Wingnut Blogs Go Cuckoo Over Net Neutrality

TechnologyDecember 2010 • Views: 22,593

I’m not crazy about the new Net Neutrality regulations, because they’re: 1) pretty weak sauce, and 2) full of loopholes that will let big ISPs get away with funny business, especially wireless providers.

But one thing they obviously are not is an attempt by the Obama administration or the FCC to “take over the Internet,” and only an idiot, an ideologue, or a liar would try to portray them as such.

I’ll let you decide which categories these right wing bloggers belong in:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn Explains How GOP Will Block FCC Takeover of the Internet (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

Dictator Obama Seizes Control of Internet - Atlas Shrugs

Power Line - Abolish the FCC

Fausta’s Blog » “Net Neutrality” just a pretext for FCC power grab

Government’s Internet Grab Begins: FCC Approves Internet Regulations - Big Government

Michelle Malkin at least has the honesty to come right out and admit she thinks the cable and wireless companies should be allowed to set up discriminatory barriers on the web.

Note: I could easily post links to many more wingnut blogs; as usual, they’re all totally on message, all parroting exactly the same ignorant points, in the web’s biggest echo chamber.

Jump to bottom

158 comments

Obdicut Wed, Dec 22, 2010 10:41:02am

I see it as a deeply flawed bill that’s going to lead to messiness. It has no chance of leading to totalitarianism, since it doesn’t actually establish enforceable neutrality for wireless companies, and even the wired portions are iffy.

avanti Wed, Dec 22, 2010 10:41:43am

Basic rule of thumb. If a ruling/billl favors the little guy over corporations, the GOP opposes it.

122 Year Old Obama Wed, Dec 22, 2010 10:53:44am

Image: thestupiditburns.jpg

Mich-again Wed, Dec 22, 2010 10:56:46am

Neurotic nuts nervous over net neutrality.
They see contrails in the path of the electrons.

tomg51spence Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:08:40am

Going where no oversight has gone before.
What could go wrong?

Fozzie Bear Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:10:02am

Either access providers are free to charge us whatever they want and filter access to information, or consumers are free to access any information they please.

Predictably, the right doesn’t get that sometimes, two freedoms conflict, and it is the job of government to choose which one gets precedence. Am I free to shoot you in the face, or are you free from being shot in the face? You can’t have it both ways, wingnuts.

lawhawk Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:13:02am

Well, readers over at Hot Air are going nuts over the deal to pass the Zadroga bill. They’re calling the GOP a bunch of RINOs; sellouts; claiming that this is a union payoff; etc.

Sheesh.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:13:27am

“I’ll let you decide which categories these right wing bloggers belong in…”

Eleventy! For all of the above.

They really should stop listening to Alex Jones.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:13:40am

Media Matters: Right-wing delusion: Net neutrality is government plot to control Internet content

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:13:56am

Personally I prefer Cocoa Puffs.

Political Atheist Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:14:42am

This issue has vexed me despite some time spent reading.
Charles if I may ask-What would you like to see as a blogger and power user?

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:14:54am

Media Matters: Fox Guest Baselessly Portrays Net Neutrality As “Socialism” That Takes Network Control Away From ISPs

Vicious Babushka Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:15:05am

If they were right, wouldn’t all their blogs be shut down already?

Fozzie Bear Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:16:24am

re: #10 b_sharp

Personally I prefer Cocoa Puffs.

We at AT&T support your right to prefer Cocoa Puffs, and would like to offer you a premium service where you can use the words “Cocoa Puffs” as many times as you like for a monthly fee of $15.

lawhawk Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:18:54am

Charles,

As a matter of clarification, this isn’t pending legislation, but rather FCC rules.

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:19:40am

re: #14 Fozzie Bear

We at AT&T support your right to prefer Cocoa Puffs, and would like to offer you a premium service where you can use the words “Cocoa Puffs” as many times as you like for a monthly fee of $15.

Unlimited use, wow. How much if I add skim milk?

Fozzie Bear Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:22:19am

re: #16 b_sharp

Unlimited use, wow. How much if I add skim milk?

I’m sorry, but we do not offer access to skim milk at this time. We would like to take this opportunity to inform you of our wonderful offering of heavy cream, an AT&T service which we feel is superior to skim milk, for a monthly fee of $20.

Thank you for choosing AT&T.

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:23:35am

Net neutrality is socialism?
LOL.

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:23:50am

re: #11 Rightwingconspirator

This issue has vexed me despite some time spent reading.
Charles if I may ask-What would you like to see as a blogger and power user?

I had a hard time parsing out the issues too, for a while. I’m now totally in favor of keeping the Internet as free from ISP-dictated “service tiers” as possible. In the long run, if big corporations are allowed to stratify the web the way they want, I think it will destroy the web as we know it and turn it into a sort of network TV on steroids. This bill doesn’t go nearly far enough.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:23:59am

The right-wing argument that baffled me the most was that Net Neutrality would supposedly be suppressing free speech, yknow, the whole “it’s the Fairness Doctrine for the internet, with government being able to dictate content”.

The ammount of willful delusion that lets you ignore the fact that protection free speech is one of the main objectives of Net Neutrality is astounding.

mdey Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:25:13am

Glenn Beck is off this week. When he comes back, he’ll need a couple extra chalkboards for this one.

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:26:02am

re: #19 Charles

I had a hard time parsing out the issues too, for a while. I’m now totally in favor of keeping the Internet as free from ISP-dictated “service tiers” as possible. In the long run, if big corporations are allowed to stratify the web the way they want, I think it will destroy the web as we know it and turn it into a sort of network TV on steroids. This bill doesn’t go nearly far enough.

I agree.
I can’t imagine paying for a tiered internet service…
I already pay Comcast 60 buck a month for broadband.

BishopX Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:27:22am

re: #17 Fozzie Bear

I’m sorry, but we do not offer access to skim milk at this time. We would like to take this opportunity to inform you of our wonderful offering of heavy cream, an AT&T service which we feel is superior to skim milk, for a monthly fee of $20.

Thank you for choosing AT&T.

However due to the dastardly cheesemakers clogging up our udders, we are limiting heavy cream usage to 1 pint/month. This is enough for 95% of our users. In the event that 95% of our users use less than 1 pint/month we will lower the cream allotment.

As always, that you for choosing AT&T.

JeffM70 Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:29:06am

I wonder if these idiots realize they what they really want is a corporatocracy, apparently in the belief that it will result in greater freedom rather than less freedom.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:29:31am

Side note: Michelle Malkin is a big fan of discrimination.

Youtube Video

lawhawk Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:29:33am

re: #14 Fozzie Bear

I will stick to my Kaboom and Fruit Brute thank you very much.

And if you don’t like it, you can accept my Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique. /

Damned kids…

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:32:26am

re: #19 Charles

I had a hard time parsing out the issues too, for a while. I’m now totally in favor of keeping the Internet as free from ISP-dictated “service tiers” as possible. In the long run, if big corporations are allowed to stratify the web the way they want, I think it will destroy the web as we know it and turn it into a sort of network TV on steroids. This bill doesn’t go nearly far enough.

I’m right with you there, with the caveat that I don’t want to see too much gov’t interference either. Not because I think the government would take over the innernetz to Kontrol our Brainz! or anything like that, but rather because they are chowderheads who don’t really understand open vs. closed when it comes to new tech.

At the same time it’s good that the FCC has become involved in the battle, and they might take some miss steps but eventually they will get it right. Because many of these ISP’s had monopoly access to the public right of ways for a long while (Cable TV, Fiber Optic networks, and Public airwaves all take infrastructure in the public right of way) it’s real important that the feds keep the playing field level.

We have not yet begun to see what’s going to happen in media in the first half of this century — but if it’s stifled by Cable tiers and Media empires locking up their castles then it’s going to be a lot longer before we see it and it’s going to be longer before the economy really blooms.

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:33:41am

re: #15 lawhawk

Charles,

As a matter of clarification, this isn’t pending legislation, but rather FCC rules.

Right, thanks - I just noticed that myself.

Note to anyone who’s obsessively documenting every word I write: I changed the word “legislation” to “regulations” in my post, but because I’m evil, I didn’t tell anyone. Except that I just did. Oops. Have to practice being evil.

But you never can tell. I might change words all the time like this.

JeffM70 Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:33:57am

re: #11 Rightwingconspirator

This issue has vexed me despite some time spent reading.
Charles if I may ask-What would you like to see as a blogger and power user?

If you want a few corporations controlling what you can access on the Internet, then oppose net neutrality. If you want to be free to access anywhere on the Internet you want, support it. I said yesterday, the heart of NN besides commerce is the free flow of information. In theory you could have Fox News or CNN buy ATT&T or Verizon etc., and either block its customers from visiting competitors’ sites or charge customers to have access to competitors’ sites. NN seeks to prevent that.

makeitstop Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:34:43am

re: #13 Alouette

If they were right, wouldn’t all their blogs be shut down already?

The fact that they’re still free to complain about the bill seems to be completely lost on them.

And to me this looks like ‘Obama is going to take your guns’ redux. Wingnuts just love being scared/outraged by stuff, even if it isn’t the least bit true.

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:34:46am

re: #28 Charles

Right, thanks - I just noticed that myself.

Note to anyone who’s obsessively documenting every word I write: I changed the word “legislation” to “regulations” in my post, but because I’m evil, I didn’t tell anyone. Except that I just did. Oops. Have to practice being evil.

But you never can tell. I might change words all the time like this.

Charles will then use a time machine to go back and undo all those changes.
Just for shits and giggles.

martinsmithy Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:35:34am

There are two groups of idiots here (not “here” literally, I mean “here” as in the right-wing nuts screaming about this issue:). There is undoubtedly some overlap between the two.

The first group are the raving lunatic Obamahaters, who see the Obama boogeyman under every bed (e.g. Pamela Geller).

The second group are the right-wingers who think that corporate America, once it takes over the internet, will do its best to shut out competing voices - a “Fox News” takeover of the internet. The Republicans in congress fit this bill, along with Michelle Malkin (although Malkin may be an example of the overlap - she is clearly a loony Obamahater too).

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:35:49am

re: #26 lawhawk

I will stick to my Kaboom and Fruit Brute thank you very much.

And if you don’t like it, you can accept my Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique. /

Damned kids…

Old foggy.

I’m on your lawn.

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:36:49am

The Senate passes compromise bill providing free health care to first responders of NYC 9/11 terrorist attacks.

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:38:53am

re: #28 Charles

Right, thanks - I just noticed that myself.

Note to anyone who’s obsessively documenting every word I write: I changed the word “legislation” to “regulations” in my post, but because I’m evil, I didn’t tell anyone. Except that I just did. Oops. Have to practice being evil.

But you never can tell. I might change words all the time like this.

I wouldn’t try it, Buster, we know how to read between the lines.

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:40:28am

re: #34 Varek Raith

So now Gay 9/11 responders in our military can get health care and join teh war on Christmas!

Okami Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:41:26am

I say, if ISP’s want to police what people can and can’t do with their internet, let them. But if they want to control what their customers can do, then they’ll have to take responsibility for any illegal activities performed using their service. It’s the same reason telephone companies don’t get in trouble when people use phonelines to illegally transmit information, because they don’t control what people do with phone connections.

Romantic Heretic Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:42:30am

Paul Krugman wrote about the problem a few years ago. I like his metaphor that the intenet resembles railroads rather than highways. It explains the problems facing us well.

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:43:17am

re: #32 martinsmithy

Let’s not forget the vested-interest Republicans like those who kowtow to Rush Limbaugh, hired goon for the ClearChannel magnate.

BishopX Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:47:40am

re: #39 Thanos

Let’s not forget the vested-interest Republicans like those who kowtow to Rush Limbaugh, hired goon for the ClearChannel magnate.

This!

Fozzie Bear Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:47:49am

re: #37 Okami

I say, if ISP’s want to police what people can and can’t do with their internet, let them. But if they want to control what their customers can do, then they’ll have to take responsibility for any illegal activities performed using their service. It’s the same reason telephone companies don’t get in trouble when people use phonelines to illegally transmit information, because they don’t control what people do with phone connections.

It doesn’t have anything to do with policing, or with people using their internet connection for doing illegal things. This isn’t about law enforcement at all. Net neutrality doesn’t touch copyright issues or hacking at all. That is a completely separate and distinct issue.

Net Neutrality is a policy agenda that basically says “Internet access is a utility. You can sell me access capped at a certain speed, or in chunks of so much data per dollar, but you may not prioritize those bits, or block bits from certain services.”

Net neutrality is the idea that ISP’s are utilities that provide a pipe of a given width, and should not be allowed to discriminate as to what users are allowed to push or pull through that pipe. (To use a metaphor)

JeffM70 Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:48:52am

Another thing these fools don’t consider is the government’s crucial role in developing the Internet and funding the expansion of broadband and wireless networks.

BongCrodny Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:49:08am

re: #28 Charles

Note to anyone who’s obsessively documenting every word I write: I changed the word “legislation” to “regulations” in my post, but because I’m evil, I didn’t tell anyone. Except that I just did. Oops. Have to practice being evil.

You can never truly be Evil until you capitalize it.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:49:19am

House Vote 550 - Passes 9/11 Health Care Bill

268 to 160

All no votes are from GOP members.

gamark Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:49:35am

re: #22 Varek Raith

I can’t imagine paying for a tiered internet service…
I already pay Comcast 60 buck a month for broadband.

I’m not understanding this viewpoint. Are you opposed to tiers based on data usage? Do you feel its wrong somehow for an ISP to charge more for high bandwidth use?

I’m all for the concept of net neutrality when it comes to neutral treatment of all protocols and content. But tiered pricing based on bandwidth/data usage needs seems perfectly reasonable to me.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:50:34am

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

It doesn’t have anything to do with policing, or with people using their internet connection for doing illegal things. This isn’t about law enforcement at all. Net neutrality doesn’t touch copyright issues or hacking at all. That is a completely separate and distinct issue.

Net Neutrality is a policy agenda that basically says “Internet access is a utility. You can sell me access capped at a certain speed, or in chunks of so much data per dollar, but you may not prioritize those bits, or block bits from certain services.”

Net neutrality is the idea that ISP’s are utilities that provide a pipe of a given width, and should not be allowed to discriminate as to what users are allowed to push or pull through that pipe. (To use a metaphor)

Exactly: Seperation of delivery format and delivered content.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:51:31am

re: #44 Gus 802

House Vote 550 - Passes 9/11 Health Care Bill

268 to 160

All no votes are from GOP members.

Change that. There were two Dem no votes from Marion Berry (D-AR) and Jim Cooper (D-TN).

Obdicut Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:53:35am

re: #47 Gus 802

I thought that was Marion Barry for a second, and I was like, “How the fuck did he become a congressman from Arkansas?”

Okami Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:54:01am

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

It’s a related issue. Telecom companies are granted immunity from illegal use of their service because they are common carriers, which means that they just provide the service and have no control over its use, keeping it neutral.

ISP’s have decided they don’t want to do that. They want to be in charge of what people can see and do on their privately controlled bandwidth. And I think if they’re controlling people’s access to content, they should lose their immunity for not being in control.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:54:04am

re: #47 Gus 802

Change that. There were two Dem no votes from Marion Berry (D-AR) and Jim Cooper (D-TN).

On more. Bobby Bright of Alabama. So it looks like the no votes came from the Dixiecrats. Otherwise, had it not been for the yes votes from the Democrats, the Republicans would have killed the 911 health care bill.

mr.fusion Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:54:23am

Don’t forget Drudge. I believe his headline yesterday was:

Julius Seizure! They’re coming for your internet!

Political Atheist Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:55:22am

re: #42 JeffM70

Isn’t that pretty old news? The gov put in dial up. Now the telecoms put in highspeed. On their own money I think.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:55:39am

re: #48 Obdicut

I thought that was Marion Barry for a second, and I was like, “How the fuck did he become a congressman from Arkansas?”

I also did a double take.

reloadingisnotahobby Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:57:01am

I must leave this subject to y’all that actually know what the hell your talking about!
I know enough about this confounded machine to truly be a menace.
Just want to tell everyone to have a safe and joyous holiday!
Merry Christmas..!
Happy Hanuka!
Rollicking Ramadan!
Happy Holidays!
If I missed anyone…Happy that too!

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:57:30am

That vote was from September 29, 2010. Still, I think the point is loud and clear.

albusteve Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:59:03am

re: #47 Gus 802

Change that. There were two Dem no votes from Marion Berry (D-AR) and Jim Cooper (D-TN).

well that was easy….move along to the next Big Rage

Randall Gross Wed, Dec 22, 2010 11:59:27am

re: #38 Romantic Heretic

Actually nowadays neither really fits. Think of the internet as all freight companies combined — air, rail, road, ship… since there are now multiple media for internet (from cell, to microwave, to fiber, to copper, to Wifi, to Wimax, etc,) and there are multiple long haul and local carriers. (Think of your LEC and their DSL lines as UPS, and your Cableco and their broadband as FEDEX for instance, and Verizon / Sprint as Burlington Northern and Yellow Freight etc…)

albusteve Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:00:26pm

re: #51 mr.fusion

Don’t forget Drudge. I believe his headline yesterday was:

Julius Seizure! They’re coming for your internet!

Less Filling!
Taste Great!
hyperbole is part of the American political landscape

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:01:00pm

71-26 Senate

START treaty. Final vote.

reloadingisnotahobby Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:01:06pm

…O.T.
The official snow total is 20 inches!(Central Utah)
I will validate that with sore muscles and joint to last thru.. the weekend!

Peace on Earth Dudes and Dudettes!!

avanti Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:01:14pm

Start passes 71-26

Obdicut Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:02:12pm

re: #59 Gus 802

Turned into kind of a rout. I gotta say, the GOP is currently having the opposite problem that i thought they would. Though I am really worried about what they’re going to do about spending once the lame duck is over.

wrenchwench Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:02:36pm

re: #60 reloadingisnotahobby

…O.T.
The official snow total is 20 inches!(Central Utah)
I will validate that with sore muscles and joint to last thru.. the weekend!

Peace on Earth Dudes and Dudettes!!

I’m glad at least that your joint will last. Should provide some comfort….

calochortus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:02:42pm

re: #59 Gus 802

Apparently the 9-11 responders bill passed too.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:02:43pm

re: #56 albusteve

well that was easy…move along to the next Big Rage

Yeah. I’m sure we’ll be seeing a lot of yes votes in the House after January 5th on things like “Abstinence Education”.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:03:20pm

re: #64 calochortus

Apparently the 9-11 responders bill passed too.

Yep. -2 billion dollars give or take.

reloadingisnotahobby Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:04:41pm

re: #63 wrenchwench
Oops….The “Joint” that is not giving me problem is actually an after market!!LOL
No…not that one ! My knee you silly!

calochortus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:05:46pm

re: #66 Gus 802

I suspect the total amount is less important at this point than getting something through that will help people now. Perhaps more money will be added later if it is needed.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:06:43pm

re: #68 calochortus

I suspect the total amount is less important at this point than getting something through that will help people now. Perhaps more money will be added later if it is needed.

Yep. That’s what I was thinking.

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:09:05pm

re: #63 wrenchwench

I’m glad at least that your joint will last. Should provide some comfort…

Naughty girl…

wrenchwench Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:09:46pm

re: #70 b_sharp

Naughty girl…

I knew I could count on a ding from you…

tomg51spence Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:10:05pm

Paying for usage makes some sense
Sounds like how it was 10 years ago
Rate for time (now usage) was market driven

lawhawk Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:10:22pm

re: #68 calochortus

That’s essentially what happened here. The Zadroga bill reopens the original VCF for another 5 years, along with health monitoring for responders.

Once this new 5-year period expires, expect another fight over reopening the fund again as scientists potentially reveal yet more connections between exposures and illnesses among Ground Zero responders and those living near Ground Zero (longer term ailments that might manifest themselves within 10-13 years).

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:11:00pm

re: #71 wrenchwench

I knew I could count on a ding from you…

I am a big dinger.

JeffM70 Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:11:06pm

re: #52 Rightwingconspirator

Isn’t that pretty old news? The gov put in dial up. Now the telecoms put in highspeed. On their own money I think.

I suppose if you ignore all the federal grants given to states to help them expand broadband to their residents. Or federal monies given to the telecoms for various initiatives. Or the fact that telecoms can’t erect a cell tower or launch a satellite with government approval at one level or another.

calochortus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:14:40pm

re: #73 lawhawk

Maybe it wouldn’t be such a problem if we had universal health care. We wouldn’t have to decide who is worthy.

dmon Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:16:21pm

I would imagine just like any other utility, the inergoogles probably receive a large chunk of right of ways through federal lands

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:17:19pm

Comment at Fox Nation regarding Net Neutrality regs:

amhc_ret 1 hour ago
This will end up being the same control over the internet that they have in China, Iran and other places. Eventually the state will control the flow of information, this is in fact what they’re trying for isn’t it? Control their information, stop their ability to communicate, control their spending, control their healthcare, their money, and everything else you can. Look around the world, and look through history, does any of this sound familiar? We needed this just like we needed Obamacare!

Quick. Pass the Valium.

abolitionist Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:17:57pm

Semi OT: To Chavez, “net neutrality” apparently means neutered.
Venezuela passes new law drastically limiting internet freedoms

The Venezuelan parliament has passed a law that bans any internet content that “promotes social unrest, challenges authority or condones crime.”

Vicious Babushka Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:18:41pm

re: #78 Gus 802

Comment at Fox Nation regarding Net Neutrality regs:

amhc_ret 1 hour ago
This will end up being the same control over the internet that they have in China, Iran and other places. Eventually the state will control the flow of information, this is in fact what they’re trying for isn’t it? Control their information, stop their ability to communicate, control their spending, control their healthcare, their money, and everything else you can. Look around the world, and look through history, does any of this sound familiar? We needed this just like we needed Obamacare!

Quick. Pass the Valium.

They let you have Valium?

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:19:35pm

re: #80 Alouette

They let you have Valium?

Hey. Only the cherry flavored ones.

lawhawk Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:19:45pm

re: #76 calochortus

Separate issue - as these people are being compensated for the injuries sustained in the rescue/relief efforts at Ground Zero - the illness is considered an injury and compensation through the victim compensation fund is meant to reduce/avoid litigation and deliver prompt payments to those affected.

gamark Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:20:52pm

re: #76 calochortus

Maybe it wouldn’t be such a problem if we had universal health care. We wouldn’t have to decide who is worthy.

This would only be true if we have unlimited healthcare capacity. Because we only have limited capacity, decisions of worthiness are necessary to allocate that capacity even with so-called “universal” health care.

Gus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:23:08pm

Wingnut week in review:

• Marines showering with homosexuals in the barracks!!11ty
• The Russians are going to nuke Amurica!!11ty
• Congress pays off unions with 911 1st responders bill!!11ty
• Obama iz taking over teh internet like China and Iran!!ty

albusteve Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:23:18pm

re: #83 gamark

This would only be true if we have unlimited healthcare capacity. Because we only have limited capacity, decisions of worthiness are necessary to allocate that capacity even with so-called “universal” health care.

I’ve been told we can import all the doctors and nurses we’ll need to treat 30m more people….of course the cost will have to be factored in after signing bonuses are figured out

calochortus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:24:52pm

re: #83 gamark

Obviously we can’t give everyone all the healthcare that they might want. We certainly don’t now. “Universal” healthcare might let medical professionals have more voice in who needs what, rather than insurance companies. I think medical necessity might be a better metric than personal “worthiness”.

albusteve Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:25:15pm

re: #84 Gus 802

Wingnut week in review:

• Marines showering with homosexuals in the barracks!!11ty
• The Russians are going to nuke Amurica!!11ty
• Congress pays off unions with 911 1st responders bill!!11ty
• Obama iz taking over teh internet like China and Iran!!ty

keep a log, and we’ll decide on the TopFaux next month

engineer cat Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:26:54pm

wingnut agitation over net neutrality follows the typical pattern for anger fodder for our not overly well informed propaganda victims:

almost nothing, if anything, will be disclosed about the actual details of the issue involved

in addition, count on wingnuts to angrily hurl links at you - links to documents that somehow, when examined, are much more likely to provide support for your point of view rather than the wingnuts. curious, that…

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:31:19pm

re: #88 engineer dog

wingnut agitation over net neutrality follows the typical pattern for anger fodder for our not overly well informed propaganda victims:

almost nothing, if anything, will be disclosed about the actual details of the issue involved

in addition, count on wingnuts to angrily hurl links at you - links to documents that somehow, when examined, are much more likely to provide support for your point of view rather than the wingnuts. curious, that…

I call it selective reading and it goes hand in hand with selective reasoning and quote mining. A single instance of a comment that can be construed as supporting their bias when taken out of context, is enough to convince them of their superior understanding of the issue.

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:31:32pm

re: #58 albusteve

Less Filling!
Taste Great!
hyperbole is part of the American political landscape

Kind of but not really. A certain amount is expected but today’s wingnuts have taken things to a whole new level. Serious and complicated issues like healthcare reform, stimulating the economy and net neutrality all go by without serious discussion. Paranoid delusions about government takeovers is not helpful. It’s bad for the country.

albusteve Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:34:06pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

Kind of but not really. A certain amount is expected but today’s wingnuts have taken things to a whole new level. Serious and complicated issues like healthcare reform, stimulating the economy and net neutrality all go by without serious discussion. Paranoid delusions about government takeovers is not helpful. It’s bad for the country.

that was a given…and it takes on a life of it’s own, not just with regard to individual issues, but in general as well….hardly considered quality leadership, and that’s bipartisan, swinging one direction, then the other

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:34:52pm

Lol@Fox News: Haley Barbour Fends off Left-Wing Racial Smears with Ease

lostlakehiker Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:35:42pm

The buzzwords tell nothing. What is “net neutrality”? What are
“discriminatory barriers”? Anything, good or bad, can be made to sound its opposite by the use of such terms.

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:35:50pm

Net Neutrality is far more complicated than some think.
Ok, you support charging for the amount of bandwidth used?
Who gets to charge? ISPs don’t own all of the lines. Data travels through multiple networks owned by various corps. Do they all get to charge me if I stream a movie through Netflix and it happens to pass trough differently owned networks?

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:36:30pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

Kind of but not really. A certain amount is expected but today’s wingnuts have taken things to a whole new level. Serious and complicated issues like healthcare reform, stimulating the economy and net neutrality all go by without serious discussion. Paranoid delusions about government takeovers is not helpful. It’s bad for the country.

It has become the meme version of an ear worm, forming and entrenching mental pathways so deeply and rigidly, rational consideration is viewed as propaganda.

JeffM70 Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:36:33pm

To keep things in perspective, these are the same people who are treated to Jon Voight’s insights and analysis of START.

Shiplord Kirel Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:36:39pm

The fever swamp is back on line now, and the few hours’ worth of pent-up stupid about net neutrality is enough to blot out the sun.

How stupid? One poster tries to equate the FCC ruling with Venezuela’s new internet censorship regulations.

S'latch Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:37:18pm

We have a winner:

“Dictator Obama Seizes Control of Internet!” By Atlas Shrugs.

He is probably in complete remote control of my personal computer right now, sending spam from my e-mail account, mining my personal data for bank account information and even my social security number.

Obdicut Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:37:37pm

re: #92 Killgore Trout

How is that even an article? It’s just an assertion.

What a joke.

100

Obdicut Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:38:35pm

re: #98 Lawrence Schmerel

Obama is going to hackzor with the FCC and set everyone’s wallpaper to this image:

Image: barak-obama-painting.jpg

101

tomg51spence Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:38:59pm

They had to pass it for us to see whats in it.

102

wrenchwench Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:39:01pm

re: #92 Killgore Trout

Lol@Fox News: Haley Barbour Fends off Left-Wing Racial Smears with Ease

“Racial Smears”? Sounds like a diagnostic test…

He “fended off” the “smears” by backpedaling as hard as he could.

103

gamark Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:39:06pm

re: #86 calochortus

“Universal” healthcare might let medical professionals have more voice in who needs what, rather than insurance companies. I think medical necessity might be a better metric than personal “worthiness”.

I believe medical necessity is the primary metric used by the insurance industry. At least that has been my experience at those times I’ve had to approach my insurance carrier for the okay on a medical procedure. Certainly there are other considerations also. A heart-transplant may be medically necessary to save someone’s life, but if there’s only one heart and two patients, a “worthiness” metric must be used to decide who gets it. I don’t see any way around this.

104

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:39:11pm

re: #99 Obdicut

How is that even an article? It’s just an assertion.

What a joke.

Fox Nation is also pimping some crap from WND about prayer services being taxed. They are living in a fantasy world of their own creation. Not even remotely connected to reality.

105

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:39:17pm

re: #92 Killgore Trout

Lol@Fox News: Haley Barbour Fends off Left-Wing Racial Smears with Ease

Hah! And then Barbour came out with an abject apology. Gotta love it.

I wonder why they haven’t deleted it yet?

106

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:40:00pm

re: #104 Killgore Trout

Fox Nation is also pimping some crap from WND about prayer services being taxed. They are living in a fantasy world of their own creation. Not even remotely connected to reality.

Lol, never heard that one before.

107

Charles Johnson Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:40:11pm

re: #104 Killgore Trout

Fox Nation is also pimping some crap from WND about prayer services being taxed. They are living in a fantasy world of their own creation. Not even remotely connected to reality.

Fox Nation has been given the go-ahead to get as out there as they like.

108

Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:40:47pm

re: #105 Charles

According to TPM the article declaring victory was posted before Barbour retreated.

109

wrenchwench Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:41:15pm

re: #99 Obdicut

How is that even an article? It’s just an assertion.

What a joke.

There’s a link to National Review, which Charles carefully pointed out as NOT who Barbour was originally talking to, or they’d have cleaned it up for him in advance.

110

lostlakehiker Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:43:41pm

re: #83 gamark

This would only be true if we have unlimited healthcare capacity. Because we only have limited capacity, decisions of worthiness are necessary to allocate that capacity even with so-called “universal” health care.

And that’s one of the problems with “universal” health care. The struggle for existence continues, but it continues in the political realm.

In a market economy, to get the stuff you want and need, you work hard to deliver to others the stuff they want and need. When goods are parceled out through political channels, you work hard to deliver electoral victory to your side.

Where shall the new hospital be built? Who shall get jobs in it? What equipment shall it have? All these decisions will ride on who did what for whom in the last election. On who won.

With more and more effort going into the zero-sum game of politics, the supply of real goods and services dries up, and the political struggle becomes ever more bitter.

111

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:43:43pm

re: #107 Charles

Fox Nation has been given the go-ahead to get as out there as they like.

The comments on START are hilariously stoopid.

112

engineer cat Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:43:55pm

re: #107 Charles

Fox Nation has been given the go-ahead to get as out there as they like.

the old fashioned practice of exploiting every logical fallacy known to man has been left behind by the new policy of Just Make Shit Up We Haven’t Found The Limits Of What They’ll Swallow Yet

113

gamark Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:45:26pm

re: #94 Varek Raith

ISPs don’t own all of the lines. Data travels through multiple networks owned by various corps. Do they all get to charge me if I stream a movie through Netflix and it happens to pass trough differently owned networks?

When you buy a car, do all of the part manufacturers charge you for the parts used to build that car?

114

Obdicut Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:45:59pm

re: #110 lostlakehiker

You’re presenting a false dichotomy. Government is always going to be involved in business, in the courts at the very least. So, in any ‘market economy’, a large amount of effort is spent on politics as well, as can easily be seen by our vast lobbying industry.

115

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:46:33pm

re: #104 Killgore Trout

Fox Nation is also pimping some crap from WND about prayer services being taxed. They are living in a fantasy world of their own creation. Not even remotely connected to reality.

There’s an idea.

How much money could be raised if churches were taxed like entertainment sites?

116

Tigger2 Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:46:41pm

re: #44 Gus 802

House Vote 550 - Passes 9/11 Health Care Bill

268 to 160

All no votes are from GOP members.

So ends the myth that the Republicans in congress are Patriots.

117

brookly red Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:47:03pm

re: #113 gamark

When you buy a car, do all of the part manufacturers charge you for the parts used to build that car?

/no… but they could be taxed individually… hmmmm.

118

albusteve Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:47:42pm

re: #107 Charles

Fox Nation has been given the go-ahead to get as out there as they like.

like the green light after the yellow caution

119

CuriousLurker Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:47:45pm

POTUS press conference coming up @ 4:15. Live feed link below.

[Link: www.whitehouse.gov…]

120

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:48:26pm

re: #113 gamark

When you buy a car, do all of the part manufacturers charge you for the parts used to build that car?

Here’s why I support Net Neutrality.

121

b_sharp Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:48:34pm

re: #113 gamark

When you buy a car, do all of the part manufacturers charge you for the parts used to build that car?

Yes.

122

albusteve Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:49:21pm

re: #115 b_sharp

There’s an idea.

How much money could be raised if churches were taxed like entertainment sites?

pole prayers?….hmmm

123

engineer cat Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:50:28pm

Rep. Klown W. Kongress Declares Childbearing To Be ‘Liberal Bid For More Gummint Spending’

states practice of having children will lead inevitably to “total gummint control”

124

CuriousLurker Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:50:39pm

re: #119 CuriousLurker

Um, BTW, that was 4:15 eastern time.

125

gamark Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:51:29pm

re: #120 Varek Raith

I already stated I’m all for neutral treatment of protocols and content over “common carrier” networks. What I don’t understand is why some consider pricing structured around bandwidth usage a bad thing requiring federal intervention.

126

brookly red Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:51:34pm

re: #122 albusteve

pole prayers?…hmmm

sure ;) just sign here…

127

Varek Raith Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:54:16pm

re: #125 gamark

I already stated I’m all for neutral treatment of protocols and content over “common carrier” networks. What I don’t understand is why some consider pricing structured around bandwidth usage a bad thing requiring federal intervention.

Because, for example, Comcast has outright lied about Netflix streams overburdening their network when it really was not. Also, look at the shit Comcast is trying to pull on Level 3.
Comcast’s contract with me offers unlimited internet. Funny they bitch when people use it.

128

gamark Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:55:33pm

re: #121 b_sharp

I don’t believe you.

129

Kragar Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:56:08pm

Senate Passes Arms Control Treaty With Russia, 71-26

130

brookly red Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:57:41pm

re: #125 gamark

I already stated I’m all for neutral treatment of protocols and content over “common carrier” networks. What I don’t understand is why some consider pricing structured around bandwidth usage a bad thing requiring federal intervention.

I get what you are saying but as a consumer I question the need for federal intervention in any pricing structure… I think that market would find it’s own level.

131

engineer cat Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:58:28pm

re: #125 gamark

I already stated I’m all for neutral treatment of protocols and content over “common carrier” networks. What I don’t understand is why some consider pricing structured around bandwidth usage a bad thing requiring federal intervention.

pricing will not necessarily be structured around bandwidth usage. it would be just as easy to structure prices to drive traffic to one group of sites, starving other groups of sites of traffic since they would become so much more expensive

net neutrality means that you can go anywhere you like on the web without worrying if you are going to get charged an arm and a leg. imagine what it would do to your browsing habits if you had to check the toll every time before clicking a link

132

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:58:35pm

Why does Obama hate porn?
/

133

lawhawk Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:59:10pm

re: #104 Killgore Trout

I read through to the actual story, and the issue involved is that Mission Kansas started imposing a transportation utility fee.

The TUF is dedicated to transportation improvements (repair/maintenance of street, sidewalk, trail, transit facilities), and is a more transparent means of collecting revenue for these improvements. The concept is simple: the more a property generates traffic, the more that property contributes towards maintaining the transportation system. This is similar to other utility fees, such as stormwater, water, natural gas, etc. The TUF is not tied to fluctuations in property tax valuations or sales tax collections.
Who pays this fee?
All developed properties pay the TUF, which includes tax-exempt properties (such as schools/churches, government facilities, etc.) Because all developed properties are connected to and use the transportation system, all developed properties help pay to maintain it. The fees are collected via property tax assessments; consequently, they are sent to property owners, not tenants. However, a property owner may elect to pass these costs down to tenants.

I’d have to go back and research this, but I can swear that other municipalities and states impose fees for various usages that exempt entities like churches still have to pay.

States routinely carve out exceptions to nonprofit exemptions - including for churches. Heck, Utah imposes a $2 motor vehicle rental fee on rentals of 45 days of less but doesn’t exempt nonprofits (including churches).

Churches and other nonprofits around the country are required to show nonprofit use in order to benefit from certain property tax exemptions - that includes places like NY, NJ, CO, UT (and pretty much everywhere else).

Now, you can argue that churches should have a blanket exemption from tax at all levels - and you could conceivably make a coherent one, but this fee is typical of those found around the country and typical of the way municipalities and states are limiting the exemptions for churches and other nonprofits.

134

calochortus Wed, Dec 22, 2010 12:59:12pm

re: #103 gamark

I believe medical necessity is the primary metric used by the insurance industry. At least that has been my experience at those times I’ve had to approach my insurance carrier for the okay on a medical procedure. Certainly there are other considerations also. A heart-transplant may be medically necessary to save someone’s life, but if there’s only one heart and two patients, a “worthiness” metric must be used to decide who gets it. I don’t see any way around this.

Money would be our current metric of worthiness. You have an insurance carrier. Odds are you get your insurance through your job. You lose your job and you become unworthy unless you are really rich-or if you get really, really sick you can also become unworthy.

As far as I know medical need is the basis on which they ration organs-sickest person who matches gets it. Now you can argue with that way of doing it, but it is reasonably fair-except to the extent that Steve Jobs can get a liver when he needs it because he can get on several registries and hop on a plane to anywhere immediately when one is available.

135

Shiplord Kirel Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:00:50pm

re: #104 Killgore Trout

Fox Nation is also pimping some crap from WND about prayer services being taxed. They are living in a fantasy world of their own creation. Not even remotely connected to reality.

Harry Turtledove addressed this very possibility in his sci-fi alternate history World War.
*spoilers*
Aliens invade the Earth during World War 2 and encounter ferocious resistance but eventually succeed in occupying certain large areas, especially in the Middle East and South America. They are concerned about incorporating the unruly humans, whom they call “Big Uglies” into their empire on a gradual basis. One way to do this is to promote their state religion of emperor worship. Not being completely stupid, they know that this cannot be done by force. One alien sociologist comes up with the bright idea of taxing humans to enter their own “houses of superstition.”
Alien troops are dispatched to mosques, churches, and synagogues throughout the middle east to collect the modest tax.
The scene cuts to a Jewish family leaving for their Jerusalem synagogue a few weeks later. The father grumbles about having to pay the tax, but makes sure he has enough money.
It then switches to Baghdad and two alien soldiers crouching behind a wall. Smoke rises in the distance, gunfire chatters, and alien gunships swarm over the city, firing their automatic cannon and rockets into the streets. A mob of enraged humans round a corner and charge the aliens, shouting “Allahu Akbar.” The two soldiers, fearing for their lives, open fire and drive the mob away. One of them says, “Will this never end? What fool thought up this superstition tax anyway?”

136

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:00:50pm

re: #133 lawhawk

Is Utah a fair comparison? All the State taxes go the the LDS anyway.
/

137

engineer cat Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:01:01pm

re: #113 gamark

When you buy a car, do all of the part manufacturers charge you for the parts used to build that car?

the question should be ‘when you buy a car, do the prices charged by all of the parts manufacturers get added into to the price that you pay for the finished product?’

138

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:02:53pm

re: #137 engineer dog

the question should be ‘when you buy a car, do the prices charged by all of the parts manufacturers get added into to the price that you pay for the finished product?’

When you buy a car you are also paying for people who work at the factory to go take a crap. And the walking to and from the restroom.

139

BishopX Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:05:45pm

re: #130 brookly red

The market level without government intervention will be a pay to play hellhole. Markets settle on an efficient price over time. In econ speak “efficient” means that there is no way of redistributing wealth such that no ones loses more than they gain (i.e. the are no in-efficiencies). Comcast owning the world is an efficient pricing scheme, you cannot give anyone 1$ without Comcast losing 1$.

The benefits of everyone having a reasonably priced, open internet to society will not be reflected in how the market prices internet access without government intervention.

140

engineer cat Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:08:06pm

briefly put, the end of net neutrality might mean that when you go to click on the link to LGF, a dialogue box might pop up saying “this site has been classified as a super premium service site by your internet provider. viewing LGF will cost you 10 times per minute as much as a non premium website such as fox news”

now, i can’t say that private companies don’t have the right to charge whatever they want for services. but they haven’t made these distinctions in internet service before, and it won’t be a good experience for any of us if and when they do

141

Usually refered to as anyways Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:08:31pm

I may be seeing this from a different point than an end user.

Its not just about an ISP being able to have plans structured for end users of $x for y speed.

What we need to be aware of, is that corporations want to be able to pay those who control the pipe for premium services to their websites.

So as an end user you may have a connection to the net of x speed, however the sites you visit may not be paying for a premium service and therefore have shit speeds.

This way those who ruled in the old media will be the ones who can afford to be successful in the new media.

It will make it increasingly difficult for new startups to make it on their own.

Welcome to the new world, just like the old world.

142

gamark Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:08:48pm

re: #131 engineer dog

net neutrality means that you can go anywhere you like on the web without worrying if you are going to get charged an arm and a leg. imagine what it would do to your browsing habits if you had to check the toll every time before clicking a link

Neutral treatment of protocols and content covers the “go anywhere” part.

Bandwidth is limited. How do you control who gets to use how much if not by pricing?

143

engineer cat Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:12:09pm

re: #142 gamark

Neutral treatment of protocols and content covers the “go anywhere” part.

Bandwidth is limited. How do you control who gets to use how much if not by pricing?

i already have bandwidth restrictions on my iphone services, which has quickly become a major provider of internet services for me

most people never run into the bandwidth restrictions on their services unless they want to download torrents of movies. it’s the many other possible “revisions of service pricing” that worry me, not something neutral like bandwidth

144

JeffM70 Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:28:38pm

re: #130 brookly red

You’re right, the market will find its own level resulting in more cost to you either in money or lack of access. The danger is the Internet becoming more like cable television.

From a customer’s perspective that means tiers where you pay more for more channels. Or pay more for premium channels like HBO or Showtime.

But on the other side, it means content providers have to pay ISP’s for priority access to their customers or potentially no customers at all. A good example is the NFL Network’s battle with Time Warner and Comcast. A bit of simplification, but the NFL wants its station to be on those companies basic package. TW and Comscast argue that to do that would result in higher rates for all its customers, so they want to put the Network on a higher tier, but that would mean tens of thousands of customers wouldn’t watch their channel, which means less advertising revenue.

Do you like YouTube? Facebook? Hulu? Netflix? ESPN? Fox News? Without Net Neutrality, a few things could happen. Let’s say Time Warner and Comcast require those sites I mentioned to pay higher fees if they want priority over other sites. YouTube and Facebook lose millions every month as costs far exceed ad revenue. Now they’re being asked to pay more. So what then? Perhaps they start charging for access. In the cast of Netflix, they raise their subscription rates. Or maybe they refuse to pay for higher priority and as a result Time Warner and Comcast customers have a difficult time accessing those sites, or maybe can’t access them at all.

Net Neutrality seeks to prevent the Internet from becoming like cable. If you don’t mind that, then by all means oppose it.

145

lostlakehiker Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:28:52pm

re: #114 Obdicut

You’re presenting a false dichotomy. Government is always going to be involved in business, in the courts at the very least. So, in any ‘market economy’, a large amount of effort is spent on politics as well, as can easily be seen by our vast lobbying industry.

Well, yes it’s a matter of degree. There must be government, if only to hold people to their contracts and constrain the predators. But there really is a difference, from one society to the next, to how much work goes into work that is not part of a zero-sum contest, and how much goes into various zero-sum contests, including politics.

Our vast lobbying industry is a symptom of having too much riding on politics already. Make politics yet more important, and the marginal utility of further spending on lobbying can only increase.

There can never be a pure market economy, and pure command economies tend to collapse, so much so that their failure may be deemed a feature of human nature. So we have to cut down the middle somewhere. Arguments for steering left often glide right past the costs of lobbying, of all the effort people will put into seeing that the government sees it their way, or they discount the connection between the extent to which things ride on politics and the scale of lobbying effort seen.

146

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:36:29pm

re: #145 lostlakehiker

Well, yes it’s a matter of degree. There must be government, if only to hold people to their contracts and constrain the predators.

Government preceeds markets. There would be no legal titles to trade without government. Markets without government are nothing but black markets.

147

Obdicut Wed, Dec 22, 2010 1:40:19pm

re: #145 lostlakehiker

Why are you talking about ‘zero-sum’? It really doesn’t relate to the subject.

Our vast lobbying industry is a symptom of having too much riding on politics already. Make politics yet more important, and the marginal utility of further spending on lobbying can only increase.

The marginal utility of spending on lobbying is not just the value gained, but the value not lost. In other words, if a bill is coming up to, say, ban child labor, those companies that employ lots of child laborers will find a great deal of marginal utility in lobbying against that bill.

We have an open legislative system; the government can create bills whenever it wants, on whatever subject it wants. So, what determines the real marginal utility of that lobbying money is the legal channels of lobbying, not some ‘more or less politics’ measurement.

So we have to cut down the middle somewhere. Arguments for steering left often glide right past the costs of lobbying,

There’s no such thing as ‘left’.

or they discount the connection between the extent to which things ride on politics and the scale of lobbying effort seen.

No, really, the amount that politics ‘matters’ is constant. Companies don’t lobby less when regulation is more lax— the new marginal utility is for them to lobby for even laxer regulations. You’re creating this weird situation where there’s this possibility of ‘more’ or ‘less’ politics being involved.

I think what you’re trying, but failing, to get at is that if the government is the provider of a service, like health insurance, then there is no possible market solution to underservice. This is ignoring, of course, that private health insurance is allowed under most single-payer plans, so your overall point is moot. But in so far as it isn’t moot— imagining a purely single-payer system with no private insurance allowed— then it is possible to imagine that those with more political clout will gain preference in the delivery of the health insurance— by diseases for white males being compensated for at a higher rate than those for black females, etc. However, for your point to have much validity, you’d have to show that that inequality would be greater than our current inequality.

148

Fozzie Bear Wed, Dec 22, 2010 2:08:34pm

re: #125 gamark

I already stated I’m all for neutral treatment of protocols and content over “common carrier” networks. What I don’t understand is why some consider pricing structured around bandwidth usage a bad thing requiring federal intervention.

Nobody does. Find me an article where the author is decrying global data transmission limits as a violation of a right, real or perceived. Just one.

Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with charging for bandwidth usage, it has to do with prioritizing and filtering packets. Nobody is arguing that access providers should have to provide unlimited amounts or rates of data transmission.

149

Fozzie Bear Wed, Dec 22, 2010 2:19:42pm

A tip: if you got your information about what Net Neutrality is and is not from any source other than politically neutral techie sources, just forget everything you think you know. You have almost certainly been lied to, especially if you “learned” about it from any politically partisan source.

Just forget it all, and start over. This goes double if you learned about the issue from Fox. They have deliberately misrepresented the basics of this from the start.

150

Fozzie Bear Wed, Dec 22, 2010 2:21:07pm

re: #149 Fozzie Bear

THIS is an excellent place to start learning about it.

151

mph Wed, Dec 22, 2010 3:21:00pm

There is no question this is an FCC power grab — but that is how our government works. Bit-by-bit, they’ll regulate more and more to fix problems induced by the initial regulations…and in the end, the largest corporations will be the ones who are in a position to exploit and manipulate the regulations to give themselves a competitive advantage.

152

lostlakehiker Wed, Dec 22, 2010 3:57:07pm

re: #147 Obdicut

Why are you talking about ‘zero-sum’? It really doesn’t relate to the subject.

The marginal utility of spending on lobbying is not just the value gained, but the value not lost. In other words, if a bill is coming up to, say, ban child labor, those companies that employ lots of child laborers will find a great deal of marginal utility in lobbying against that bill.

We have an open legislative system; the government can create bills whenever it wants, on whatever subject it wants. So, what determines the real marginal utility of that lobbying money is the legal channels of lobbying, not some ‘more or less politics’ measurement.

There’s no such thing as ‘left’.

No, really, the amount that politics ‘matters’ is constant. Companies don’t lobby less when regulation is more lax— the new marginal utility is for them to lobby for even laxer regulations. You’re creating this weird situation where there’s this possibility of ‘more’ or ‘less’ politics being involved.

I think what you’re trying, but failing, to get at is that if the government is the provider of a service, like health insurance, then there is no possible market solution to underservice. This is ignoring, of course, that private health insurance is allowed under most single-payer plans, so your overall point is moot. But in so far as it isn’t moot— imagining a purely single-payer system with no private insurance allowed— then it is possible to imagine that those with more political clout will gain preference in the delivery of the health insurance— by diseases for white males being compensated for at a higher rate than those for black females, etc. However, for your point to have much validity, you’d have to show that that inequality would be greater than our current inequality.

“Zero sum” is highly relevant to this discussion. People work to better their lives. If their work is political, it serves only to override the work of others. All the work, collectively, achieves nothing. If everyone were to redouble his efforts, the result could well be the same.

Anything people spend on politics and lobbying and electioneering is spending not available for food, clothing, housing, R&D, or any other purpose where one man’s success is not another’s failure.

The whole point of my complaint about the cost of lobbying and how it’s a zero-sum effort is precisely that it is zero sum. And when you raise the point that part of lobbying is defensive, an effort to get the government to not do something that others are lobbying for, you make my point. Lobbying pits lobbyist against lobbyist. Neither lobbyist is available to work as a software engineer or grocery clerk or to do any other useful thing except to annul the other.

As to your talk about single-payer insurance, I’d have thought that my point would be unmissable. But here goes with a reiteration: under a single payer system, the government doesn’t exactly give away its services. There will be a baseline that it gives away, but there is always a question of where to provide some good thing that of its nature cannot be available to all. Under a single payer system, not on paper but in the real world, what will happen will be that these good things go to districts whose representatives can secure them. In other words, the citizens will have to provide a quid pro quo: you get me the votes and I’ll get you the new cancer treatment center.

Now in a market economy, the citizen also must work, to get the money. But unlike with a political economy, that work produces a straight benefit to society. The citizen has produced software or sacked groceries. Something. There is no net benefit to society from a knock-down drag out political fight, with lobbyists and campaign cash galore, over who gets this hypothetical hospital. Inequality of result will be a feature either way.

153

Obdicut Wed, Dec 22, 2010 4:06:07pm

re: #152 lostlakehiker

“Zero sum” is highly relevant to this discussion. People work to better their lives. If their work is political, it serves only to override the work of others. All the work, collectively, achieves nothing. If everyone were to redouble his efforts, the result could well be the same.

Oh, I see. However, you’re making a gigantic category mistake. Let me break it down for you.

In the current system, people make money and spend that on health insurance.

In a single-payer system, people are provided with health insurance no matter what their income.

You are saying that, in that situation, the only mechanism for getting better health insurance will be political jockeying. This isn’t true, as I said, since private insurance is allowed under public options, but treating it as though it’s true, you’re ignoring that that jockeying takes place at the group, not individual level. most individuals will take no action at all in order to better their own health insurance situation— they will play no game at all, zero sum or otherwise. You’re treating it as though the current work done to gain money will be replaced with work to ‘do’ politics. That’s obviously wrong.

Second of all, you’re implying that all market activity is either not zero-sum or is non-zero-sum on the positive side, and ignoring that a lot of economic activity is non-zero-sum on the negative side.

Does that help you understand your errors?

Anything people spend on politics and lobbying and electioneering is spending not available for food, clothing, housing, R&D, or any other purpose where one man’s success is not another’s failure.

Yeah, again, people don’t really tend to spend money on politics. Not significantly. And again, plenty of economic activity is zero-sum or non-zero-sum-negative.

And when you raise the point that part of lobbying is defensive, an effort to get the government to not do something that others are lobbying for, you make my point.

No, you just miss mine. The amount of lobbying is not affected by the amount of ‘politics’, it’s affected by the potential amount of politics, which is constant depending on the political system. To change the amount of lobbying, you need to change the system, not this nebulous amount of ‘politics’.

Under a single payer system, not on paper but in the real world, what will happen will be that these good things go to districts whose representatives can secure them. In other words, the citizens will have to provide a quid pro quo: you get me the votes and I’ll get you the new cancer treatment center.

Hey, look, once again you’re confusing health insurance and health care delivery. Why do you do that all the time? Can you really not keep it straight in your head that single payer is about health insurance, not about cancer treatment centers?

People travel to go to cancer treatment centers. Your point fails in so many ways, even if you weren’t, yet again, confusing health insurance and health care.

154

yasharki Wed, Dec 22, 2010 6:58:41pm

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

This. +1.

155

yasharki Wed, Dec 22, 2010 7:08:11pm

re: #151 mph

There is no question this is an FCC power grab — but that is how our government works. Bit-by-bit, they’ll regulate more and more to fix problems induced by the initial regulations…and in the end, the largest corporations will be the ones who are in a position to exploit and manipulate the regulations to give themselves a competitive advantage.

Please say you’re being sarcastic.

156

tomg51spence Thu, Dec 23, 2010 5:15:00am

re: #155 yasharki

Please say you’re being sarcastic.

I don’t know if its a power grab.
The rest of MPH’s #151 comment is concise and insightful.

157

Haikugoalie Thu, Dec 23, 2010 5:58:35am

Blocking content’s wrong
but laws like this get abused
and freedom suffers

Comcast can now charge sites
for what they once got for free
content is now taxed

Software will decide
which packets go first, I bet
free content “gets lost”

Laws change over time
carriers will push for more
until pay by the bit

Enshrined in good law
is the opportunity to
abuse everyone

Companies behave
to the limits of the law
this is a bad plan

They will test the law
to see what the limits are
and your rights be damned

158

Poiks Thu, Dec 23, 2010 2:06:01pm

FWIW, I’m less worried about ISP’s differentiating between types of data “packets” (for lack of a better word) than I am about giving them legal power to decide what I may or may not see (I’m shocked that this isn’t also the right-wingers’ concern). I have this horrific vision of the future, where an ISP may decide that I can access FoxNews.com, but not—say—LittleGreenFootballs.com.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Wingnut Blogs Go Cuckoo Over Net Neutrality

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud