(Thanx Richard!)
Song(s) of the Day # 2,300 Langkamer
1 hour ago
Thursday, 23 December 2010
News Black-Out in DC: Pay No Attention to Those Veterans Chained to the White House Fence
There was a black-out and a white-out Thursday and Friday as over a hundred US veterans opposed to US wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world, and their civilian supporters, chained and tied themselves to the White House fence during an early snowstorm to say enough is enough.
Washington Police arrested 135 of the protesters, in what is being called the largest mass detention in recent years. Among those arrested were Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who used to provide the president’s daily briefings, Daniel Ellsberg, who released the government’s Pentagon Papers during the Nixon administration, and Chris Hedges, former war correspondent for the New York Times.
No major US news media reported on the demonstration or the arrests. It was blacked out of the New York Times, blacked out of the Philadelphia Inquirer, blacked out in the Los Angeles Times, blacked out of the Wall Street Journal, and even blacked out of the capital’s local daily, the Washington Post, which apparently didn't even think it was a local story worth publishing.
Making the media cover-up of the protest all the more outrageous was the fact that most news media did report on Friday, the day after the protest, the results of the latest poll of American attitudes towards the Afghanistan War, an ABC/Washington Post Poll which found that 60% of Americans now feel that war has “not been worth it.” That’s a big increase from the 53% who said they opposed the war in July.
Clearly, any honest and professional journalist and editor would see a news link between such a poll result and an anti-war protest at the White House led, for the first time in recent memory, by a veterans organization, the group Veterans for Peace, in which veterans of the nation’s wars actually put themselves on the line to be arrested to protest a current war...
Continue reading
Dave Lindorff @'truth-out'
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Is Net Neutrality a FCC Trojan Horse?
On Thursday, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to unveil draft rules aimed at imposing network neutrality obligations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In the excitement surrounding the announcement, however, many have overlooked the fact that the this rulemaking is built on a shoddy and dangerous foundation – the idea that the FCC has unlimited authority to regulate the Internet.
Genachowski has announced that the draft regulations will require ISPs to abide by the "Four Freedoms" set forth in the FCC's 2005 Internet Policy Statement, as well as the additional principles of nondiscrimination and transparency. EFF strongly believes in these six principles. Our work speaks for itself: we are developing software tools to Test Your ISP in the wake of uncovering Comcast’s meddling with BitTorrent traffic, seeking a DMCA exemption to let you run applications of your choice on your mobile phone, and fighting Hollywood’s efforts to force DRM restrictions into your television.
But Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality. In place of explicit congressional authority, we expect the FCC will rely on its "ancillary jurisdiction," a position that amounts to “we can regulate the Internet however we like without waiting for Congress to act.” (See, e.g., the FCC's brief to a court earlier this year). That’s a power grab that would leave the Internet subject to the regulatory whims of the FCC long after Chairman Genachowski leaves his post.
Hence the danger. If “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC "Internet Decency Statement." After all, outgoing FCC Chairman Martin was a crusader against "indecency" on the airwaves and it was the FCC that punished Pacifica radio for playing George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” monologue, something you can easily find on the Internet. And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC "Internet Lawful Use Policy," created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance. After all, it was only thanks to a jurisdictional challenge -- ironically, by many of the same groups currently celebrating Genachowski's rulemaking announcement -- that we defeated the FCC's "broadcast flag" mandate which would have given Hollywood and federal bureaucrats veto power over innovative devices and legitimate uses of recorded TV programming.
EFF's concerns are born from more than just a general skepticism about government regulation of the Internet. Experience shows that the FCC is particularly vulnerable to regulatory capture and has a history of ignoring grassroots public opinion (see, e.g., media consolidation). That makes the agency a poor choice for restraining the likes of Comcast and AT&T.
Fortunately, there are two opportunities to reign in the FCC’s expansive views of its own “ancillary jurisdiction.” A federal court is considering this important question as part of Comcast's challenge to the FCC's order last year regarding interference with BitTorrent traffic (PFF filed a strong amicus brief in the case, arguing against the FCC's power grab). Or Congress could limit the FCC's power by authorizing to regulate only to ensure network neutrality.
So while we look forward to evaluating Chairman Genachowski’s proposed net neutrality regulations, the first step must be a clear rejection of any suggestion that those regulations can be based on “ancillary jurisdiction.” Otherwise, "net neutrality" might very well come to be remembered as the Trojan Horse that allowed the FCC take over the Internet.
Keith Olbermann on Assange
OK, I gave Murdoch his pound, and what I got was Assange's lesson in how to lose friends and influence people to rip you. Note that the article pulls are in double quote marks and the actual Assange quotes are in singles. Times of London: “'The leak of the police report to The Guardian was clearly designed to undermine my bail application,” he said. “It was timed to come up on the desk of the judge that morning...Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison, and shopped [the report] around to other newspapers as well,' he said. Mr Assange told The Times, however, that there is 'very suggestive evidence' that the two women accusing him...were motivated by a mixture of revenge, money and police pressure."
The "tizzy" quote comes from Assange's interview with the BBC, as quoted by The Daily Mail: "'...they had unprotected sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was possibility of a sexual transmitted disease'..."
Back to the Times, and his deft self-erasure of other areas of support: "He compared WikiLeaks’ current 'persecution' to that endured by American Jews in the 1950s. 'All sorts of abusive statements were made against the Jewish people in the 1950s and before,' he said. 'Let’s not forget that there were quotas for Jews in universities in Boston. I’m not the Jewish people, but the people who believe in freedom of speech and accountability [are in the same position].'"
From a second Times article: "Mr Assange said that he believed that the US situation would 'turn around absolutely' as a groundswell of favourable opinion grew in America. 'The people in power are organised and were able to respond quickly,' he said. 'But numerically they are not that strong and our support in the general population is tremendous.' Such support would 'turn the tables', Mr Assange said. 'They’ll make statements by [Sarah] Palin and [Bill] Clinton not only ineffective but lethal.'"
Why do I think he's just managed to stop his own groundswell? None of this pertains to his guilt or innocence, nor the appropriateness of WikiLeaks. But right now the greatest threat to Julian Assange is the uncontrolled leaking of his mouth.
HERE
The "tizzy" quote comes from Assange's interview with the BBC, as quoted by The Daily Mail: "'...they had unprotected sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was possibility of a sexual transmitted disease'..."
Back to the Times, and his deft self-erasure of other areas of support: "He compared WikiLeaks’ current 'persecution' to that endured by American Jews in the 1950s. 'All sorts of abusive statements were made against the Jewish people in the 1950s and before,' he said. 'Let’s not forget that there were quotas for Jews in universities in Boston. I’m not the Jewish people, but the people who believe in freedom of speech and accountability [are in the same position].'"
From a second Times article: "Mr Assange said that he believed that the US situation would 'turn around absolutely' as a groundswell of favourable opinion grew in America. 'The people in power are organised and were able to respond quickly,' he said. 'But numerically they are not that strong and our support in the general population is tremendous.' Such support would 'turn the tables', Mr Assange said. 'They’ll make statements by [Sarah] Palin and [Bill] Clinton not only ineffective but lethal.'"
Why do I think he's just managed to stop his own groundswell? None of this pertains to his guilt or innocence, nor the appropriateness of WikiLeaks. But right now the greatest threat to Julian Assange is the uncontrolled leaking of his mouth.
HERE
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
