Silver Linings part 3

by: ericf

Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 22:41:28 PM CST

Though I've been having fun with debunking the right, I see a need to debunk something on the left too. Specifically, I'm referring to this moroseness afflicting many of us who were getting ready to party a year ago as we looked forward to a new Congress and new president.  Plenty has gone wrong this year, sure. We poured our personal wealth and elbow grease into electing people who in some cases have disappointed us. It seems we're always having to give up something really good in hopes of getting just something.

However, a lot has gone right in this year ending tonight, more than many of us have recognized. The health care bill has sucked the air out of the proverbial room. More troops heading to Afghanistan has grabbed most of the attention available for foreign policy. The biggest complaint of many on the left, me included, has been the continuation of Bush policies in regard to civil liberties and human rights.

It's been long enough since I posted part 2 (and here's part 1) that I felt a need to explain the point of these posts again. My own experience is I thought this would be one post, and I was surprised when I finished part two that there was plenty for a part 3.

That's a good thing.

What got me to finally get on this today is something I just learned, and that I'm pretty sure is not common knowledge, but should be. Ever wondered why the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, but the Voting Rights Act was passed separately in 1965? Because the only way to get the Civil Rights Act past the conservative (including the dixiecrats who make up the base of the modern GOP) filibuster was to drop voting rights. Voting rights? And we thought dropping the public option was tough! But voting rights got through the next year, so don't anyone despair about having to do things incrementally.

So let's get started, and I think I'll start with what I expect will be the most controversial silver lining (you can tell me in comments if I'm right), the things that went right in regard to war crimes, human rights and civil liberties.

Net Neutrality Equals Free Speech

by: Grace Kelly

Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 17:19:54 PM CDT

And you may remember that during a live webcast of a 2007 Pearl Jam concert, AT&T killed the audio for a few beats. Turns out the missing lyrics were criticisms of President Bush.

Full speech after the fold!

Mud Soup

by: The Big E

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 23:00:00 PM CDT

Aaron Brown:  Franken and net neutrality.

Dustry Trice:  hide your laptops, Pat Anderson is running for Guv.

The Nuclear Age began 64 years ago today.

Remember Maj. Cook?  Well, he might be a scam artist.

Rachel Maddow has had enough.  Watch the vid here.

Glenn Beck has cried, sobbed, pandered, lied and now we can add shrieking to what he'll do on air.

Net Neutrality supporters not so supportive anymore?

by: Joe Bodell

Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:19:49 AM CST

From the WSJ, via TPM:

Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers. ...
One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.

"If we did this, Washington would be on fire," says one executive at the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers.

Separately, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.

This is an apolitical issue -- it's truly not Democrat vs. Republican, it's corporate power against the American people. If you value an open internet, in which providers aren't allowed to charge twice for a single service, you should touch base with your congressional representatives and make sure they're Net Neutrality supporters like you.

The good news is that President-elect Barack Obama has said in the past that he supports Net Neutrality. The question is whether the groundswell of activity that causes the Obama administration to take action or stay on the sidelines comes from the corporations or from the millions of American citizens who would be hurt by the fall of the Internet as we know it.

A curious thought on Obama and conservative bloggers

by: Joe Bodell

Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM CST

Easy: Net Neutrality. Groups pushing to prevent the internet service providers from creating a "two-tier" internet are looking forward to the Obama administration -- Obama has long been a supporter of Net Neutrality, which protects bloggers by preventing the ISPs from charging you (the reader) for using their pipes to read blog content and charging the blogger (me) for transporting that same data to you.

It's one of the few issues where conservative and liberal bloggers have come together over the past two election cycles.

And there will be President Obama, protecting the rights of those zany conservative bloggers to say ridiculous things about him whenever they please.

They should be thanking him, really.