Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine.

[kandrathe]

I saw that some people are protesting at Google, over their apparent pledge breaking; "Don't be evil."

I think we've dabbled in discussing some of this during the 2008 election, as it was an issue that attracted many in the technical world to Obama (he was apparently for a free internet). Personally, my biggest concern is using the tiered bandwidth system to impose a kind of censorship. From a freedom of commerce point of view, I'm not opposed to corporations creating "fee for service" offerings even if that includes high speed bandwidth, QOS, and some exclusivity. I'm against the government dictating the structure of the internet. With all it's warts and ugliness, the existing internet is still marvelous in how simply we can now be connected to one another.

But, in general they would be creating a system of "the have's" and "the have nots". I'm already in one of the "have's" systems, Abilene. Allowing Google, and Verizon to determine the future of the internet is another example of this administrations approach of having foxes build/guard the hen house. The problem here is that it is the "governments" goal to give everyone access to high speed internet, rather than allowing the market to ebb and flow. I fear that government involvement would create unintended consequences.

Here in the US, I think the danger in the political realm in getting Congress involved in applying regulations to the internet, would be that the FCC (under Genachowski) will impose the "Fairness Doctrine" and other regulations meant to restrict broadcast TV and Radio. Where "fair" or "free" speech would be determined by those in power. The catch 22 here as I see it is that; congressional inaction is resulting in corporations implementing a tiered system which is violating the spirit of net neutrality, while I feel that government action would most certainly give "democratic access" but also impose multiple forms of censorship and violations of free speech. These rights violations may get worked out in lawsuits going up to the Supreme Court, over the next decade, but its an equal risk that they may form a long lasting precedence, and become another "Wickard v. Filburn". Of course, you might suspect knowing me, that I would favor allowing the internet to remain free of government meddling, and trust that just as has been demonstrated so far in it's history, that access would remain cheap and accessible. If providing "free" high speed access is a priority for some interested third party, then let them organize the funding required to give away that service (this is essentially how my organization can afford to be a part of Abilene, we have a deal among 30 local qualifying organizations, and the UofM ).

And, I'm concerned about trends such as the partially shelved regulations and fees in Wisconsin for using the internet for Issue Advocacy. Currently, the fee is $25, but it is unclear if that is per post, per e-mail, per server, or per viewer, and how it would be enforced. Just as with internet gambling, or Wikileaks, the trend would be to drive "commerce" and "free speech" off shore to safe havens to prevent the US government from hampering free speech, or imposing taxation on internet commerce. Couple that with the talk of an "Internet kill switch", and possible connection restrictions, you see the risk of the US governments controls on the internet mirroring those of some of the worlds most repressive regimes. Imagine what would have happened to Wikileaks, had it been housed on US based servers.

[kandrathe]

Imagine what would have happened to Wikileaks, had it been housed on US based servers.

Prosecuted. One can hope he still will be.

Part of me agrees, in that the US has national security interests. But, it would have a chilling effect on free speech, and in fact, I think this is why Wikileaks went to great pains to put itself in areas difficult to prosecute.

It's like that proposed Mosque near ground zero. There is a legal position, and a morally correct position. Legally, they have the right to buy, and build wherever they like regardless of religious persuasion. Morally, it's as objectionable to many as having Neo-Nazi's building a community center outside Auschwitz. Nazi's and the KKK have the legal right to have their parades down the public streets, but that doesn't mean I have to morally accept them or make it easy for them to spread their bigoted hatred. To many (including me), Islam is a religion that represses (stones) women, and is intolerant to any expression other than itself.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's like that proposed Mosque near ground zero. There is a legal position, and a morally correct position. . . . Morally, it's as objectionable to many as having Neo-Nazi's building a community center outside Auschwitz. . . . To many (including me), Islam is a religion that represses (stones) women, and is intolerant to any expression other than itself.

I'm sorry, but that is a stinking pile you've dropped there.

First, your analogy is trash. The people asking to build a Mosque repudiate (or at least claim to repudiate) the actions of those who brought the towers down. The Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, embrace the philosophy and the actions of those who built Auschwitz in the first place.

Morally? As in the morality of Christianity? As in 'what would Christ do'? Or as in 'what would Torquemada do'?

To many (including me), Christianity is a religion that represses (burns) women (thou shall not suffer a witch to live), and is intolerant to any expression other than itself (only through Me will you enter the kingdom of heaven).

You can see that there are, at least, two types of Christians, but it does not suit your world view to accept the possibility that there are two types of Muslims.

I'd suggest you scrape some dirt over that post. Bury it deep enough that the stench of prejudice and hatred does not get out.

--Pete

[Nystul]

This is going to be ugly...

[Frag]

This is going to be ugly...

Thats one reason I deleted my post quickly, but apparently not quickly enough

Stand by my statement, though.
~Frag

[DeeBye]

Morally, it's as objectionable to many as having Neo-Nazi's building a community center outside Auschwitz.

Are you serious?

edit: i've seen some stupid stuff here, but this might take the cake

[Bolty]

/popcorn

The vicious anti-Islamism shown by the "Mosque" protesters is another proof that no matter how "enlightened" we try to pretend our society is, we still at heart are the same human beings who burned witches, are quick to overreact to sensationalist propaganda, and continue to talk before thinking.

One of the formative works of literature I read as a child (6th grade, I think) was Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I took special note of the scene where Brutus gives a speech defending his assassination of Caesar. He appeals to the crowd's rationality, stating a thought-out logical treatise on why it was done and why it had to be done for a better Rome.

Antony gets up before the people, delivers a highly emotionally charged oration to convince the people that the assassins should be obliterated, and the crowd goes nuts. They turn into slavering idiots no longer governed by reason or thinking.

Even in 6th grade, I understood this, and understood how people work. Emotion almost always trumps reason and thinking, and hearing the words "OMG a mosque is going to be built at the World Trade Center site" will stir up the mob so effectively that any rational thinking, or even attempt at getting the facts, is immediate squelched for a good segment of the population.

I've always pledged to not be one of the slathering emotionally-driven non-thinkers. I'm not always perfect at it, and no human is. But if only everyone tried to think before acting, what a better world this would be.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Emotion almost always trumps reason and thinking, . . . will stir up the mob so effectively that any rational thinking, or even attempt at getting the facts, is immediate squelched for a good segment of the population.

I once heard (or read -- I don't remember) "The intelligence of a mob is that of its stupidest member divided by the number of people in the mob." Mob mentality scares me. It's like a shark feeding frenzy, only not as polite.

I do not care for Islam any more than than I care for any other religion. I do care for Muslims as much as I care for any other persons. You referenced Julius Caesar, let me reply with The Merchant of Venice. If you prick us, we indeed all bleed. When any organization, be that religion, political, social, etc., causes the divisions among us to appear more important than our common humanity, then that organization must be examined, fixed, or abandoned. Otherwise, "Kill then all, God will know his own" becomes our motto and may we each be protected from the other's neighbors.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

I do not care for Islam any more than than I care for any other religion. I do care for Muslims as much as I care for any other persons. You referenced Julius Caesar, let me reply with The Merchant of Venice. If you prick us, we indeed all bleed.

OMG I knew it, you like 'Merchant of Venice'?! You're totally a racist and anti-christian and probably anti-semitic!!111 You're probably a sadistic pornographer as well what with all your intent to prick us and let us bleed!!!111

No seriously, 'Merchant...' is probably one of my, if not -the- favourite of that Shakespeare guy's funny written books. I recommend seeing the somewhat recent film version with Al Pacino as Shylock. (He actually exercised restraint in his usual scenery chewing IMO, and for the better.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

No seriously, 'Merchant...' is probably one of my, if not -the- favorite of that Shakespeare guy's funny written books. I recommend seeing the somewhat recent film version with Al Pacino as Shylock. (He actually exercised restraint in his usual scenery chewing IMO, and for the better.)

I'll have to see if NetFlix has it -- though I did start watching a Merchant not too long ago and I couldn't get past what had been done to it. While not my favorite, I do enjoy it. Back when writing still meant carving symbols into rock (kids today have it too easy) I did a paper comparing and contrasting Merchant with Marlow's The Lady Is Not for Burning. Fortunately, I have long forgotten what I said, and hopefully the original is moldering, illegible, in some dump somewhere. Then I read a wonderful analysis of Merchant in (I think) Harry Golden's For Two Cents Plain. If you can snag a copy from a library, it's a good read.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

I love how this thread turned into something totally different from the original post. Never change, Lurker Lounge.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I love how this thread turned into something totally different from the original post. Never change, Lurker Lounge.

It's not like this is a formal debating society. It's more like a BS session among friends. The conversation will go where the conversation goes. And, yes indeed, never change.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,

I love how this thread turned into something totally different from the original post. Never change, Lurker Lounge.

It's not like this is a formal debating society. It's more like a BS session among friends. The conversation will go where the conversation goes. And, yes indeed, never change.

--Pete

That reminds me of elephants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant .
Nice creatures.

---

I love how this thread turned into something totally different from the original post. Never change, Lurker Lounge.

http://www.lolhome.com/img_big/funny-pic...453634.jpg

[kandrathe]

First, I made a simple comparison, which may be admittedly over the top. There is no prejudice, and no hate. But, it seems you are seeking to paint it that way. I'm careless when it comes to political correctness, so pardon me if I've trampled on some sacred cows. My position is exactly the one stated by the Anti-Defamation League.

First, your analogy is trash. The people asking to build a Mosque repudiate (or at least claim to repudiate) the actions of those who brought the towers down. The Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, embrace the philosophy and the actions of those who built Auschwitz in the first place.

What percentage of Muslims applauded the destruction of the WTC, and find OBL a hero for planning it? A large portion of the Muslim population deny that Arabs had anything to do with it. Then there is the troubling matter of Feisal Abdul Rauf's plain covered edition of his book distributed outside the US, "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11."

To many (including me), Christianity is a religion that represses (burns) women (thou shall not suffer a witch to live), and is intolerant to any expression other than itself (only through Me will you enter the kingdom of heaven).

When was the last person burned alive as a form of capital punishment? According to Sharia law, you'd be killed, but I might be allowed to live as a 2nd class citizen. Perhaps, you'd prefer the more tolerant of the two evils. I'm as against irrational mob mentality as you. This is why the rule of law, based on Constitutional rights, needs to prevail, over the mob mentality, or those who would seek to theocratize the law.

You can see that there are, at least, two types of Christians, but it does not suit your world view to accept the possibility that there are two types of Muslims.

There are many types of Christians. Many, such as the Branch Davidians, I wouldn't want building a compound near me either. I think there are many types of Muslims. But, as I stated originally, the law is the law. They have the right to do whatever they like with their land as long as it complies with local codes.

I'd suggest you scrape some dirt over that post. Bury it deep enough that the stench of prejudice and hatred does not get out.

Look. I'm not against them building the mosque. No one I knew died in the WTC. But, I recognize that some people there may be sensitive to having the appearance of "enemy" building a shrine at the sight of one of their greatest accomplishments. Morality here is the sense of what is right by the majority. If a majority of New Yorkers are against it, then I would say they are making more enemies than friends. They still have the legal right to build it, and damn the torpedoes.

[Frag]

No one I knew died in the WTC.

Huh, that says enough right there.

[kandrathe]

Are you serious?

Ok, you are right, that is probably a little more objectionable. How about a Pearl Harbor shrine to Japanese pilots lost in the battle? Or, a monument to US aviation accomplishments at Hiroshima? It's more the lack of wisdom in the decision to build there. Especially if their stated goal is to build bridges. What it will mostly likely do is divide the population.

---

No one I knew died in the WTC.

Huh, that says enough right there.

What does it say?

[eppie]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='178974' dateline='1281969352']What percentage of Muslims applaud the destruction of the WTC, and find OBL a hero for planning it? When was the last person burned alive as a form of capital punishment? [quote]
But does that have to do with being muslim or does that have to do with being from a country that is a sworn enemy of the US?
Half of americans would be dancing in the street if Teheran is bombed, but that doesn't have anything to do with them being christian. That has to do with the fact that they are a bunch of stupid morons, just like those Iranians, Indonesians and palestinians that danced in the street after 9/11.....heck it has to do with the fact that at least 50% of every human on this planet is a complete moron.

You should understand that there is a difference between a religion and cultural development. True....religions will always try to block progress, the Christians sure did try (and they still do) but laws and common practice are anyway decided by how grown-up a nation is. The middle east isn't very grown-up so they have more old fashioned practices we don't have anymore.....but does that mean their religion is worse than ours? Do muslims in the US protest in order to make stoning possible in the US? No of course not, they understand that freedom is much more important....and disriminating them because of what some other people did will not improve things.

[kandrathe]

But does that have to do with being muslim or does that have to do with being from a country that is a sworn enemy of the US?

The US has been engaged in one of the longest wars in it's history against radical jihadists, in response for perpetrating the attack on the WTC. It has to do with radical Jihad.

Half of Americans would be dancing in the street if Teheran is bombed, but that doesn't have anything to do with them being christian. That has to do with the fact that they are a bunch of stupid morons, just like those Iranians, Indonesians and palestinians that danced in the street after 9/11.....heck it has to do with the fact that at least 50% of every human on this planet is a complete moron.

I disagree. First, I doubt 50% of Americans were dancing in the streets when any of the most recent conflicts began. I remember it being 50% being against it outright, and 10% being outright supportive, and 40% being tentatively supportive if the casualties are low, and political fallout is minimal. Generally, most Americans are "live and let live" in their political philosophy, which when extended to foreign policy makes us mostly non-interventionists. Most Americans have empathy for the grass roots freedom movement in Iran.

You should understand that there is a difference between a religion and cultural development. True....religions will always try to block progress, the Christians sure did try (and they still do) but laws and common practice are anyway decided by how grown-up a nation is.

You actually have it backwards. Higher education, and the roots of almost every worldwide institution of higher learning are based from religion, and truth seeking. You need to give credit to the Newtons, Mendels and Darwins. Were there backwards, violent backlashes? Yes. It is hard to uproot the fear inspired "emotional" violence from the human condition. But, look honestly at where that has been expressed, rather than your prejudices. The irony of course, is that it was University inspired thirst for knowledge that often caught "The Church" off guard. If you want to qualify your statement to "The Vatican under pope XYZ", then you may be closer to the truth.

The middle east isn't very grown-up so they have more old fashioned practices we don't have anymore.....but does that mean their religion is worse than ours? Do muslims in the US protest in order to make stoning possible in the US? No of course not, they understand that freedom is much more important....and disriminating them because of what some other people did will not improve things.

What percentage of American Muslims want to see, as Rauf proposes, that the US accommodate Sharia law? I think it would be rather small. But, Rauf is a proselytizing Islamic missionary called upon to spread his religion based in lower Manhattan. Would he call for stoning adulterers? Probably not. Has he condemned it? No. He won't do that either, as it is clear in the Hadith. The extremist clerics are usually smart enough to remain mute, or vague on actions that would be considered illegal in their locality. It is the nature of extreme religious clerics of all faiths to leave the "interpretation" open for their adherents to act out on. Then, in response to the bombing, killings, or other reprehensible crimes, they divert the topic to the sinful nature of the culture (that deserves retribution).

Do you have "honor killing" in Netherlands? We have it here. There are many issues where we need to have firm convictions, even when it flies in the face of "freedom of religion". For example, I think it is wrong for parents to kill their wayward children.

[--Pete]

Hi,

That reminds me of elephants
Nice creatures.

Oh, the aim of our patrol,
Is a question rather droll,
For to march and drill
Over field and hill
Is a military goal.

http://www.lolhome.com/img_big/funny-pic...453634.jpg

World unity at last, a German dog drinking an Irish beer.

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Are you serious?

Ok, you are right, that is probably a little more objectionable. How about a Pearl Harbor shrine to Japanese pilots lost in the battle? Or, a monument to US aviation accomplishments at Hiroshima? It's more the lack of wisdom in the decision to build there. Especially if their stated goal is to build bridges. What it will mostly likely do is divide the population.

I'd offer you a shovel but you seem to be doing just fine by yourself. These examples suffer from the same exact falacy of your first example. You seem to be under the impression that by definition this mosque/cultural center is a celebration of terrorism. Your examples consistently conflate terrorism with muslims and islam as if they are intrinsicly the same thing. Are you really suprised that people call you out for prejudice?