and, speaking of politics...
I really wish that i wasn't, it seems so pointless.
not that it matters of course ....
Some of you/us may have an opportunity to actually meet, and/or pose a question to one or more candidates at some level this year. consider one of these topics. they are timely this week, but may have faded from the scene somewhat depending on the drama of the week.
Much has been said about offering various private companies, mainly, (but not limited to), telecommunications carriers retroactive immunity for actions taken on behalf of and in concert with the government in regard to various forms of wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance following the incidents of 9/11. Ask a candidate where they stand on the issue of retroactive immunity, ongoing immunity from prosecution, lawsuits and oversight of any meaningful kind, and how they would deal with the issue. If they do not give a short, clear answer with a defensible thesis statement up front, consider the answer to be bullsh*t.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that a patient cannot sue for damages over a defective medical product if the FDA approved the product, (it is not clear if the defect was a design flaw, affecting the entire product line, or simply a bad unit). This is a bit confusing, as it denies a plaintiff his or her day in court for the adjudication of a grievance, citing a government agency that has already cleared a potential defendant of any wrongdoing. Except in most cases, it hasn't. Another branch of the government, in the interest of efficiency, has left industries of various stripes to police themselves, to certify that they are doing no harm or wrong and to promise to fix any mistakes that they make in exchange for an endorsement from the appropriate agency, like say, the FDA, and it seems, the Supreme Court. How does a potential executive feel about this bit of legal circular logic, and how would they deal with it, as well as the the potential bloat in our already supersized bureaucracy?
Another issue, not on too many radar screens, but symbolic, (in my view), of a growing trend in American life is something that has been called Net Neutrality. We hear much from many of the larger telecom carriers, (AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, to name just a few), that their networks are being inundated by more and more internet usage, and thay have no way to recoup the cost of providing service. This is largely a load of crap, but it does have a bit of truth to it. These large carriers own what is termed the backbone of the net, and traffic that neither originates nor terminates with their users travels across fiber-optic highways that they own. So what? The backbone providers charge smaller, 2nd tier users, (ISP's) to connect to the larger network, just as they charge us to connect. That should be the source of revenue, not who pays most for preferential treatment, or who'se traffic gives the carrier the most advantage in a "you scratch my back" business world. The internet was, and is, a government sanctioned network, its charter specifies neutrality in connectivity. That principal should not be sold to the highest bidder.
And finally.
The twentieth century, (and I bring that epoch up to this day...), saw some pretty monumental changes in human history, advances in medicine, space travel, yes, the internet, the proliferation of weapons and ideas, but can you guess what the single most ubiquitous "advancement" has been?
The cellular phone.
According to the Washington Post, as of now, there is one cell phone for every two people in the world, and in a short time, there will be five for every six. The other billion or so will follow along shortly. One can think about this in all sorts of contexts, but I have to wonder if this is the beginning of, or possibly just symptomatic of our downfall. If I was a religious fatalist, I would say that this, among a few other things, may be the mark of the beast as mentioned in the Book of Revelation. We are no longer free just to be ourselves, we are tied to a central (as of yet) indeterminate being. Even now, we cannot communicate on a human level. I see people talking to each other on the cell, text messaging and web chatting with others who are less than ten feet away. I guess it is less threatening that way.
Combined with the advances in reproductive technologies, well, married life just ain't gonna be the same in the next century....
Have a nice day.
not that it matters of course ....
Some of you/us may have an opportunity to actually meet, and/or pose a question to one or more candidates at some level this year. consider one of these topics. they are timely this week, but may have faded from the scene somewhat depending on the drama of the week.
Much has been said about offering various private companies, mainly, (but not limited to), telecommunications carriers retroactive immunity for actions taken on behalf of and in concert with the government in regard to various forms of wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance following the incidents of 9/11. Ask a candidate where they stand on the issue of retroactive immunity, ongoing immunity from prosecution, lawsuits and oversight of any meaningful kind, and how they would deal with the issue. If they do not give a short, clear answer with a defensible thesis statement up front, consider the answer to be bullsh*t.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that a patient cannot sue for damages over a defective medical product if the FDA approved the product, (it is not clear if the defect was a design flaw, affecting the entire product line, or simply a bad unit). This is a bit confusing, as it denies a plaintiff his or her day in court for the adjudication of a grievance, citing a government agency that has already cleared a potential defendant of any wrongdoing. Except in most cases, it hasn't. Another branch of the government, in the interest of efficiency, has left industries of various stripes to police themselves, to certify that they are doing no harm or wrong and to promise to fix any mistakes that they make in exchange for an endorsement from the appropriate agency, like say, the FDA, and it seems, the Supreme Court. How does a potential executive feel about this bit of legal circular logic, and how would they deal with it, as well as the the potential bloat in our already supersized bureaucracy?
Another issue, not on too many radar screens, but symbolic, (in my view), of a growing trend in American life is something that has been called Net Neutrality. We hear much from many of the larger telecom carriers, (AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, to name just a few), that their networks are being inundated by more and more internet usage, and thay have no way to recoup the cost of providing service. This is largely a load of crap, but it does have a bit of truth to it. These large carriers own what is termed the backbone of the net, and traffic that neither originates nor terminates with their users travels across fiber-optic highways that they own. So what? The backbone providers charge smaller, 2nd tier users, (ISP's) to connect to the larger network, just as they charge us to connect. That should be the source of revenue, not who pays most for preferential treatment, or who'se traffic gives the carrier the most advantage in a "you scratch my back" business world. The internet was, and is, a government sanctioned network, its charter specifies neutrality in connectivity. That principal should not be sold to the highest bidder.
And finally.
The twentieth century, (and I bring that epoch up to this day...), saw some pretty monumental changes in human history, advances in medicine, space travel, yes, the internet, the proliferation of weapons and ideas, but can you guess what the single most ubiquitous "advancement" has been?
The cellular phone.
According to the Washington Post, as of now, there is one cell phone for every two people in the world, and in a short time, there will be five for every six. The other billion or so will follow along shortly. One can think about this in all sorts of contexts, but I have to wonder if this is the beginning of, or possibly just symptomatic of our downfall. If I was a religious fatalist, I would say that this, among a few other things, may be the mark of the beast as mentioned in the Book of Revelation. We are no longer free just to be ourselves, we are tied to a central (as of yet) indeterminate being. Even now, we cannot communicate on a human level. I see people talking to each other on the cell, text messaging and web chatting with others who are less than ten feet away. I guess it is less threatening that way.
Combined with the advances in reproductive technologies, well, married life just ain't gonna be the same in the next century....
Have a nice day.
posted by eccentric recluse at 2:41 PM
4 Comments:
I've never entertained the thought of texting someone who's 10 feet away...scary stuff.
On net neutrality, I think that once a price is established for preferential data packets, the network will tend to evolve down until it is just good enough to support them, and the regular, non-preferential data will as a side-effect fall to a grade below that, to a point far below what we consider normal right now.
I cite the "high priority" ATM data packet that is guaranteed NOT to be one of those that is literally thrown away during buffer overruns in an ATM switch. Imagine a network where those are all that would make it through reliably.
I watched my Senator try and answer about her terrible vote for retroactive immunity and still didn't understand what her thoughts were.
JB
I don't think anybody understands her thoughts. There is a move afoot to separate the immunity provision from the right to go on wiretapping, so that a vote for the provision is just that, a get-out-of-jail-free card for the big telecom interests. Do you have any doubt that it will pass? I don't. I hate to be a skeptic or a pessimist, but the truth is that the country that we thought we knew has died and been buried by the the powers of fascism, period, and no candidate or party will bring it back.
ER
Post a Comment
<< Home