your side of things for some time.

 

"War on science?" Not even worth a response.

 

Related, I've always considered the left's habit of looking down on the electorate as uneducated, fickle, and stupid a very strange (and untrue) dynamic. Your lament about ordinary Americans voting contrary to their own self-interest is particularly telling. It belies, IMO, what the left just can't seem to grasp: that middle-class American voters generally tend to practice one of capitalism's finest features--enlightened self-interest. This makes sense, of course, since the left generally fails to understand capitalism or rejects it outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good question - but I think you're simplifying it and make some assumptions of my intent - though justifiable based on limited knowledge.

 

I don't thing in necessarily applies to a Dem vs GOP breakdown, but for many issues it does. I apologize - I'm still searching for an interesting article I read recently that looked at a broad spectrum of what people wanted out of government and then how they voted, and how their representatives then voted. Maybe it's just that they forget their aspirations once the check the box.

 

Even from a conservative perspective - balanced budgets, foreign adventures, and over-bloated military budget, increased surveillance, and a war on science all don't seem to be in line with traditional conservative values.

 

Flag waving, terrorists, ebola, negative ads -- targeted attach ads work and generally the pol with the most money wins.

 

As far as the rust belt cities and their (so far) inability to make a transitions - I'm not seeing a collective vision from either side on that one. But I'll bet that shifting some minor amount of pentagon contractors off the federal teat to some investment and business partnerships in those cities would make a decent difference. IMO>

 

Well - the transmission mechanism from voter preferences to the policy that gets enacted is far from direct, and it's rare that anyone has the luxury of voting for someone who sees things their way on every issue.

 

If I found myself choosing between a creationist Republican who supported free trade, and a progressive democrat who was great on evolution but supported economic protectionism - I'd vote for the free trade guy because that's the more important issue for me, and the tangible policy implications of their views on economic issues are more likely to result in long-lasting consequences than their views on evolution - so in that sense I'd be voting against at least one of my own interests when I pulled the lever for the wingnut who is good on trade.

 

The other aspect of this discussion that often gets overlooked is that even if someone correctly understands their own interests and votes accordingly - that's not always the mark of enlightened citizenship. The folks who are raking in the corn ethanol subsidies that support politicians who are in favor of corn ethanol subsidies are certainly voting in accordance with their own economic interests, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's an ideal that would result in broadly beneficial policies if everyone else voted with only their own narrow interests in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverse thread drift:

 

-I'm sort of surprised I never hear anyone bring up local cable monopolies created via government licensing when the net-neutrality discussion comes up. The more competition there is amongst local ISP's, the harder it gets for them to throttle delivery of content from a particular website without customers leaving.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nuances of two bad choices isn't lost on me.

 

But FW - without going into a dissertation, I'll take up one item, the GOP war on Science.

 

You can pick almost any issue - evolution, endangered species management, climate change, regulation of environmental standards --- the typical GOP play is to try and squash the science in favor of a policy that ignore findings and supports some business or religious agenda.

 

Generally this is because they don't have the balls to say what they stand for - if they said -- "Look - yes we understand that not enforcing this air quality law will lead to higher particulate matter - but we don't think the environmental standard is more important than the jobs it will affect". Rather - they will attack the science with bullshit.

 

Here's just one of many examples. I worked on an regional assessment of an endangered species four the USFWS as part of a technical science team. It was a very broad study looking a demographics, habitat, genetics, predators, and a threat assessment. The data were clear - keeping the species listed under the Endangered Species Act was warranted. So the report goes up to the Bushie (Idiot) Administration and some political hack starts redlining the science conclusions. Only because of a FOIA by an NGO that got it in the press was the report left unedited.

 

They didn't have the balls to say "yea, yea, but this affects timber harvest and we think that this policy decision over-rides the science" I would absolutely disagree - but would give them points for an honest policy choice.

 

This is a very typical method for the GOP - that and ignoring environmental standards that are on the books, hiring industry hacks to run agencies such as EPA, Interior, and NOAA; and always favoring industry over environmental regulation. BUT - they have to be slimy about it an attack the science instead of just coming out for what they stand for.

 

Speaking of which -- I gotta get back to those seabird surveys. Friggin' chilly. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The nuances of two bad choices isn't lost on me.

 

But FW - without going into a dissertation, I'll take up one item, the GOP war on Science.

 

You can pick almost any issue - evolution, endangered species management, climate change, regulation of environmental standards --- the typical GOP play is to try and squash the science in favor of a policy that ignore findings and supports some business or religious agenda.

 

Generally this is because they don't have the balls to say what they stand for - if they said -- "Look - yes we understand that not enforcing this air quality law will lead to higher particulate matter - but we don't think the environmental standard is more important than the jobs it will affect". Rather - they will attack the science with bullshit.

 

Here's just one of many examples. I worked on an regional assessment of an endangered species four the USFWS as part of a technical science team. It was a very broad study looking a demographics, habitat, genetics, predators, and a threat assessment. The data were clear - keeping the species listed under the Endangered Species Act was warranted. So the report goes up to the Bushie (Idiot) Administration and some political hack starts redlining the science conclusions. Only because of a FOIA by an NGO that got it in the press was the report left unedited.

 

They didn't have the balls to say "yea, yea, but this affects timber harvest and we think that this policy decision over-rides the science" I would absolutely disagree - but would give them points for an honest policy choice.

 

This is a very typical method for the GOP - that and ignoring environmental standards that are on the books, hiring industry hacks to run agencies such as EPA, Interior, and NOAA; and always favoring industry over environmental regulation. BUT - they have to be slimy about it an attack the science instead of just coming out for what they stand for.

 

Speaking of which -- I gotta get back to those seabird surveys. Friggin' chilly. Cheers.

 

Jim, absolutely disagree with everything here. First, it's no secret the GOP favors less regulation of industry. And I really don't think you can find anyone who thinks they don't do exactly what they say vis-a-vis limiting the imposition of additional environmental regs. In fact, I'd say it is the Democrats who hide their agenda--and the Keystone pipeline is a case in point. Harry Reid is finally letting it come up for a vote--albeit only to salvage the electoral hopes of his Louisiana colleague who now plans to vote yes. Very cynical.

 

Secondly, I'd point out that each and every one of the "war on science" examples you cite are environmental. Of course, there is more to science than the niche you occupy. I'm not trying to be an ass here, rather, just point out that you are painting with a broad brush. Yes, there are many Republican "global warming skeptics"--who in turn represent skeptical American citizens.

 

Finally, it's hard to believe your contention that the message about global warming hasn't been heard. The problem is, IMO, that instead of "selling" your message in the marketplace of ideas, you've approached the issue by trying to force delegated agency regulation and judicial interpretation down the American people's throat. Never. Gonna. Work. Not only because scientists tend to make lousy salespeople--and often think the art is beneath their dignity--but also because they so often put on public display the contempt and arrogance I mentioned in my last post.

 

In short, the party in power represents the weighted aspirations of the American people. I believe this is what Jay is trying to say as well. I'd go further and say if you want your message to get a fair hearing next election, be willing to negotiate, be willing to listen, don't lie or play politics with your own science, and don't take falsifiability off the table. Unless you plan on throwing out our whole system (good luck with that) you're going to have to sell.

 

Back to the net neutrality topic? Obama wants to "regulate the internet like a utility." This is a big, big problem. Of course, our idiot-in-chief doesn't think much of free speech and constitutional limits to begin with.

 

Have fun counting gulls. Beats the hell out of what I'm doing today.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Fairweather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wel, we obviously disagree on this one.

 

And from a science standpoint there is no such thing as climate sceptic - more accurate would be science denier. Now differences on policy reaction to the facts IS up to debate.

 

Plus- you're killing me here. Gull counting?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sleight intended. When you mentioned the word survey I figured it was safe to assume you weren't handing the birds questionnaires or conducting avian interviews. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Fairweather, but you are like many others on the right who deny reality here.

 

The Republican Party has absolutely fought a war on science. And it is not just on environmental topics.

 

Take evolution, for example: in states like Kentucky and Texas the Republican Party is saying that evolution is just a "theory" and that creationism should be taught in public schools.

 

On rape: the human body has defenses and in cases of legitimate rape a woman will not become pregnant.

 

On the "dismal science" they try to tell us that "trickle down economics" is an "accepted" fact even though it has never been found effective anywhere.

 

Yes, kook's on the left have their silly ideas - but for just plain ignorance and deliberate ignoring of the facts, Republicans have the Democrats beat times ten.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not that they have to maintain such a dismal track record - the enduring lesson of history is that both parties are cock-sucking whores eager for power - here's to hoping the republicans try to reclaim reasonableness in the not so distant future :brew:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×