ITS TIME WE HAD A COMMISSION FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT THE INTERNET

So on the 21st of December, as we were all at home, happily baking Christmas cookies, taking part in some family bonding, or making some last minute shopping trips, a little branch of a branch of the government, known as the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) released noticed to the press of some “action” they decided to take. By action, they meant new rules that they passed, “to preserve the Internet as an open network enabling consumer choice, freedom of expression, user control, competition and the freedom to innovate” (SOURCE) The rules to be enforced by the FCC include one of transparency for broadband companies, one of the prevention of blocking, and one of the prevention of unreasonable discrimination. (See the above source for a longer explanation of all three).

The general consensus, even by the majority of the FCC, agrees that the openness and free operation of the Internet has largely contributed to the success of the internet as a market. A market responsible for attracting billions of dollars of investments, and creating jobs for thousands of Americans just within the past year. The World Bank recently reported that a 10% increase in high-speed Internet connections is correlated to an increase in economic growth by 1-1.3%. (SOURCE)

My question becomes, then, why must we accept the extension of federal government regulation in the name of “preserving” the Internet? Doesn’t “preservation” have to do with the continuation of the essence of how something once was or once came into being? I’m pretty sure the Internet did not explode as such an economic and societal contributor because of any sorts of government rules that surrounded its origination. I’m also pretty sure that the micromanagement of the operations of broadband companies is not precedented within the history of the growth and prosperity of the internet.

Furthermore, there has been no such threat or market failure that I’m aware of that mandates such a move from the Federal Communications Commission. This concept of “preservation” directly alludes to the potential harms that the FCC paints as coming from the potential biases of broadband companies. My first point, is that there is no such proven harm that has actually ever been incurred by the Internet’s operation. One of the dissenting commissioners, Meredith Baker, stated, “The majority is unable to identify a single ongoing practice of a single broadband provider that it finds problematic upon which to base this action” (SOURCE). My second point is that not only is this unprecedented, but it’s an outright usurpation of the powers of Congress. The FCC is NOT a legislative body, but a regulatory one. The only piece of legislation cited by the FCC in giving them authority to take such action is Title II of the Communications Act, which as far as I have read, only relates to the regulation of television broadcast services. (read it! SOURCE). Okay, this blog is used to the government taking the entirety of the Constitution lightly. But it seems undue and unnecessary that a governmental entity will also take its own liberties in reinterpreting specific paragraphs within a specific title within a specific single piece of legislation passed in 1996.

Oh, but wait, my third point is the best. And it has nothing to do with the end of all that is internet and holy by next year because of these silly attempts by the FCC. What I love and hate most about this situation is how entirely mundane it is in the confluence of governmental and political matters today. Should not we be used to the government telling us what kind of insurance we should have, what kind of TV we should buy, and what kind of rules our companies should follow? My third, and final concern, is how and when did the government start preempting potential harms and hypothetical bad decisions by the People, rather than the People preempting the potential harms of the government. Do we have a balance of powers, termed elections, division of states and federal rights because we always believed in the goodness and perfections of the government? Or because we were aware of the risks that come with powerful government? ... Thanks for your efforts, FCC, but I’d rather someone start regulating YOU.

-E.C.Mignanelli

See Judge Napolitano on the subject...

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEARS! -FROM AOP

Apparently our government is filled with liars and thieves, who's asking Santa for the head of Mr.Wikileaks, And "HOPE" as a promise faded quickly, Cause we all can't make more money.

Our poor soldiers are afar fighting wars so bizarre, Trying to make the middle east understand what democracy are, And I think those Iranians don't think that's so funny.

Meanwhile our internet is being bullied by FCC's rotten ruling, A "neutrality" so screwy, To keep a closer eye on what we are doing, And makes me wonder if freedom of speech still exists.

So these times can be tough but at least we don't live in huts, Not in a potato famine rut or cooking for Christmas our doggie mutt, Instead we've got family to be with.

So at least for these holidays put the fear far away, Embrace the cold winter days and feel the warmth that they say, In every joyful tiding they sing.

And from all of us to you, both the reds and the blues, Despite our differences or disputes, Our sex or our hue, A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Years Eve!

-N.S.Soria

JULIAN ASSANGE & WIKILEAKS

Our First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". Yet we find ourselves currently mentioning Julian Assange, publisher and director of Wikileaks, in the same breath as concepts like “enemy of the state”, “cyber warfare”, “treason”, and “espionage” (SOURCE). Obama has called upon the Justice Department to investigate the possibility of prosecuting Assange for the number of “leaks” he has published on his website regarding US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the most recent leaks revealing tens of thousands of secret Diplomatic cables to the public...

It has been mentioned that we ought to consider prosecuting Assange under the US Espionage Act for having obtained and published confidential material, which, according to characters like our president and secretary of defense, Robert Gates, were harmful to US military strategy and to the US’ reputation around the world, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan (SOURCE) .... Yet, it has not been sufficiently questioned, HOW we might ever consider bringing an Australian citizen under trial in the USA, in order to try him for espionage and treason against the US government. As far as I’m aware, the Espionage Act is a US law, used only in application to US citizens, and furthermore, I think it would be hard to convict one of treason against a country where one is NOT a citizen...

Furthermore, and a little more disturbing in my mind, many of our own Congresspeople have made out Assange and the Wikileaks organization to be an enemy of our state. Representative King of NY urged the President to "use every offensive capability of the U.S. government to prevent further damaging releases." (SOURCE) In our news sources and in Congress, we, the American people, have been hearing more rhetoric about “security threats” and fear of “damaging materials” than we’ve heard about an outrage with a government clearly lying to its people, and doing a bad job at hiding it.

As far as I’m concerned, censorship and avoidance of government transparency has me more bothered than an international news organization that publishes documents harming our reputation in a way warranted by our own actions. As far as I’m concerned, Assange has broken no US law or committed no act of war against us that warrant such attacks. Wikileaks has already been blacklisted by the US government and the Australian government, causing the destruction of the relationship they had with their financial sponsor. What more does our government want to do to them?

Many people once thought the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 to be an illegal act, punishable under the Espionage Act. But the Supreme Court did not find The New York Times guilty of treason, and furthermore, the papers released shed light on the lies surrounding our initial attack to begin the Vietnam War (SOURCE). The whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, and The New York Times are viewed as heroic for revealing the lies that led us to that dark place in our history.

I think a reevaluation of how we view wikileaks is much needed. I fear the embarrassment of our government is a greater contributor to its brash reaction than a true assessment of any harm that has actually been done. Representative Ron Paul, called the US Congress to begin asking the right kinds of questions regarding this current situation. And I think we, the American people, ought to be asking these questions too. Just to name a few...

“*Do the America People deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
*Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
* Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations?
* If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
*Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?”
(SOURCE)

...Let us not fear the dissenting voice, and rather brave the storm of standing up to what accepted knowledge we find in our current age.... If our government is wrong for such deep and permanent involvements in so many places abroad, let us just say so.

-E.C. Mignanelli

STARTing TO RETHINK OUR FOREIGN POLICY

The US Senate, during its “lame duck” session, is currently being urged by President Obama to ratify the START treaty with Russia, signed by Obama and President Medvedev of Russia last Spring. The treaty, upon ratification, would subsequently renew the Arms Reduction negotiations we have had with Russia since the end of the USSR, and would further lower our nuclear warhead count to 1,550. (SOURCE)

It seems all roads point to the eventual renewal of this treaty... Followed by the claim to diplomatic victory for the US... Followed by the proclamations of the great gains for world peace, international cooperation, and global nuclear deterrence...

It seems our choices are to follow those for the treaty, and consequently be pro-world peace, or to follow those opposed to the treaty, and be pro-nuclear development to the point where the US has an unchecked, unnecessary right to develop an unlimited amount of nuclear warheads however we would enjoy doing so.

But let’s take a close look at what this treaty even begins to entail. These disarmament treaties deal with only one of three categories of nuclear warheads. It is said that we will have reduced our amount of nuclear warheads by 80% by the completion of the terms of this treaty, but that is only counting one of the three types of nuclear warheads that exists in American and Russian “arsenals”. According to the Guardian, (SOURCE) there is a difference between “deployed”, “reserve”, and “retired” warheads (not to mention all the short-range nukes we have that don’t concern Russia). The treaty only counts and addresses the “deployed” warheads. Furthermore, in fulfilling the terms of a disarmament treaty, we often imagine the removal and destruction of the these “deployed” warheads from our warehouses. Instead, it has been more common in recent years for ourselves and Russia to simply remove warheads from their missiles and place them in a bunker somewhere, where they are still kept under constant maintenance. They are then counted as “reserve” warheads instead. The largest amount of nuclear weaponry, though, is found in the stockpiles of “retired” nuclear arms owned by the US and Russia... and somehow, this is the number that nobody counts, even though there is no reason they cannot be reassembled and used if the “security needs” of one country might demand so... (for more information on current state of global nuclear developments check out the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

I’m not writing today to simply rail on the START treaty and its essential uselessness. Instead, I wonder why we need START or anything like it begin with. Wasn’t it Jefferson who said “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” ..?... Was it not George Washington who stated, “'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.”...?... Was our government not elected to act in representation of the American people and not the Russian people?

Perhaps treaties like this can be a grand thing promoting gains in international cooperation as never seen before. But to what point and to what avail? At what point is our “leadership” in the world going to be a debilitating thorn in the side of our federal government? When will the concerns and demands of the “international community” start to trump those ordinary concerns of our very citizens? Or have topics like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia already become more time-consuming for our elected officials than topics like education and American industry?... Perhaps it was times such as these that our very founding fathers were warning us about...

-E.C.Mignanelli