I sincerely hope followers of the Network Neutrality (NN) debate were wearing their seatbelts last week. The pro-NN Media Marxists’ rapid lurch in position on the issue would otherwise have ensured full chiropractor employment for a pronounced period of time.
What led to this The-Ends-Justify-Any-Means-Necessary backflip is the Cablevision-Fox dustup over fees Cablevision pays Fox to retransmit the latter’s programming. The two parties couldn’t reach an agreement, the contract elapsed and Fox pulled its channels from the Cablevision lineup.
Fox then went a step further, temporarily making some of its online content unavailable to Cablevision subscribers.
Let us be clear what happened here. The Content Provider (Fox) had prevented the Internet Service Provider (Cablevision) from access to its online content.
And after all, it is Fox’s property. They paid a LOT of money for its creation, development and deployment – they can do with it whatever they wish. They can offer it to whomever, or not offer it to anyone at all. If they want to withhold some or all of it from some or all people, that is their prerogative – especially when they are not being paid for it.
It is here that the pro-Net Neutrality crowd jumped the intellectual shark. Well, again. They asserted that Fox – by not giving away their property online – was in violation of the Media Marxists’ warped definition of NN.
And that Fox’s “violation” served as further “justification” for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-mandated Net Neutrality – and the radical, extra-lawful Internet power grab they have been demanding the FCC make so as to commandeer the authority necessary to enact and enforce it.
(An investment-devastating move which the FCC may very well execute as soon as November 30th.)
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement:
For a broadcaster to pull programming from the Internet for a cable company’s subscribers, as apparently happened here, directly threatens the open Internet.
And Art Brodsky, Director of Communications for Public Knowledge, wrote:
Fox committed what should be considered one of the grossest violations of the open Internet committed by a U.S. company….
In this case, of course, it’s the content provider that was doing the blocking…. (B)ut it shouldn’t matter who is keeping consumers away from the lawful content….
If one values the open Internet, however, there should be rules against that sort of thing, whether the blocking is done by the ISP or by a content provider….
Yes, it would be nice if someone (like the FCC) could step in and tell Fox that it is unacceptable to block Internet content.
For years these Leftists have been vociferously insisting that the enemies of NN are the evil Internet Service Providers – who would allegedly block access to online fare. And thusly Net Neutrality was required to stop them from so doing.
But by attempting to frame the Cablevision-Fox dispute in NN terms – by demanding that Fox give away its content to everyone – the pro-NN gaggle clearly demonstrates that this fight is not (just) about ACCESS to Internet content – it is about GOVERNMENT CONTROL of Internet content.
They seek to neutralize the Internet – by having the government control its content.
Of course, they have all along stridently asserted that Net Neutrality is not about this.
Right-wing media have falsely claimed that the net neutrality principle supported by the Obama administration is an attempt by the government to control Internet content. In fact, net neutrality does not mean government control of content on the Internet; rather, net neutrality ensures equal and open access for consumers and producers of content and applications…
But their demands of Fox clearly demonstrate that it is.
Yesterday, it was about access to content. Today, it’s the government demanding content providers give away the products they produce.
Tomorrow, it will be the government demanding content providers pull from the Web the products they produce. Shutting you up by insisting you shut it down.
After all, government control is government control. Once they have it, they have it all the way.
How pathetically sad it is that the ACLU – the alleged champion of the First Amendment – has so readily sacrificed it on the altar of Leftist ideology. And done so in such an intellectually vacuous fashion – the First Amendment protects us from GOVERNMENT censorship, not the actions of private companies or individuals.
To say that force feeding the nation Net Neutrality is a First Amendment imperative is both factually and morally bankrupt.
Heard any good jokes lately? This headline was making the internet rounds yesterday:
"Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit."
It's easy to see the humor in that. It's almost like saying you're serious about saving money but don't want to put any more pennies into the piggy bank. But here's what isn't so funny: Most reporters and politicians agree that Kent Conrad is "serious."
So-called "deficit hawks" like Conrad, Erskine Bowles, and Alan Simpson aren't just unserious. They're radicals. Their positions are an extreme departure from the philosophy of government that's guided American policy for a century. They're promoting an upward redistribution of wealth that would change the shape of our society forever. They're want to weaken a social contract that's existed since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and dismantle the economic principles we've had since Teddy Roosevelt.
You can call it a joke if you want. But, to paraphrase Elvis Costello, it's got "a punchline you can feel."
Roger Hickey and I pointed out on Wednesday that most Americans (including most Republicans) oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits. They want the payroll tax cap lifted instead, which is a fiscally sound approach. But the Republican leadership would rather cut benefits than inconvenience the wealthy, and Democrats like Conrad agree. So the "serious" position in Washington is to split the difference between them.
What happens if you recommend the solution that most people (including most Republicans) want? People say you're an "extremist." No, seriously. And nothing you can do will change that. You can point out that Social Security is self funded and they'll roll their eyes. You can have the most qualified actuary in the nation prove that your solution works, and they'll never even acknowledge that your solution exists. (Peter Orszag and Alice Rivlin have both practiced this form of rebuttal by non-acknowledgement -- which seems to be the public policy equivalent of an Amish shunning.)
If all that makes you a little exasperated, they'll observe that you're not just an extremist, you're a shrill extremist. Which, of course, proves you're not "serious."
Consider this snippet of media repartee, captured by the always-serious Digby, about the Bowles/Simpson "deficit reduction" proposal:
JIM LEHRER: Well, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, said, this is -- just right off the top, is unacceptable, right?
LORI MONTGOMERY (Washington Post): Simply unacceptable, that's exactly what she said.
There's an interesting dynamic developing ... Many of the members, except for the most liberal members, the champions of Social Security, are very reluctant to outright criticize this thing ...
They're calling it a serious effort, something that they have to respect ... It's like, you know: This is a serious plan .. these very extreme reactions are coming from the far end of the party, of each party. I think that there is a middle ground that is going to try to massage this thing, and -- and could bring this whole debate back to life...
In this clip a prominent journalist is saying that it's "serious" to solve the deficit problem by cutting a program that doesn't contribute to the deficit. She's lauding "serious" people for finding the "middle ground" -- between what the public doesn't want and what it really, really doesn't want. And she's marginalizing anyone who thinks otherwise as "extreme," "liberal", and from the "far end" of the party. (Remember: Most Republicans polled don't like this idea either.).
Then there's Jon Cowan of Third Way, who writes: "It's now time to put up or shut up, in short to lead or leave. This (the Erskine/Bowles proposal) is the first real leadership test for both parties in a divided capitol: will they embrace the Fiscal Commission recommendations, or cop out and pick the plan apart?"
Leaving aside the misstatement of fact -- the Bowles/Simpson proposal doesn't come from the "Fiscal Commission," a group that would never endorse such extreme positions -- let's consider the nature of this "leadership test." As the perpetually unserious Paul Krugman observes, this proposal "represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans." This drain on middle-class income to benefit the wealthy is the through-line that links Bowles and Simpson to Conrad and the other so-called "deficit hawks." Jon Cowan's position is that this upward redistribution of wealth doesn't even warrant public debate, and that politicians who submit to it without protest have passed a "leadership test."
Now, as it happens I've met Jon Cowan. He's a very nice, very bright guy. But this is another example of the unserious nature of "serious" thinking in Washington. Pols must "put up or shut up" -- but it's not the public who decides what gets "put up." And if you speak up for what most people (including most Republicans) want, that's a "cop out." You're "picking the plan apart." C'mon now: Do you want to be a leader or a decision-dodging nitpicker?
I'm gonna have to go with "nitpicker." If that's the new term for representing the people's wishes and acting in their best interests, I'd say we need a lot more nitpickers in Washington.
None of this is really "serious." It's play-acting, dress-up. It's like wearing daddy's overlarge clothes and repeating how-mommy-talks-in-the-office words that sound important, even though you don't know what they mean. We're talking tough, we're making the hard decisions, we're rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. Except we're not doing any of those things. This radical position is becoming the new Washington consensus. Going along with the crowd is easy, comfortable, and convenient.
The problem isn't Lori Montgomery or Jon Cowan. They're probably driven by the best of motives: the desire to work together, to collaborate, to go beyond rigid ideological boundaries to solve problems. But collaboration and bipartisanship are means, not ends. They're ways of getting things done, not the things themselves. When a culture prizes the method more it does the results, it's gone astray.
The "unserious" truth is this: Simpson and Bowles, like Conrad, would accelerate an upward restribution of wealth that's already rolling ahead like a freight train. They'd pay for it by taking money out of the pockets of soldiers, lower- and middle-income college students, and the elderly. That's a debate we need to have, and it's not a "leadership test" to run from it.
So, you want to hear an old joke? A drunk goes into a restaurant and orders a cup of coffee and a bun. The waiter says "I'm sorry, sir, we're all out of buns." The drunk thinks for a second and says, "Okay, I'll have a cup of tea and a bun." The waiter says "Sorry, we're out of buns." The drunk says "Fine, I'll have a glass of orange juice and a bun." After a few more exchanges like this the waiter loses his temper: "How many times do I have to tell you we're out of buns? No buns! No buns! No buns!"
The drunk says "Jeez, pal, if you're going to get so upset I'll just have the bun."
These so-called "deficit hawks" are the drunk, the public is the waiter, and the "bun" is any policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income people. No matter how many times voters say that's not on the menu, they're going to keep ordering it. And they may very well get it.
But seriously, folks.
______________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
bench craft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Android/iOS: Blogs and news sites put all that effort into making their posts graphically appealing, so why not see what they've got? Pulse, a nicely different kind of news reader, pulls your news in through side-scrolling, ...
Yes! We´re totes excited for this! Dolly Parton made the official announcement on her website today that she is planning not only a brand new album full of brand new music, but a worldwide...
bench craft company scam I sincerely hope followers of the Network Neutrality (NN) debate were wearing their seatbelts last week. The pro-NN Media Marxists’ rapid lurch in position on the issue would otherwise have ensured full chiropractor employment for a pronounced period of time.
What led to this The-Ends-Justify-Any-Means-Necessary backflip is the Cablevision-Fox dustup over fees Cablevision pays Fox to retransmit the latter’s programming. The two parties couldn’t reach an agreement, the contract elapsed and Fox pulled its channels from the Cablevision lineup.
Fox then went a step further, temporarily making some of its online content unavailable to Cablevision subscribers.
Let us be clear what happened here. The Content Provider (Fox) had prevented the Internet Service Provider (Cablevision) from access to its online content.
And after all, it is Fox’s property. They paid a LOT of money for its creation, development and deployment – they can do with it whatever they wish. They can offer it to whomever, or not offer it to anyone at all. If they want to withhold some or all of it from some or all people, that is their prerogative – especially when they are not being paid for it.
It is here that the pro-Net Neutrality crowd jumped the intellectual shark. Well, again. They asserted that Fox – by not giving away their property online – was in violation of the Media Marxists’ warped definition of NN.
And that Fox’s “violation” served as further “justification” for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-mandated Net Neutrality – and the radical, extra-lawful Internet power grab they have been demanding the FCC make so as to commandeer the authority necessary to enact and enforce it.
(An investment-devastating move which the FCC may very well execute as soon as November 30th.)
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement:
For a broadcaster to pull programming from the Internet for a cable company’s subscribers, as apparently happened here, directly threatens the open Internet.
And Art Brodsky, Director of Communications for Public Knowledge, wrote:
Fox committed what should be considered one of the grossest violations of the open Internet committed by a U.S. company….
In this case, of course, it’s the content provider that was doing the blocking…. (B)ut it shouldn’t matter who is keeping consumers away from the lawful content….
If one values the open Internet, however, there should be rules against that sort of thing, whether the blocking is done by the ISP or by a content provider….
Yes, it would be nice if someone (like the FCC) could step in and tell Fox that it is unacceptable to block Internet content.
For years these Leftists have been vociferously insisting that the enemies of NN are the evil Internet Service Providers – who would allegedly block access to online fare. And thusly Net Neutrality was required to stop them from so doing.
But by attempting to frame the Cablevision-Fox dispute in NN terms – by demanding that Fox give away its content to everyone – the pro-NN gaggle clearly demonstrates that this fight is not (just) about ACCESS to Internet content – it is about GOVERNMENT CONTROL of Internet content.
They seek to neutralize the Internet – by having the government control its content.
Of course, they have all along stridently asserted that Net Neutrality is not about this.
Right-wing media have falsely claimed that the net neutrality principle supported by the Obama administration is an attempt by the government to control Internet content. In fact, net neutrality does not mean government control of content on the Internet; rather, net neutrality ensures equal and open access for consumers and producers of content and applications…
But their demands of Fox clearly demonstrate that it is.
Yesterday, it was about access to content. Today, it’s the government demanding content providers give away the products they produce.
Tomorrow, it will be the government demanding content providers pull from the Web the products they produce. Shutting you up by insisting you shut it down.
After all, government control is government control. Once they have it, they have it all the way.
How pathetically sad it is that the ACLU – the alleged champion of the First Amendment – has so readily sacrificed it on the altar of Leftist ideology. And done so in such an intellectually vacuous fashion – the First Amendment protects us from GOVERNMENT censorship, not the actions of private companies or individuals.
To say that force feeding the nation Net Neutrality is a First Amendment imperative is both factually and morally bankrupt.
Heard any good jokes lately? This headline was making the internet rounds yesterday:
"Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit."
It's easy to see the humor in that. It's almost like saying you're serious about saving money but don't want to put any more pennies into the piggy bank. But here's what isn't so funny: Most reporters and politicians agree that Kent Conrad is "serious."
So-called "deficit hawks" like Conrad, Erskine Bowles, and Alan Simpson aren't just unserious. They're radicals. Their positions are an extreme departure from the philosophy of government that's guided American policy for a century. They're promoting an upward redistribution of wealth that would change the shape of our society forever. They're want to weaken a social contract that's existed since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and dismantle the economic principles we've had since Teddy Roosevelt.
You can call it a joke if you want. But, to paraphrase Elvis Costello, it's got "a punchline you can feel."
Roger Hickey and I pointed out on Wednesday that most Americans (including most Republicans) oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits. They want the payroll tax cap lifted instead, which is a fiscally sound approach. But the Republican leadership would rather cut benefits than inconvenience the wealthy, and Democrats like Conrad agree. So the "serious" position in Washington is to split the difference between them.
What happens if you recommend the solution that most people (including most Republicans) want? People say you're an "extremist." No, seriously. And nothing you can do will change that. You can point out that Social Security is self funded and they'll roll their eyes. You can have the most qualified actuary in the nation prove that your solution works, and they'll never even acknowledge that your solution exists. (Peter Orszag and Alice Rivlin have both practiced this form of rebuttal by non-acknowledgement -- which seems to be the public policy equivalent of an Amish shunning.)
If all that makes you a little exasperated, they'll observe that you're not just an extremist, you're a shrill extremist. Which, of course, proves you're not "serious."
Consider this snippet of media repartee, captured by the always-serious Digby, about the Bowles/Simpson "deficit reduction" proposal:
JIM LEHRER: Well, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, said, this is -- just right off the top, is unacceptable, right?
LORI MONTGOMERY (Washington Post): Simply unacceptable, that's exactly what she said.
There's an interesting dynamic developing ... Many of the members, except for the most liberal members, the champions of Social Security, are very reluctant to outright criticize this thing ...
They're calling it a serious effort, something that they have to respect ... It's like, you know: This is a serious plan .. these very extreme reactions are coming from the far end of the party, of each party. I think that there is a middle ground that is going to try to massage this thing, and -- and could bring this whole debate back to life...
In this clip a prominent journalist is saying that it's "serious" to solve the deficit problem by cutting a program that doesn't contribute to the deficit. She's lauding "serious" people for finding the "middle ground" -- between what the public doesn't want and what it really, really doesn't want. And she's marginalizing anyone who thinks otherwise as "extreme," "liberal", and from the "far end" of the party. (Remember: Most Republicans polled don't like this idea either.).
Then there's Jon Cowan of Third Way, who writes: "It's now time to put up or shut up, in short to lead or leave. This (the Erskine/Bowles proposal) is the first real leadership test for both parties in a divided capitol: will they embrace the Fiscal Commission recommendations, or cop out and pick the plan apart?"
Leaving aside the misstatement of fact -- the Bowles/Simpson proposal doesn't come from the "Fiscal Commission," a group that would never endorse such extreme positions -- let's consider the nature of this "leadership test." As the perpetually unserious Paul Krugman observes, this proposal "represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans." This drain on middle-class income to benefit the wealthy is the through-line that links Bowles and Simpson to Conrad and the other so-called "deficit hawks." Jon Cowan's position is that this upward redistribution of wealth doesn't even warrant public debate, and that politicians who submit to it without protest have passed a "leadership test."
Now, as it happens I've met Jon Cowan. He's a very nice, very bright guy. But this is another example of the unserious nature of "serious" thinking in Washington. Pols must "put up or shut up" -- but it's not the public who decides what gets "put up." And if you speak up for what most people (including most Republicans) want, that's a "cop out." You're "picking the plan apart." C'mon now: Do you want to be a leader or a decision-dodging nitpicker?
I'm gonna have to go with "nitpicker." If that's the new term for representing the people's wishes and acting in their best interests, I'd say we need a lot more nitpickers in Washington.
None of this is really "serious." It's play-acting, dress-up. It's like wearing daddy's overlarge clothes and repeating how-mommy-talks-in-the-office words that sound important, even though you don't know what they mean. We're talking tough, we're making the hard decisions, we're rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. Except we're not doing any of those things. This radical position is becoming the new Washington consensus. Going along with the crowd is easy, comfortable, and convenient.
The problem isn't Lori Montgomery or Jon Cowan. They're probably driven by the best of motives: the desire to work together, to collaborate, to go beyond rigid ideological boundaries to solve problems. But collaboration and bipartisanship are means, not ends. They're ways of getting things done, not the things themselves. When a culture prizes the method more it does the results, it's gone astray.
The "unserious" truth is this: Simpson and Bowles, like Conrad, would accelerate an upward restribution of wealth that's already rolling ahead like a freight train. They'd pay for it by taking money out of the pockets of soldiers, lower- and middle-income college students, and the elderly. That's a debate we need to have, and it's not a "leadership test" to run from it.
So, you want to hear an old joke? A drunk goes into a restaurant and orders a cup of coffee and a bun. The waiter says "I'm sorry, sir, we're all out of buns." The drunk thinks for a second and says, "Okay, I'll have a cup of tea and a bun." The waiter says "Sorry, we're out of buns." The drunk says "Fine, I'll have a glass of orange juice and a bun." After a few more exchanges like this the waiter loses his temper: "How many times do I have to tell you we're out of buns? No buns! No buns! No buns!"
The drunk says "Jeez, pal, if you're going to get so upset I'll just have the bun."
These so-called "deficit hawks" are the drunk, the public is the waiter, and the "bun" is any policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income people. No matter how many times voters say that's not on the menu, they're going to keep ordering it. And they may very well get it.
But seriously, folks.
______________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
bench craft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Android/iOS: Blogs and news sites put all that effort into making their posts graphically appealing, so why not see what they've got? Pulse, a nicely different kind of news reader, pulls your news in through side-scrolling, ...
Yes! We´re totes excited for this! Dolly Parton made the official announcement on her website today that she is planning not only a brand new album full of brand new music, but a worldwide...
benchcraft company scambench craft company scam
bench craft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Android/iOS: Blogs and news sites put all that effort into making their posts graphically appealing, so why not see what they've got? Pulse, a nicely different kind of news reader, pulls your news in through side-scrolling, ...
Yes! We´re totes excited for this! Dolly Parton made the official announcement on her website today that she is planning not only a brand new album full of brand new music, but a worldwide...
benchcraft company scamI sincerely hope followers of the Network Neutrality (NN) debate were wearing their seatbelts last week. The pro-NN Media Marxists’ rapid lurch in position on the issue would otherwise have ensured full chiropractor employment for a pronounced period of time.
What led to this The-Ends-Justify-Any-Means-Necessary backflip is the Cablevision-Fox dustup over fees Cablevision pays Fox to retransmit the latter’s programming. The two parties couldn’t reach an agreement, the contract elapsed and Fox pulled its channels from the Cablevision lineup.
Fox then went a step further, temporarily making some of its online content unavailable to Cablevision subscribers.
Let us be clear what happened here. The Content Provider (Fox) had prevented the Internet Service Provider (Cablevision) from access to its online content.
And after all, it is Fox’s property. They paid a LOT of money for its creation, development and deployment – they can do with it whatever they wish. They can offer it to whomever, or not offer it to anyone at all. If they want to withhold some or all of it from some or all people, that is their prerogative – especially when they are not being paid for it.
It is here that the pro-Net Neutrality crowd jumped the intellectual shark. Well, again. They asserted that Fox – by not giving away their property online – was in violation of the Media Marxists’ warped definition of NN.
And that Fox’s “violation” served as further “justification” for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-mandated Net Neutrality – and the radical, extra-lawful Internet power grab they have been demanding the FCC make so as to commandeer the authority necessary to enact and enforce it.
(An investment-devastating move which the FCC may very well execute as soon as November 30th.)
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement:
For a broadcaster to pull programming from the Internet for a cable company’s subscribers, as apparently happened here, directly threatens the open Internet.
And Art Brodsky, Director of Communications for Public Knowledge, wrote:
Fox committed what should be considered one of the grossest violations of the open Internet committed by a U.S. company….
In this case, of course, it’s the content provider that was doing the blocking…. (B)ut it shouldn’t matter who is keeping consumers away from the lawful content….
If one values the open Internet, however, there should be rules against that sort of thing, whether the blocking is done by the ISP or by a content provider….
Yes, it would be nice if someone (like the FCC) could step in and tell Fox that it is unacceptable to block Internet content.
For years these Leftists have been vociferously insisting that the enemies of NN are the evil Internet Service Providers – who would allegedly block access to online fare. And thusly Net Neutrality was required to stop them from so doing.
But by attempting to frame the Cablevision-Fox dispute in NN terms – by demanding that Fox give away its content to everyone – the pro-NN gaggle clearly demonstrates that this fight is not (just) about ACCESS to Internet content – it is about GOVERNMENT CONTROL of Internet content.
They seek to neutralize the Internet – by having the government control its content.
Of course, they have all along stridently asserted that Net Neutrality is not about this.
Right-wing media have falsely claimed that the net neutrality principle supported by the Obama administration is an attempt by the government to control Internet content. In fact, net neutrality does not mean government control of content on the Internet; rather, net neutrality ensures equal and open access for consumers and producers of content and applications…
But their demands of Fox clearly demonstrate that it is.
Yesterday, it was about access to content. Today, it’s the government demanding content providers give away the products they produce.
Tomorrow, it will be the government demanding content providers pull from the Web the products they produce. Shutting you up by insisting you shut it down.
After all, government control is government control. Once they have it, they have it all the way.
How pathetically sad it is that the ACLU – the alleged champion of the First Amendment – has so readily sacrificed it on the altar of Leftist ideology. And done so in such an intellectually vacuous fashion – the First Amendment protects us from GOVERNMENT censorship, not the actions of private companies or individuals.
To say that force feeding the nation Net Neutrality is a First Amendment imperative is both factually and morally bankrupt.
Heard any good jokes lately? This headline was making the internet rounds yesterday:
"Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit."
It's easy to see the humor in that. It's almost like saying you're serious about saving money but don't want to put any more pennies into the piggy bank. But here's what isn't so funny: Most reporters and politicians agree that Kent Conrad is "serious."
So-called "deficit hawks" like Conrad, Erskine Bowles, and Alan Simpson aren't just unserious. They're radicals. Their positions are an extreme departure from the philosophy of government that's guided American policy for a century. They're promoting an upward redistribution of wealth that would change the shape of our society forever. They're want to weaken a social contract that's existed since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and dismantle the economic principles we've had since Teddy Roosevelt.
You can call it a joke if you want. But, to paraphrase Elvis Costello, it's got "a punchline you can feel."
Roger Hickey and I pointed out on Wednesday that most Americans (including most Republicans) oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits. They want the payroll tax cap lifted instead, which is a fiscally sound approach. But the Republican leadership would rather cut benefits than inconvenience the wealthy, and Democrats like Conrad agree. So the "serious" position in Washington is to split the difference between them.
What happens if you recommend the solution that most people (including most Republicans) want? People say you're an "extremist." No, seriously. And nothing you can do will change that. You can point out that Social Security is self funded and they'll roll their eyes. You can have the most qualified actuary in the nation prove that your solution works, and they'll never even acknowledge that your solution exists. (Peter Orszag and Alice Rivlin have both practiced this form of rebuttal by non-acknowledgement -- which seems to be the public policy equivalent of an Amish shunning.)
If all that makes you a little exasperated, they'll observe that you're not just an extremist, you're a shrill extremist. Which, of course, proves you're not "serious."
Consider this snippet of media repartee, captured by the always-serious Digby, about the Bowles/Simpson "deficit reduction" proposal:
JIM LEHRER: Well, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, said, this is -- just right off the top, is unacceptable, right?
LORI MONTGOMERY (Washington Post): Simply unacceptable, that's exactly what she said.
There's an interesting dynamic developing ... Many of the members, except for the most liberal members, the champions of Social Security, are very reluctant to outright criticize this thing ...
They're calling it a serious effort, something that they have to respect ... It's like, you know: This is a serious plan .. these very extreme reactions are coming from the far end of the party, of each party. I think that there is a middle ground that is going to try to massage this thing, and -- and could bring this whole debate back to life...
In this clip a prominent journalist is saying that it's "serious" to solve the deficit problem by cutting a program that doesn't contribute to the deficit. She's lauding "serious" people for finding the "middle ground" -- between what the public doesn't want and what it really, really doesn't want. And she's marginalizing anyone who thinks otherwise as "extreme," "liberal", and from the "far end" of the party. (Remember: Most Republicans polled don't like this idea either.).
Then there's Jon Cowan of Third Way, who writes: "It's now time to put up or shut up, in short to lead or leave. This (the Erskine/Bowles proposal) is the first real leadership test for both parties in a divided capitol: will they embrace the Fiscal Commission recommendations, or cop out and pick the plan apart?"
Leaving aside the misstatement of fact -- the Bowles/Simpson proposal doesn't come from the "Fiscal Commission," a group that would never endorse such extreme positions -- let's consider the nature of this "leadership test." As the perpetually unserious Paul Krugman observes, this proposal "represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans." This drain on middle-class income to benefit the wealthy is the through-line that links Bowles and Simpson to Conrad and the other so-called "deficit hawks." Jon Cowan's position is that this upward redistribution of wealth doesn't even warrant public debate, and that politicians who submit to it without protest have passed a "leadership test."
Now, as it happens I've met Jon Cowan. He's a very nice, very bright guy. But this is another example of the unserious nature of "serious" thinking in Washington. Pols must "put up or shut up" -- but it's not the public who decides what gets "put up." And if you speak up for what most people (including most Republicans) want, that's a "cop out." You're "picking the plan apart." C'mon now: Do you want to be a leader or a decision-dodging nitpicker?
I'm gonna have to go with "nitpicker." If that's the new term for representing the people's wishes and acting in their best interests, I'd say we need a lot more nitpickers in Washington.
None of this is really "serious." It's play-acting, dress-up. It's like wearing daddy's overlarge clothes and repeating how-mommy-talks-in-the-office words that sound important, even though you don't know what they mean. We're talking tough, we're making the hard decisions, we're rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. Except we're not doing any of those things. This radical position is becoming the new Washington consensus. Going along with the crowd is easy, comfortable, and convenient.
The problem isn't Lori Montgomery or Jon Cowan. They're probably driven by the best of motives: the desire to work together, to collaborate, to go beyond rigid ideological boundaries to solve problems. But collaboration and bipartisanship are means, not ends. They're ways of getting things done, not the things themselves. When a culture prizes the method more it does the results, it's gone astray.
The "unserious" truth is this: Simpson and Bowles, like Conrad, would accelerate an upward restribution of wealth that's already rolling ahead like a freight train. They'd pay for it by taking money out of the pockets of soldiers, lower- and middle-income college students, and the elderly. That's a debate we need to have, and it's not a "leadership test" to run from it.
So, you want to hear an old joke? A drunk goes into a restaurant and orders a cup of coffee and a bun. The waiter says "I'm sorry, sir, we're all out of buns." The drunk thinks for a second and says, "Okay, I'll have a cup of tea and a bun." The waiter says "Sorry, we're out of buns." The drunk says "Fine, I'll have a glass of orange juice and a bun." After a few more exchanges like this the waiter loses his temper: "How many times do I have to tell you we're out of buns? No buns! No buns! No buns!"
The drunk says "Jeez, pal, if you're going to get so upset I'll just have the bun."
These so-called "deficit hawks" are the drunk, the public is the waiter, and the "bun" is any policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income people. No matter how many times voters say that's not on the menu, they're going to keep ordering it. And they may very well get it.
But seriously, folks.
______________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
benchcraft company scam
bench craft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Android/iOS: Blogs and news sites put all that effort into making their posts graphically appealing, so why not see what they've got? Pulse, a nicely different kind of news reader, pulls your news in through side-scrolling, ...
Yes! We´re totes excited for this! Dolly Parton made the official announcement on her website today that she is planning not only a brand new album full of brand new music, but a worldwide...
bench craft company scam
benchcraft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Android/iOS: Blogs and news sites put all that effort into making their posts graphically appealing, so why not see what they've got? Pulse, a nicely different kind of news reader, pulls your news in through side-scrolling, ...
Yes! We´re totes excited for this! Dolly Parton made the official announcement on her website today that she is planning not only a brand new album full of brand new music, but a worldwide...
benchcraft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Android/iOS: Blogs and news sites put all that effort into making their posts graphically appealing, so why not see what they've got? Pulse, a nicely different kind of news reader, pulls your news in through side-scrolling, ...
Yes! We´re totes excited for this! Dolly Parton made the official announcement on her website today that she is planning not only a brand new album full of brand new music, but a worldwide...
benchcraft company scamSasha Frere-Jones, a music critic at The New Yorker, will become the culture editor of The Daily, News Corporation's so-called iPad newspaper which is currently in development.
Android/iOS: Blogs and news sites put all that effort into making their posts graphically appealing, so why not see what they've got? Pulse, a nicely different kind of news reader, pulls your news in through side-scrolling, ...
Yes! We´re totes excited for this! Dolly Parton made the official announcement on her website today that she is planning not only a brand new album full of brand new music, but a worldwide...
how to lose weight fast benchcraft company scam benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
