I absolutely support the strict enforcement of our borders. There is zero racism or nativism behind this sentiment. I love and support the legal immigration of all kinds of people. Immigrants have built this country and continue to build this country. For me, it's a security issue. The United States has a lot of enemies. We also have a huge crime problem. Spotty enforcement of immigration law and poor control of the borders increases the risk posed by both of these problems.
I have mixed feelings about the Arizona law. At it's core, I support the concept of the law. The fact that they thought to eliminate the possibility of "sanctuary" areas is good too. My single biggest concern is the fact that since it's only one state, it creates a situation of unequal enforcement. Since the control of our borders is supposed to be a Federal concern, immigration enforcement should also be a Federal concern.
The rampant spewing of reactionary fear and threats of boycotts is due to the media's misinformation. No, the Arizona police can't just stop you for no reason. They can't just go, "let's stop all the brown people." You have to be stopped for a reason other than "looking illegal." In other words, you have to be doing something wrong already.
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.
The one part of the law most likely to be struck down is the section on day worker solicitation. The Supreme Court has already addressed that issue and it had been killed on a Freedom of Speech concern. So long as Arizona enforces this fairly and doesn't trump up charges against specific ethnic groups, most of the law should stand in court.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Political Power
If you haven't heard yet, apparently Sonoma County separated an elderly gay couple and sold off all of their worldly possessions. This, despite the two men having used every legal device open to them. Rather than re-printing all of the details here, I will just give you the link. Sonoma County Separates Elderly Gay Couple
Yes, this incident is terrible. Yes, we should protest, write letters and spread the word. Yes, Sonoma County should get the crap sued out of it and the money should go to Clay. Yes, the county personnel responsible for this tragedy should all be fired. None of this will bring Harold back or reduce the hurt that Clay will feel for the rest of his life.
Incidents like this bring to mind something that my mother taught me. Our votes and protests have power, but it's our wallet that really speaks. When locations and businesses refuse to support your rights and/or ideals, stop giving them money. This may mean that the children of religious fundamentalists lose out on Disney products. This may also mean that gay people won't be able to get their cheap WalMart fix. If you truly believe in what you say you believe in, you're willing to sacrifice for it.
If you aren't willing to give up that cheap Chinese toy, or listen to your kid beg for their Mickey fix, or forgo your favorite Sonoma wine... don't complain. If you aren't willing to sacrifice for your beliefs and/or rights, why should someone else?
Yes, this incident is terrible. Yes, we should protest, write letters and spread the word. Yes, Sonoma County should get the crap sued out of it and the money should go to Clay. Yes, the county personnel responsible for this tragedy should all be fired. None of this will bring Harold back or reduce the hurt that Clay will feel for the rest of his life.
Incidents like this bring to mind something that my mother taught me. Our votes and protests have power, but it's our wallet that really speaks. When locations and businesses refuse to support your rights and/or ideals, stop giving them money. This may mean that the children of religious fundamentalists lose out on Disney products. This may also mean that gay people won't be able to get their cheap WalMart fix. If you truly believe in what you say you believe in, you're willing to sacrifice for it.
If you aren't willing to give up that cheap Chinese toy, or listen to your kid beg for their Mickey fix, or forgo your favorite Sonoma wine... don't complain. If you aren't willing to sacrifice for your beliefs and/or rights, why should someone else?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Mega-corps and Net Neutrality
Joelle Tessler of the AP: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "Net neutrality" obligations on broadband providers."
I don't argue the legal merit if this ruling. Under the current law, the FCC was reaching outside of it's jurisdiction. This situation is a symptom of a greater problem. As we move more towards a world of mega-corporations, we will find that companies have more and more conflicts of interest.
Let's use Comcast as an example. They provide home and business internet services. They also provide home cable and telephone services. Add to this mix the fact that they own CN8, Comcast SportsNet, SportsNet New York, MLB Network, Comcast Sports Southeast/Charter Sports Southeast, E! Entertainment, Style Network, G4/Tech TV, Versus, The Golf Channel, AZN Television, FEARnet, NHL Network, Exercise TV, NBC Universal, Philadelphia 76ers, Philadelphia Flyers and more.
When a company of Comcast's size has divisions that come into conflict, it is the parent company's job to determine priority. This priority will not necessarily be what's best for the individual customer. It will be what's best for the overall bottom line. This means that the small customer of the internet division may lose out in favor of the financial gains in the television or film division.
Comcast uses bandwidth as the excuse to kill Bit Torrent, claiming that it just slows down the network for other customers. If bandwidth really is the issue, they should ban MMPORPGs and online film/television viewing. These are also huge bandwidth hogs. Oh wait. They have money invested in those areas and would lose out. Hmmm... so it has nothing to with bandwidth in the end does it? It's about money. In addition to legitimate traffic, Bit Torrent is the most common form of piracy. They don't want to lose out on the money they think is being pirated from them. They also don't care if those legitimate users get hurt in the process.
Congress is currently entertaining a law that will give the FCC the authority to enforce Net Neutrality. I support this. I believe in absolute Net Neutrality. It's the only way to ensure freedom of the press and to ensure that whistle blowers have the freedom to expose wrongs done. Yes, this means some improper conduct will be allowed. If I have to choose between a few MP3 downloads getting stopped or the Free Iran movement being able to keep us updated, I will pick the Free Iran folks every time.
My ideal solution would be to ban companies from getting into these conflict of interest situations in the first place, but that is highly unlikely. As long as we are going to have corporations that have internal conflicts of interest, we need to give an outside power the ability to ensure that those conflicts are resolved in the favor of the consumer.
I don't argue the legal merit if this ruling. Under the current law, the FCC was reaching outside of it's jurisdiction. This situation is a symptom of a greater problem. As we move more towards a world of mega-corporations, we will find that companies have more and more conflicts of interest.
Let's use Comcast as an example. They provide home and business internet services. They also provide home cable and telephone services. Add to this mix the fact that they own CN8, Comcast SportsNet, SportsNet New York, MLB Network, Comcast Sports Southeast/Charter Sports Southeast, E! Entertainment, Style Network, G4/Tech TV, Versus, The Golf Channel, AZN Television, FEARnet, NHL Network, Exercise TV, NBC Universal, Philadelphia 76ers, Philadelphia Flyers and more.
When a company of Comcast's size has divisions that come into conflict, it is the parent company's job to determine priority. This priority will not necessarily be what's best for the individual customer. It will be what's best for the overall bottom line. This means that the small customer of the internet division may lose out in favor of the financial gains in the television or film division.
Comcast uses bandwidth as the excuse to kill Bit Torrent, claiming that it just slows down the network for other customers. If bandwidth really is the issue, they should ban MMPORPGs and online film/television viewing. These are also huge bandwidth hogs. Oh wait. They have money invested in those areas and would lose out. Hmmm... so it has nothing to with bandwidth in the end does it? It's about money. In addition to legitimate traffic, Bit Torrent is the most common form of piracy. They don't want to lose out on the money they think is being pirated from them. They also don't care if those legitimate users get hurt in the process.
Congress is currently entertaining a law that will give the FCC the authority to enforce Net Neutrality. I support this. I believe in absolute Net Neutrality. It's the only way to ensure freedom of the press and to ensure that whistle blowers have the freedom to expose wrongs done. Yes, this means some improper conduct will be allowed. If I have to choose between a few MP3 downloads getting stopped or the Free Iran movement being able to keep us updated, I will pick the Free Iran folks every time.
My ideal solution would be to ban companies from getting into these conflict of interest situations in the first place, but that is highly unlikely. As long as we are going to have corporations that have internal conflicts of interest, we need to give an outside power the ability to ensure that those conflicts are resolved in the favor of the consumer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)