Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 8, 2017 - 04:52pm PT
|
Losing protections for Net Neutrality is a looming disaster, and we still have time to give feedback to the FCC to influence their decision. You can think of Net Neutrality as a techno-geek version of "right to access multiple perspectives to find truth, and right to choose what services we want to buy." If these protections go away, it is like giving Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast the power to decide what TV we watch, what Internet sites we can visit, what stuff we can buy, where we can raise our voice, etc....
You might see a pattern here... the new head of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates these big companies used to be a lawyer for one of them (Verizon). Fox guarding the hen house all over again.
We regulate access to water and electricity because modern citizens depend on access to these things to function. I think Internet access should be regulated in the same way because we can't effectively participate in modern American society if our access to Internet based information and services is blocked or restricted. Aside from the preservation of democracy and informed participation of the citizenry, it is also an important consumer protection if you just want to watch Netflix and not get dicked over by your Internet provider slowing it down and charging a ransom to Netflix (who will then raise your rates).
HOW TO GIVE YOUR FEEDBACK TO FCC
http://gofccyourself.com
--> express
--> comment
In your response, mention that you support Net Neutrality, and that ISPs need to be accountable under the rules of Title II from the Communications Act of 1934.
This guy does a great job of explaining why we should give a sh!t about Net Neutrality and what is going on right now... and he does it for a wide audience that needs jokes every few seconds so their heads don't explode or go into a coma:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
More background on Title II verses what alternatives it beat out a few years ago which will probably be floated again as a "better" (read: "shittier") alternative:
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is-title-ii-net-neutrality-fcc/
Edit: I'm having problems with the FCC form right now... but here is what I am trying to submit in my comment:
Please do not dismantle the protections of Net Neutrality! We need the protections offered under the framework of Title II ("Common Carriers") of the Communications Act of 1934. This framework makes several references to "public interest" and specifically forbids discrimination or preference in content. Removing these protections in the Internet Service Provider industry would stifle competition across a wide range of industries outside of the ISP business. Verizon (as one example) has already explicitly told it's investors that the Net Neutrality regulation will NOT curb its infrastructure investments, so fear of stifling business for ISPs and reducing investments is not a reasonable justification . The only reason to dismantle Net Neutrality is to increase the profits for Verizon and similar ISPs and access providers, because they would extort revenue streams from content providers that would in turn pass these charges on to the content consumers. "Self regulation" would be a joke- the "fox guarding the hen-house" solution when there is already a track record of the large companies abusing their position in the physical path of data to harm other businesses and their consumers. This benefit for a tiny few comes at the cost of hurting millions of consumers and all types of businesses that rely on equal access to content in every household in America. Further, it undermines our democracy, which depends on informed citizens having equal access to different sources of information.
We regulate access to water and electricity because they are essential services for a modern society to function, and it is not always practical to offer multiple parallel infrastructures to deliver these same essential services. Similarly, unfettered equal access to the Internet is an essential service for our modern society. Most people in America endure a monopoly where only one company provides a modern high speed Internet service. In some cases people have alternatives, but the alternatives are typically 10x slower access speeds, so the spirit of having choice of services is not met. We functionally suffer from monopolies, but we do not properly protect our citizenry from them! Reducing the legally enforceable Net Neutrality protections would be a slap in the face to consumers and citizens across America.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
Most Deplorables strongly support law enforcement. There are liberal groups, however, like BLM, that may not be so supportive.
perhaps true that the stereotype "deployable" (Trump voter) being mostly white, educationally ending at high school level, and generally working, if at all, in lower paying jobs, would support law enforcement?
but since you have chosen BLM as your comparison group as evidence of the opposite
as in BLM participants don't then support law enforcement, you sure about that?
what criteria, studies, polls, etc did you consult to arrive at this conclusion?
oh yeah, I forgot - first they are black people and proportionately there are more blacks charged with crimes and imprisoned than white people
so you conclude black people don't support law enforcement the way Trump voters do
if I did not hit upon your linear thought please tell me how it differs from above....
gee, maybe, just maybe, if you turn on the news every night and hear about another unarmed black person being killed by a white law officer, why you might just not feel as great about
"law and order" ENFORCEMENT as a Deployable would
you see because it is common knowledge to anyone who has the slightest interest in sociology that black people (BLM) are as concerned about crime and their safety as Trump voters are
continuing, equally non sensical is the contention that BLM is a "liberal" group
yes, if being liberal means having below the limiting conservative surface shallow intellect to understand that when one group of clearly discriminated against Americans stands together
and protests, not protesting of course then would be Trump voters ...?
like the similar former short lived grass roots, no national support of organization group that protested what they viewed as corporate injustice to the common citizens, Occupy Wall Street? damn those liberals for not being quiet
what did I get wrong, seriously? Sorry, it sometimes get me how the word "liberal" is used
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Nut, what party is working to take away Net neutrality?
What party seems to always be promoting the exact opposite of what you think is good?
you need to work within the 2 party system (because that is all there is) to bring about change
focus on the core issue, who exactly is responsible for this mess
We need to vote them out
not get distracted by every new issue
as long as they are in power, they will vote for everything that we don't want
IMO, in a nutshell
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Note that I used the word "may", referring to the controversy about the BLM movement. Read the Wiki article. Even HRC got in trouble with them when she said "All lives matter." But you're probably correct about them not being liberal. There are probably factions that strongly support the police and factions that don't.
Net neutrality is a biggy.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Why aren't madman and cragmaster telling us how happy they are now that they longer have the tyranny of Obamacare holding them back.
They must be in pig heaven with all these new Trump EOs and freedoms to discriminate/hate.
Funny, you don't hear from them much now that they finally got what they wanted.
Maybe they can tell us why TrumpCare will be so much better?
because everyone else wishes ObamaCare would prevail and they can just fix it with cost controls.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
OK, people. I have been reading this thread for quite some time and I do have a serious question.
I will ask.
Is it the Federal Governments duty/responsibility to provide health care?
A simple yes or no answers will work.
You all can add in any sort of comments, but please a yes or no first.
I will start......
NO, it is not.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2017 - 02:30pm PT
|
Craig, I grasp your point. In the end, all power will aggregate into a 2 party (or at least 2 main coalitions of parties) system because budget votes have to be yes or no for a package of stuff, no a la carte choosing.
But focusing on the parties rather than the issues leads to a stale mate, because the emotions of people's identity ("I am a donkey" / "I am an elephant") usurps their logical and rational facilities. We can't use a logical/rational appeal to change people's identity.
When you keep making it about Republicans, you reinforce the Us/Them divide which the most rich and power people in America depend on. The truth is that most people, whether they label themselves as Republican or Democrat, have a lot in common in terms of what they need to survive and thrive in our country. Our challenge is to "deconstruct" the identity of Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative and focus on what most people really need and want, and why.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2017 - 02:41pm PT
|
Guyman, I believe YES healthcare is a duty of the federal government.
Without baseline healthcare, we have more and more people with no medical treatment, spreading diseases, living on the street, and committing crimes to get money to pay for medical treatments, and becoming part of the criminal class instead of contributing gainfully to the tax base of our country. Baseline healthcare makes the world you have to inhabit more desirable to interact with, and at a lower cost than the alternative if you have to pay for the full cost of your physical security in that dystopic world of privileged elites and masses of desperate people.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2017 - 02:48pm PT
|
Ken_M, the point about lifetime caps on insurance is a powerful one.
This is a really important part of the healthcare discussion. Without caps, then a small number of people can quickly exhaust the system. No matter what caps are put in place, there are going to be people with terrible stories of exceeding those caps and having money seem to be what causes their end of treatment and subsequent suffering/death. There should be a high level of transparency in stating what our society can sustain as a baseline level of coverage for everyone, and then we all accept that is the limit of what our society is capable of today. If people feel that is not enough for their personal situation, they are welcome to explore the market to get a premium level of coverage.
This situation will become more difficult over time, as medicine becomes more advanced, and the R&D and operations costs to produce medical treatments goes up.
This compromise in my mind is a balance between giving a baseline human right to everyone, and enabling an elevated privilege that can be purchased for people who have the means to do so.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
Until the Senate and House have to "eat what they cook" we will continue to get the same special interest tripe. They produce legislature for the masses that they don't have to personally live with. The lack of compassion and empathy is a sign of someone who has lost touch with their own humanity. This is why divisiveness is at an all time high.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
HealthCare is a Right, not a privilege.
If it's a privilege, then only the privileged can get healthcare
I have a question
How much is A Human Life Worth?
With our system, human life is worth only as much as you can afford
and our Insurance Companies make more money when they deny coverage.
So it all comes down to greed and the willingness to let people die to save money
Is America Not the richest and best Country on Earth?
Then why can't we have the best systems for healthcare, single payer
They Republicans cost me thousands of extra dollars a year because of their greed and lies about healthcare
who wouldn't want to pay less? Republicans getting their bribes
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Our challenge is to "deconstruct" the identity of Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative and focus on what most people really need and want, and why.
The two sides are different, make no mistake
we are wired different
We can't change the minds of the other side with any reason or logic
The only thing we can change is our votes
So if you vote, you can vote for their side and get what we got
Or you can vote them all out and have a progressive country with single payer, funded science and education, clean air and water, and no National debt.
To say we can't divide up our population is crazy talk
It's already divided up, the liars and the truthers
Sorry, you are way off with your lets' all get along theory, it has never worked and it just gives evil a chance to spread it's wings
Would you call the opposition to Hitler; the other side of the same coin?
Hell no
Name one good thing that the Republicans stand for?
Just one
If they are bad in every single aspect of Governing, then why shouldn't we work as hard as possible to vote in the opposition that are for the things we think are good.
They lie about what liberals are and what the Democrats are all about, they lie like Hitler did about the jews, they lie about everything,
If you cause a division by lying about the other side, then you are delving into pure evil for political purposes
If Hillary or Bernie won in 2016 with a full Democratic House and 60 Vote Senate, would not things be a lot different Now?
It will never be perfect, but it will sure be a lot better than any Republican race to the bottom admin like we have now.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
That's the question that Republicans have to figure out, then dole out only that much in healthcare
and then they can keep the extra cash you paid in
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
I can't name the value of a human life
And of course we can't just dump money into a life to keep it alive endlessly
The answer would be to make healthcare a socialist tax that we all pitch into, and someone would have to man the death panels (not a Republican!)when the cost goes to high with excessive procedures.
All the other First World Countries figured out a way to keep cost down, we could copy the best policies.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
i believe the nps valued my life at $250,000. That was the amount I agreed to allocate to whomever in the event of a workplace death. Pretty cheap
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
Crag Fry and Nut.... so you think its a RIGHT do I have this correctly?
Let me ask this, question.
Should food be provided by the government?
serious Q
I am truly curious as to what extent the Government owes US stuff.
I mean they take enuf in Taxes, we should get something tangible in return.
And Stahl Bros has a great point.... they pass laws (government)but exempt themselves from living like they want us to do.
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
If there has been a coup, the insurance issue is moot.
Those who seem to know, suggest that Trump has consolidated power and we.are.f*#ked.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2017 - 04:10pm PT
|
Craig, you are preaching to the choir for folks who already identify as Democrat, and you are alienating everyone else. You are pinning all your hopes for societal change on the increasing voter turnout among people who already identify as Democrat.
I don't think people who are registered Republicans are evil. I do think that the leadership of that party has been hijacked by extremists that peddle fear and hate and focus on the enemy's problems rather than their own solutions, and the dilemma is how people who are deeply tied to Republican identity wrestle with those things.
We have common societal problems, and depending on how people understand those problems and what are the roots of those problems, it affects what solutions they think are best. Most of us are burdened by health issues of some sort, a desire for ourselves or our children to be better educated, and a desire to have more gainful employment. Even if these are met, we all desire community fellowship and safety. When these things are jeopardized, we feel the loss and seek ways to regain it.
In terms of how to regain these things: our country seems to be split along the following lines. On one side, people believe in the ideal of noble self-sufficiency (which is often an illusion because these folks don't recognize the ways in which they depend on others) and an insistence that other people should also be self-sufficient. On the other side, people believe there are circumstances when despite our best efforts and hard work and perseverance, sh!t can hit the fan and we need a community safety net. There are plenty of circumstances where people's own actions predictably lead to the problems they encounter, and these situations piss off the self-sufficiency folks to no end. But by lashing out against this situation, the self-sufficiency folks also damn the people who, but for the grace of god or random fate, could swap places with the self-sufficiency folks.
So I don't want to languish in Democrat and Republicanism. By focusing on issues, it gives space to imagine a world with different ideological borders. If we don't envision the world we want, we can't take steps to make it happen. I don't envision a world free of Republicans. I envision a world where people think about what is in their best interest, in the immediate future AND over the long term, for themselves and their children. That will increase the chances of having sensible policy decisions and elections.
I don't think it is feasible to change a Republican into a Democrat on a meaningful scale to shift elections. But I do think it is feasible to change societal values on specific issues. Look at how much change we have seen with racism, sexism, and LGBT rights in the last couple of generations. And throughout it all, we have had parties strongly divided. If anything the divisiveness is growing. Our hope lies in focusing on what matters to us, and not getting that tangled with legacy labels that will alienate half of the people who would potentially support it.
I just had an insight while writing this... "if you love something set it free." The more the Democrat party pulls issues into the campaign platform and touts them as Democratic ideals, the more it takes away the space for Republican folks to support those issues and makes it less likely that our society will benefit from whatever the Democrats are claiming ownership of. Democrats need to find a way to support issues without claiming ownership of the issues.
For the record, I am registered Democrat, but I used to be Green Party until I switched to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Dem primary.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2017 - 04:14pm PT
|
guyman, I do believe in giving food to people who are in need.
When I was a kid, we were poor and I was on a reduced rate lunch program: 10 cents per day. If I forgot my dime, I got bread and water. When I was in 5th grade, my house burned down and we lost everything (we were renting and had no insurance), and we had free breakfasts and lunches at school for a year or two after that.
I would say the government had a good return on investment for the cost of those meals... I have had years where I paid 6-figure tax bills. Every year for the last few decades I have averaged more than $50k in income taxes paid. And I don't resent it. Sure it won't work out so well for everyone, but you never know for whom it will.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Should food be provided by the government?
serious Q
I am truly curious as to what extent the Government owes US stuff.
This is actually a test for ability to live non-institutionalized.
For the Gov't to take control of you, it must be demonstrated in court that you are "gravely disabled", which is defined as:
either
1. a danger to self
2. a danger to others
3. **unable to provide for yourself
-food**
-clothing
-shelter
In Ca, this is the regulation:
ARTICLE 1. Detention of Mentally Disordered Persons for Evaluation and Treatment [5150 - 5155] ( Heading of Article 1 amended by Stats. 1969, Ch. 1472. )
5150.
(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!