The Internet - The Last Frontier on Earth.

Net Neutrality Shifts Into High Gear

For as long as perhaps when people started walking the Earth, we have been destroying it. Land, water, people, air, you name it. Causes of such things include disease, war, hatred, greed, money, power, and violence that has come and wrecked those things and those we cherish.

Now, our planet is at a point where the decisions made over the next few years I think will shape our planet’s collective future. The generations that succeed mine and those before will have to deal with the fallout of those decisions.

One of the things that may decide this is the battle over the Internet. It is one that I think years from now, will be seen as the decisive battle between corporations, governments, military and the establishment(s) vs. the people of this planet.

For a long time, these interests have acquired a massive amount of political, financial, and economic power, much of which has little to no accountability.

The Internet represents a domain where knowledge can be a great equalizer between the rich, the poor, and those in-between. Those that have the ability to access it, to learn, and to act on what they learn will not only survive, but succeed.

It can also be a great medium of communication that can bring people together and solve many complex problems facing all of us, as well as help us get further in resolving conflict. Indeed, it has shown that it can turn things around – I think the 2008 US Elections would not have achieved the result it did, without the existence of the Internet.

But in its current state, I believe the Internet also represents the last real chance people of the Earth have in fighting off the dominant control currently being held by those interests who seek to maintain what they have, and increase it to what they don’t have.

For if those forces succeed in boring out the tube of connectivity and determine what flows through and how much, I fear we as a people will reach a point-of-no-return in being able to tackle some of the great problems facing us - that number one issue being Global Warming.

Unless a true form of net neutrality is formed and enforced by all countries, I fear there will be no hope.

Information will be doled out based on who pays, and who has access. Content will be controlled by who ‘owns’ the pipe. In a real sense, this battle is one over power, control, and information over all of us. The Internet will become less of an information superhighway, and more of a controlled content distribution system.

And make no mistake, those that control, those that wish to control - they are getting ready. And because of their already existing connections to those with political power, they have a headstart.

At this point I cannot say what till happen. I'm not even sure what I can do. But I know - I know I have to pay attention. I know I'll have to reach out.

And I know - I know that whatever happens, I must not fail to stop trying.

The stakes are high, and so are the consequences. The moment we as a people tune out, stop paying attention, stop caring, stop fighting, that's when I'll know that the establishment has won.

All of us will lose - and will pay the price.

When war becomes the main export, the empire is already in decline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-a-clarke/more-troops-to-afghanista_b_283466.html

 

As much as I respect Richard Clarke and his views and opinions, there's fundamental disagreement I have with this viewpoint.

 

And I fear that (on the anniversary of the events of 9/11), we've already lost the chance to learn anything.

 

It's a fallacy - the underlying notion that the United States, has the unilateral right to invade other countries. This should not be confused with ensuring one's nation is secure, as security doesn't just involve invasion. It would include shoring up our defenses, work to prevent attacks, work with other countries, etc).

 

To me those are two different things. The latter is something nations do - the former is something empires do.

 

This commenter sums it up best -

 

"Any strategy we use in Afghanistan will be the wrong one, for the simple reason that the U.S. presence there is the main cause of the violence. But conventional thinking in Washington is now so imperialist that our officials think they have the right to invade any nation they want, for as long as they want, as long as it suits our politicians. I doubt that anyone seriously thinks any Af-Pak strategy will work. It's just a matter of stalling and kicking the can down the road so some other president gets the humiliation of the eventual pullout. Vietnam all over again. But's it's great for business, isn't it? Just think of all the gasoline, ammunition, armored vehicles, aircraft, etc. that's used. "

Bloc-heads – Who are supporters of the Bloc Québécois and why?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/09/08/gilles-duceppe.html

 Let’s assume for a moment that I agree with those residents of Quebec who believe that it is a nation that exists within Canada – that I agree with this person’s definition of what a nation is –

“A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.”

Okay.

So following that, why on earth would I believe that somehow, miraculously, the Bloc Québécois is going to make that happen?

If you assume that they can via being part of the federal government that would presume that the either they would form a majority government, a minority government, or be part of a coalition.

1. The first scenario will never happen – I don’t think Canadians en masse will vote for a group that claims to only represents the interests of one province (‘nation’ if you will) only to have that same group then leave the country.

2. The second scenario is plausible only if no other party gets enough seats, though I cannot see that lasting for very long. Eventually, I think it would revert back to the first scenario.

3. The third scenario is also plausible, but again, it won’t last long enough to achieve any type of sovereignty-type solution.

This leaves the Bloc Québécois as an Opposition Party (i.e. not in a position of power), which has been their default position since their formation.

• What have they really accomplished for Quebec since then?
• What legislation have they passed, or laws they’ve enacted that demonstrate they can accomplish the tasks for the people they represent?
• What action or actions have they taken to demonstrate to residents in Quebec that they are one step closer to achieving their goals?

The Clarity Act? – I would argue this was done to rope in the sovereignty movement by establishing and framing any debate on the conditions of when a province or region can leave Confederation.

So I ask those who insist that they’d vote for the Bloc Québécois in a pending Canadian Federal Election? Why would you vote for a group that can never accomplish what you’d want, under any possible legal rational circumstances?

As for what I really think elections can do for the Bloc, well .... I think I've covered that one before.

What does it mean today? Has the dream come true?

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream

 

"I Have A Dream" is the popular name given to the public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., when he spoke of his desire for a future where blacks and whites, among others, would coexist harmoniously as equals. King's delivery of the speech on August 28, 1963, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement. Delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters,^[1] the speech is often considered to be one of the greatest and most notable speeches in human history and was ranked the top American speech of the 20th century by a 1999 poll of scholars of public address.^[2] According to U.S. Representative John Lewis, who also spoke that day as the President of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, "Dr. King had the power, the ability and the capacity to transform those steps on the Lincoln Memorial into a monumental area that will forever be recognized . By speaking the way he did, he educated, he inspired, he informed not just the people there, but people throughout America and unborn generations."^[3]

 

 

Today I wonder, has that dream really come true? Do we as a people really co-exist harmoniously today? Are we really all equal?

 

I wonder if that's true.

 

I've heard many point to Barack Obama's election as President of the United States of America in 2008 as a definitive 'yes' to such a question. And it's true that it's something truly awesome to expereince.

 

But the context of it isn't completely clear for me. For one thing, this country on many levels have been (and a largely still are) a very large mess of problems, many of which are unsolved. People's lives are more screwed up due to their loss of jobs, loss of their homes, loss of financial security. Many more face health crises, and even more face additional health care costs crises. Some of us wonder if everything we've worked for will mean something later on in life. I wonder if I'll have any money left to take care of my family when I can no longer work. Then I wonder about the state of the world. I wonder if I'm really doing my part to make the world a better place for my kids. I wonder why people in the country are not really doing more to address some of changes going on with our globe (i.e. that it's getting warmer) and why it's not being done now.

 

I ask that of others, but perhaps I really need to ask myself first.

 

And it's within this larger context - that is, people's lives are so much more messed up that they either hit or are near rock-bottom - that they finally decided to change who represents them in government.

 

And what further messes will they - and other kids - have to clean up, in addition to the ones mine and previous generations have failed to resolve?

 

And will my kids truly be seen for who they are. Often times, it doesn't matter how smart or how nice or how strong one is. Sadly, I think in this day and age, a lot of people still think with their eyes. They see a skin color and their underlying assumptions of what that means to them really dictate the way they treat the person in front of them.

 

There's no doubt the dream still persists. There's no doubt many of us still pursue it. To me pursuit of the dream of equality is just a part of the larger dream - the pursuit of liberty and happiness.

 

And I really think - there is still so much more to be done.

 

Trying to make amends?

Thank you so much for contacting Whole Foods Market with your feedback about John Mackey’s op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. We offer you our sincere apology for any offense caused by this article. John intended to offer his personal opinion, and was not advocating his views on behalf of Whole Foods Market or its team members. We are sharing all of the feedback that we have received about this article with our entire Executive Leadership team and we appreciate that you took the time to share your feelings with us. Again, we offer you our sincere apology, and hope to have your support of Whole Foods Market in the future.

 

(A note received from Whole Foods Market when informing them about not doing business there anymore.)

 

Except John Mackey referred to Whole Foods in his editorial. So that invalidates the whole 'personal opinion, and was not advocating his views on behalf of Whole Foods Market or its team members' BS -
 
"At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund."
 
So no, it's not just his personal opinion.

 

 
If Whole Foods Market truly doesn't share his opinions, then they should prove that by not employing John Mackey's services as CEO or otherwise, permanently.

Deconstructing the fallacy of objectivity in newspapers, and exposing blatant lies.

http://columbian.com/article/20090825/NEWS02/708259961/-1/NEWS

 

Here's an interesting snippet.

 

"Not so, say two professional pollsters.

It's standard practice to use such faux "surveys" to raise money for a variety of causes, said Portland pollster Mike Riley. "It's common, trying to stir the pot to see what kinds of issues get attention."

"Both parties do that," Riley said. "They are using some of the hot-button issues to see what activates the voters. It's politics as usual within the party faithful. No one that I know puts any credibility in these types of polls."

Riley recalled a recent fundraising "survey" sponsored by Democrats that attempted to link issues of child safety and gun ownership. One question asked whether it is important to keep children safe and to keep them away from guns. The implication, he said, was "that guns shouldn't be in homes where children are present."

A tip-off that a survey really is a fundraising tract, Riley said, is when questions cover more than one issue. "It's called a double-barreled question" and would not be used by a professional pollster, he said.

Portland pollster Bob Moore agreed.

"It's a fundraising appeal, is what it is," he said. "Everyone does it — Democrats, anti-tax groups, environmentalists. The audience that receives it has given to that organization at some point in time and is on the list to receive solicitations."

If such tactics "weren't effective, they wouldn't be using them," Moore said."

 

1. I find Mike Riley's conclusion in what he alleges is a Democratic survey is questionable. If I were the reporter, I'd have researched the 'survey' Riley alluded to here prior to publication, instead of taking his statement at face value. I'd verify the question actually asked - 'One question asked whether it is important to keep children safe and to keep them away from guns.', really exists.


2. Bob Moore listed in this article as a GOP pollster. - http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=122168669575618300

 

These two points makes me question the objectivity of the the pollsters and the article. Note that Moore says nothing about Republicans doing similar things all the time, but the article itself is about the Republicans doing the very thing.

Sounds like these two pollsters and the article are (in-effect) trying to do GOP damage-control.

As if I didn't have enough motivation to avoid getting fat ...

Obese People Have 'Severe Brain Degeneration'

 

http://www.livescience.com/health/090825-obese-brain.html (found via Huffington Post)

 

Here's a snippet -

Obese people had lost brain tissue in the frontal and temporal lobes, areas of the brain critical for planning and memory, and in the anterior cingulate gyrus (attention and executive functions), hippocampus (long-term memory) and basal ganglia (movement), the researchers said in a statement today. Overweight people showed brain loss in the basal ganglia, the corona radiata, white matter comprised of axons, and the parietal lobe (sensory lobe).  

 

As if that wasn't scary enough, the previous paragraph is nothing short of scary (emphasis mine)-

More than 300 million worldwide are now classified as obese, according to the World Health Organization. Another billion are overweight. The main cause, experts say: bad diet, including an increased reliance on highly processed foods.

Holy fucking crap!

I wonder sometimes if the stress of the added weight of people has any connection with global warming? That might seem hokey, but think about it -

• 
  
  People are getting heavier


• 
  
  They exercise less


• 
  
  Consequently, to get around, they need to ride in heavier transportation vehicles like vans, trucks, and SUVs


• 
  
  And the amount of CO₂ produced and sent into the atmosphere increases.

Is that so out of left field?

The main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity are:

• burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations. Land use change (mainly deforestation in the tropics) account for up to one third of total anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.^[22]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)