Department of 'Justice' is against Internet freedom

(AP) The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - to see that the DoJ is against free speech. Who'd have thunk it? The really odd thing about this is that Net Neutrality has nothing whatsoever to do with the DoJ. They are totally out of line for even expressing an opinion.

No wait... I get it. They are repaying the big telecoms for their capitulation in domestic spying.

Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

Where have we seen these names before?

And the partisan, corporate racket goes on. I'll just keep typing until Big Brother pulls the plug.

I can promise you one thing -- and I hope most Americans concur. If they pull Net Neutrality, I will be off the Internet for good. And if we all leave... think of all that lost advertising... all of those books that won't be sold, all of that junk we won't be buying.

Sorry. Can't have it both ways. I'm not for sale.

Ask a Ninja about Net Neutrality

Fighting for democracy and the environment...

... every single day.

I'm tired. If I'm not posting a lot of new content out here, it is because I am once again engaged in an almost endless (and probably useless) letter-writing campaign to save Net Neutrality, Utah's gorgeous White River Canyon; berating my congressman (blue dog) for obstructing the impeachment investigation of Dick Cheney, and basically hurling myself against the brick wall of neocon government. Bruised and sore, I have little else to say when I come out here.

So, I guess I'll just share a few of my recent responses to my non-responsive government.

My recent letter to the head of the FCC, concerning Net Neutrality:

Now that our media has become 'corporate,' and covers nothing but Paris Hilton morning, noon and night, we have been driven to the Internet; not only for real news, but a chance to speak out and discuss that fading concept... democracy.

Remember democracy? Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost?" Or perhaps James Madison, who said "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." Or perhaps Abraham Lincoln: "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

We don't get 'real facts' on television news these days. It's not as much what they say, as what they refuse to cover. We are subjected to an endless stream of mindless 'entertainment' and propaganda. Why? Because television news is 'owned' by someone who has a vested interest in controlling what we think.

Nor do we get anything close to a democratic discussion via television. We get exactly what Rupert Murdoch and others like him want to us know: no more, no less. And no one asks us what we want. No one asks us what we think.

There was a day when we managed to do OK for ourselves without the Internet. But in our current climate of rampant corruption, and the storming of our Capitol by corporate lobbyists, the Internet is the last place for the people to find out the real news, and discuss the current state of our nation and democracy. And as such a place of freedom and open discussion, I fully expected it would be next in the target sight of big corporations. How not? I've read Machiavelli.

Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet's gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don't pay their added tolls. What a surprise, since this has already been implemented by the postal service (with no input by us, the 'people' I might add.)

This kind of corporate approach to controlling our mail is already putting a crunch on independent newspapers and magazines -- all to the benefit of the big corporations like Times Warner. By the way... how did Times Warner suddenly become so powerful that they were able to influence the operations of our postal service? Obviously our democracy is indeed on its last gasp.

This fundamental change to the Internet would end the open discussion of democracy as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.

My letter to the BLM expressing my 'concerns' about oil drilling in the White River Canyon:

My God! I've hiked in those canyons... how dare you? That is GOD'S country, not another oil slick-in-waiting.

We entrust BLM to take care of our land! It is your responsibility to provide the highest level of protection for the White River Canyon area - not allow it to be trashed. We got rid of Pombo, and you're still at it. Appalling.

During its 1996-1999 wilderness inventory of this area, BLM found that over 16,000 acres of this area met all the requirements for protection as designated Wilderness. But I guess that was in the days when the BLM actually cared for the land - and protected it for future generations.

Your recent decision to allow 60 wells to be drilled within this area could sacrifice its wilderness values to oil and gas development, like so many other special places in the West that are irreplaceable. We need to get off of fossil fuel anyway -- and here you are, destroying what is left of our wild beauty so that another filthy rich oil company can get even richer. I am sick of this. BLM must reverse its course on this planning effort and commit to protecting the magnificent resources present in the White River Canyon area. This is OUR LAND. WE THE PEOPLE.

Do I sound angry enough? You have no idea.... no idea. You'd put an oil well or perhaps a coal mine in the Grand Canyon if you thought you could get away with it.

BLM needs to make the following corrections to its analysis before moving forward with this planning effort:

* BLM should prepare a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS). Without doing so, BLM will continue to fail to fully analyze the impacts of these gas wells on the many values present in the White River Canyon area.

* BLM must take into account the many new gas wells, roads, pipelines, and compressor stations recently constructed to the north, east, and west of the White River wilderness inventory area. BLM must study the combined and cumulative impacts of this existing development and the proposed new development.

* BLM must take a hard look at the proposed project's impacts to the area's outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation and its abundant natural quiet and overall naturalness of the area. The agency must then consider how best to protect these important public values.

The natural resources present in the White River Canyon are irreplaceable. And they belong to the people. Last I checked, that was us... not the oil companies or Bushies.

BLM's decision to discount its own findings about the wilderness character of the area and instead sacrifice yet another area for a small amount of oil and gas is a mistake and flat out WRONG. BLM must complete a full EIS, analyze the full impacts drilling will cause in this area, and fully protect the valuable wilderness qualities of this important area.

My comments when I signed yet another petition to impeach Cheney - comments going to my blue dog, no doubt:

I'm tired of asking. There is 'partisan' and there is LAW. We are a nation that purports to hold law and our Constitution above all else. PROVE IT.

Don't ever throw 'partisan' at me as an excuse for failing to defend my Constitution and my democracy from a tyrant - yes, we all know what he is - because I have already left the Democratic Party over this after a lifetime of 'party loyalty,' and I will side with a former Reagan administration official, a general -- anyone who is serious about saving my country, before I will bow to the cowering political weakness of any party.

I don't care how many lobbyists are demanding that you do nothing. I'm demanding that you defend us, defend the Constitution, defend the rule of law. Over 50% of Americans agree with me... at least that many, and the number is growing by the day, as we overcome the bias of the corporate media. If Democrats expect to 'sweep' into office in 2008, they damn well better do something to show they deserve that honor.

And yes, sorry I can't hide it any more, but I'm mad as hell. I don't quit a political party after a lifetime over nothing... only when that party betrays me, betrays our troops overseas, and betrays my country. I keep hearing that the 'blue dogs' are obstructing. If you aren't going to hunt, then get out of the way. Democracy, coming through... like a freight train.

NET Neutrality dealt serious blow

On Wednesday, the Federal Trade Commission dealt a serious whack to Net Neutrality proponents as it issued a report dismissing claims that the government needs to get involved in preserving the fairness of networks in the United States.

In other words, they and their corporate masters don't want the involvement of the courts or Congress -- just let those big AT&T corporate guys do as they please, no oversight needed -- and definitely not wanted. Reminds me of the Times-Warner overhaul of our postal system so that it would penalize the smaller news media like The Nation and Mother Jones, among others.

This is so familiar. Cookie-cutter familiar. Like the 'no oversight needed' management style FEMA conducted by Bush's beloved Brownie. Like the 'no oversight needed' approach by the FDA that allowed all of that melamine-tainted food into our country so that our cats and dogs would die horrible, painful deaths. And of course, that 'no oversight needed' approach the EPA now espouses when it refuses to enforce carbon emissions standards.

From ars technica:

The report, entitled "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy," was drafted in response to growing concerns about broadband competitiveness and network neutrality. The FTC intends the report to be consulted as a guideline by policy makers and legislators, but it has no binding force. Nevertheless, the report's findings are yet another sign that US government agencies are not particularly interested in the network neutrality problem right now. In fact, the FTC is essentially saying that they can find no evidence of a problem to begin with.

Gotta love the Bushies, they're consistently against us at every turn.

In a statement, Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras said, "This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more - not less - competition. In the absence of significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

Did I mention Bushies? This report was issued by Bush appointee Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. A quick Google of Majoras reveals, from Sourcewatch:

Deborah Platt Majoras was appointed May 11, 2004, by President George W. Bush to be Chairman and Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Majoras was to fill the vacancy created by Timothy J. Muris, who announced May 11, 2004, that he would step down to return to academia.

According to Majoras' FTC profile, she was sworn in August 16, 2004, and President Bush had announced his intention to appoint her to the position on July 30, 2004.

"The Federal Trade Commission chairwoman is the FTC's point person on its gasoline price gouging inquiry in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, in her prior life at the Jones Day law firm she was also the point person for ChevronTexaco and Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. In 2004, Senator Ron Wyden opposed her nomination for her refusal to outline the steps she would take to investigate and fight gas price gouging."

I'm telling you -- every single Federal Commission is now invested with these people, many from the oil industry. We're screwed.

The "hands-off" approach is the approach preferred by the telecoms, who will also be delighted that Chairman Majoras cleared them of any wrong-doing in their network management so far. Nevertheless, the FTC says that it will continue to monitor the situation, as will the FCC and DOJ. Perhaps more encouraging for proponents of such legislation, the FTC says that increased awareness of the debate will help them with monitoring the need for government regulation.

Oh yes! The Department of Justice is going to help too! Gosh, I feel so much better. I'll be writing twice as often now, knowing that my hours and perhaps even minutes out here are numbered.

By the way, the head of the FCC, who will be formerly making the Net Neutrality decision is:

Chairman Kevin J. Martin

Chairman Martin was nominated by President George W. Bush to a Republican seat on the Commission, and was sworn in on July 3, 2001. He was designated chairman by President Bush on March 18, 2005. Chairman Martin was re-nominated for a second term as commissioner and chairman by President George W. Bush on April 25, 2006.

Before joining the FCC, Martin was a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. He served on the Bush-Cheney Transition Team and was Deputy General Counsel for the Bush campaign. Prior to joining the campaign, Martin was an advisor to FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth. He has also served in the Office of the Independent Counsel and worked as an associate at the Washington, DC law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding. Before joining Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Martin was a judicial clerk for U.S. District Court Judge William M. Hoeveler, Miami, FL.

Martin received a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Masters in Public Policy from Duke University, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Federal Communications Bar Association.

I'm praying his law degree from Harvard will over-rule his connections to the Bush/Cheney transition team. I guess we'll see.