Net Neutrality Finds Bipartisan Support

InternetWeek | News | Net Neutrality Finds Bipartisan Support

I’ve seen a few other comments on ‘net neutrality’ lately, but this article from Internetweek had a link to the telecom group against it, Handsofftheinternet. So I went to their page but it looks like it just got started because they say they are going to explain their side and then don’t.
Continue reading Net Neutrality Finds Bipartisan Support


The Colbert Report interviewed Ted Daeschler, one of the paleontologist discoverers of the fish-tetrapod missing link. As viewers realize, Colbert is an insightful interviewer who doesn’t take kindly to quackery and other wishful thinking such as evolution. So he asked the guy to explain ‘evolution’ in simple terms, and the response was “sex and time”. Such an eloquent explanation. Short, sweet and succint.

If you want to see the video, you will probably need to search the video archives for Daeschler.

— C H A P T E R 6 — Privacy

Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights

An excellent article on the history and evolution of the the right of privacy in the United States. And it is from our Department of State! There are links to a whole set of articles on other Rights.

I think that the three references they start the article with neatly summarize why we think today that every indivuidual has the right to be free from governmental review of their activities and property without a court warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated…

— Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.

— Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law.

— Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

(I wonder how much longer they will leave this page online?)

Some books that are referenced

For further reading:

Ellen Alderman and Carolyn Kennedy, The Right to Privacy (New York: Knopf, 1995).

David H. Flaherty, Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989).

Richard F. Hixson, Privacy in a Public Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).

Philippa Strum, Privacy: The Debate in the United States since 1945 (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1998).

Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (New York: Athenaeum, 1968).

Contra-Contraception – New York Times

Contra-Contraception – New York Times

So, it looks like there is another question for the candidates: ” Are you Pro -or Anti -contraception?”

One of the parts of this article I found disturbing is the anti-contraceptionists claim that sexual promiscuity leads to the objectification of women. Whereas, in their view, women are just supposed to be baby factories. And men are just married sperm donors. No objectification there.

We have evolved socially. Recreational sex is now an option. Procreational sex is now an option. There are personal choices to be made, so let us educate our youth about those choices, the joys and the dangers, and let them decide.

Don’t let the troglodytes hold you down.

History Lesson

I noticed a gaffe in the final episode of West Wing. The writing is the finest-kind and they usually have their history straight. But, I heard President Bartlett blame the January Inauguration on the likes of Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin; our Founding Fathers. And that just isn’t right. Back in the early days of our Republic, the Presidential Inauguration was set for the March 4th following the election (Washington was inaugurated April 30th, 1789) . It wasn’t until 1933 that the Inauguration moved to January, and that took a constitutional amendment.

Doesn’t anybody fact-check these people?

Can these crashers save this party?

Can these crashers save this party? – San Francisco magazine, May 2006.
A lot of interesting concepts in this bit, including MoveOn and cognitive linguistics. It will be interesting to see what the Rockridge Institute produces.

Since I don’t consider myself a Democrat, I will leave it up to the party faithful to coordinate and consolidate their message/platform.

Either way, I don’t expect to vote for or support anyone who has gotten into bed with Rupert Murdoch, which includes all Republicans.

And then there is the ultimate rub:

… the agenda. Progressive leaders, latte drinking and otherwise, have no trouble telling the world what they’re against but more difficulty describing what they’re for. Man or woman, black or white, they will readily discuss the need for bold new ideas, but the ideas themselves are in short supply.

The Republicans of the past didn’t have much trouble articulating what they were against, but they also had a list of what they were for. (I don’t think they’ve delivered on much, or any, of it at the federal level, but that’s another story.)