And Now For An Internet Takeover...

This morning, Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican FCC Commissioner warned on the Washington Post’s Opinions section that, “On Tuesday, in a party-line vote, the three Democratic commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will adopt ‘net neutrality’ rules.”

And indeed, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and his two fellow Democrats will be approving this, despite the strong protest of the two Republican members of the commission. But why should this worry us and what can we do to stop it?

Baker explained, “The rules will give government, for the first time, a substantive role in how the Internet will be operated and managed, how broadband services will be priced and structured, and potentially how broadband networks will be financed. By replacing market forces and technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight, we may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion.”

For several years now, those in favor of “net neutrality” have been calling for stronger regulation of internet “on-ramps” to ensure that the internet and broadband stay open for consumers, according to Robert McDowell, fellow Republican commissioner of the FCC. Yet, he also adds that the measure is unnecessary. The internet, he explains, has been free since the early 1990’s, thanks to its revolutionary structure defying top-down authority, its already-existing laws to protect consumers, and even the Justice Department and European Commission’s conclusions that net neutrality regulation would not only be unnecessary, but may deter investments in Internet technology and infrastructure.

This has receiving an overwhelming lack of support from Congress, where over 300 members have signed letters of opposition and only 27 have sponsored a bill imposing net neutrality, as well as from the DC Court of Appeals, which rejected FCC jurisdiction claims over internet regulation in Comcast v. FCC , and the electoral oppositions to bigger government. Phil Kerpen reminded his readers that, “the election included an embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality pledge signed by 95 candidates. All 95 lost.”

Despite an overwhelming lack of support, the FCC’s unelected officialls will be further expanding government control towards Internet regulation, which many, including the two Republican commissioners, worry will create a risk of government censorship and inhibit Internet growth and competition. The Internet has quickly become the hub for traditional media as well as new media and the blogosphere. It has also allowed for companies and innovators to unleash a flood of new products, services and advertising. By limiting what was meant to be an atmosphere of freely innovating and developing companies, government regulation and censorship will handicap certain companies and businesses to the benefit of others. This has already begun in the case of telecommunications.

Timothy Karr of the Huffington Post wrote:

For the first time in history of telecommunications law, the FCC has given its stamp of approval to online discrimination. Instead of a rule to protect Internet users' freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola - letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

Instead of protecting openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the Commission has exempted the mobile Internet from Net Neutrality protections. This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.

Instead of re-establishing the FCC's authority to act as a consumer watchdog over the Internet, it places the agency's authority on a shaky and indefensible legal footing -- giving ultimate control over the Internet to a small handful of carriers.

Writing the complete opposite, Joelle Tessler of the Associated Press are favored Democrat commissioners and these new rules as ones prohibiting broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers of Internet traffic and prohibiting phone and cable companies from abusing control of broadband to “discriminate against rival services.”

In a statement, Democrat Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said, "The open Internet is a crucial American marketplace, and I believe that it is appropriate for the FCC to safeguard it by adopting an order that will establish clear rules to protect consumers' access.”

So apparently, in order to keep companies from discriminating against one another as they increase their power over certain portions of the services that bring us the internet, the FCC will now be assuming that power to discriminate for itself. Personally, when it comes to such power, I have far more faith in the free market and its processes than a government agency. But apparently, even as a voter, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant during the Obama reign anyways.

The decision to protect the internet from such potentially harmful and frankly, unnerving, federal regulation was once a bipartisan measure. Unfortunately, current President Obama called for more regulation during his 2008 presidential campaign, and, according to Karr, promised to “take a back seat to no one in (his) commitment to Net Neutrality.” Once again, both our current President and FCC have decided to put the interests and opinions of the citizenry second to their notions of “protection” through government control, and their unending favoritism for certain companies and industries over others. I say this because, while their rhetoric and traditional media coverage will make Obama and the FCC look like heroes for once again protecting us from ourselves, in reality, this vague measure of numerous loopholes is bad news for consumers.

Fellow Republican commissioner, Robert M. McDowell wrote, “Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being ‘data driven’ in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.”

Republican commissioner Baker added that, “Efforts to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband service would be put at risk. Efforts to get the third of American households that do not subscribe to online broadband service to do so will be challenged. Affordability concerns will be magnified by forcing more of the network investment cost onto consumers. And consumers and entrepreneurs will be affected if network upgrades and improvements are delayed or forgone, as will their ability to create or use the next great application or service.”

Baker continued, “I keep returning to what should be a threshold question: Why does the FCC plan to intervene in a rushed manner, days before the year's end, in the one sector of the economy that is working so well to create consumer choice, jobs and entrepreneurial opportunity? Until we can answer that, I hope my colleagues will stand down and allow Congress to take the lead on these issues. The Internet will be open on Wednesday with or without our action; we have the time to do it right.”

Kerper added:

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition. It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand. Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda.

We can only hope that through some measure we will be able to check over the ever-expanding executive branch. The populace has voted in a wave of new legislators who have the ability to fix this, along with various other far-left legislation forced through against our will, as part of Obama’s grand “change” in how this nation operates and what it is allowed to value. We also have hope that the Court will once again rule that the FCC does not have the authority to assert this degree of control over the “free” market, or over the channels through which citizens are supposed to be able to directly access media and consumer services. If we stay vocal and remind our new representatives that, though they have a lot on their plates and so many problems to undo, it is important that this be made a priority as well. The FCC has no right to assume this authority, and cannot turn its back on voters and consumers like this without losing sight of the values that justified the creation of this commission in the first place.

Cross-posted at True North and Ladies Logic.

What Our Generation Goes Through: An Analogy

I like to think that much of what the current leadership has been allowed to put my generation through is simply due to voters not quite understanding what they are voting on. Just in case that is true, I thought of an analogy to illustrate my frustration.

You’re sitting in a restaurant with a group of politicians who of course are planning to order the most expensive things off the menu. With how much more they make than you do, you figure they can probably afford it.

“I’ll take a stimulus to help my friend here,” the one just to your left announces to the waiter. To you he adds, “Most of it won’t actually stimulate much of anything aside from the pockets of those paying me on the side. But I may or may not let you have a few bites too.”

“Oh,” you answer. “Well, uh, thanks I guess.”

“And I’ll take some socialized medicine,” the one on your far left says. “It may cause an industry collapse, a loss of quality, and, to be honest, it’ll require you to buy premiums later, but for a short while if you ignore how much we’ll be taxing you to start, maintain and later fix it, it’ll appear that you’re paying less.”

“Are you sure?” you ask, thinking that this sounds like a pretty terrible option.

The politician on your far left waves a hand, “Of course I’m sure. And you should be sure too. Thanks to your generosity, everyone will get delayed, low-quality, bureaucrat-regulated care, provided that they are willing to sit patiently on the waiting list. That’ll be a huge improvement from having the option of some of the highest-quality care on earth and emergency care for anyone who needs it no matter their socioeconomic or insurance statuses. There are some people who can’t afford insurance right now or aren’t prioritizing it, so it’s best we charge those who have more so that these people can receive it anyways.”

“Wait,” you stumble over that train of thought. “ I don’t really think that sounds like a good idea. There are plenty of better options that will help more people obtain insurance at more competitive rates without costing the American taxpayer so much and…”

The politician cuts you off. “I wouldn’t let those options get printed on the menu.” He snapped it shut and handed it to the waiter who had finished jotting down his order by now. “So, since this is now the only option people can choose if they want an improvement at all, that’s what I’ll have.”

You frown, but now that the waiter’s written it down, it’s out of your hands. You decide to let your political friend buy what he wishes to buy. It’s his bloated salary. “I’ll take the job option,” you tell the waiter.

“I could look,” the waiter says. “But the stimulus and health care options being ordered tonight have depleted the restaurant's supply of ingredients, so it's likely that we're out.”

“Oh,” you scan through the menu again. “Ok well I guess I’ll take the college education. Are there any of those left?”

“Sure,” the waiter said, jotting that down. “But the price on the menu is a minimum estimate and the dish may or may not come with all of the ingredients it used to.”

“Will it have ideological diversity and tolerance? I feel like that’s an important when earning an education, you know?”

“Nope.”

“Oh.”

The waiter clears the other menus off the table, since the friends on your right don’t have the authority to order anything. “It comes with a side of student fees to buy mopeds for the football team and fund certain student groups and ethnic groups over others according to the Chef’s tastes,” the waiter adds.

You shake your head. “Can I not get the side? I don’t really think I’d end up eating any of that anyways.”

“Sorry, it comes with the college education option.”

“Oh,” you sigh. “Fine.”

The waiter tallies it up. “Here’s your estimated bill for now.”

“Wait, what?” you ask, surprised. “I haven’t even gotten my order yet. And these guys are paying for their own right?” you glance to your left for confirmation.

The politicians shrug. “You’re the one with the wallet. We just serve your needs.”

“Serve my…” Then it dawns on you. “What?? Well I can’t afford all of this! I don’t even want it. And since I haven’t seen any results yet anyways, I should have to pay.”

“Sorry,” the waiter hands you your bill. “Results or not, you agreed to pay when your parents and friends invited these guys to dinner with you. Cash or check?”

The Governor's Race: We Have Yet To Learn From Our Mistakes

Since Emmer conceded to Dayton in a press conference yesterday, a frenzy of Twitter tweets has been asking everything from how this happened to what this means for Minnesotans, to what we can learn from this election for the next time around. As is typical with hindsight, many are understanding points where we went right and wrong in the Emmer campaign.

Is it possible that the Republican Party in Minnesota repeated the same mistakes we made on a national level during the Presidential race? Once again we were facing a huge-government official with controversial and concerning affiliations, a record and history pointing to uncertainty, and a left-funded smear campaign drawing attention to personal attacks on our candidates, rather than the more important issues at hand. And once again, our candidate took the high road, focused on issues and solutions, had the better and more concrete plan, and was not elected. It is of course worth investigating where we have continued to go wrong, especially with the 2012 elections on the horizon.

In light of our encouraging success in the House and Senate this last election, the outcome of the governors race was baffling to many. Sure, the role of extensive voter fraud and corruption within the system designed to account for said fraud remains to be fully assessed, but it won't change the fact that the next Minnesota governor will be Mark Dayton.

What disappointed me most about how this election played out was it's shocking similarity in many way to the outcome of Senator John McCain's campaign for the Presidency. I still remember sitting just a few feet from John McCain during his town hall meeting in the new gym of Lakeville South High School as he handled a comment by one of his supporters about Obama being "an Arab," by defending his opponent and insisting that we focus on the issues and platforms, rather than any personal attacks. McCain never swayed in his strict and righteous adherence to a campaign of facts and integrity. But what exactly constitutes integrity? Should the personal qualifications and associations of a candidate be entirely ignored and his or her plan solely focused on?

The Democrats ran a campaign based almost entirely on the charisma and image of their opponent's ideas and personal attacks on their opponent's personal life. Palin's daughter got pregnant and Emmer drove under the influence 20 years ago. Do either of those attacks really tell the public whether or not these opponents will serve us well in office? No. The Democrats were also the ones who pushed arguments about Sarah Palin being a bad mother for running, because she had children who needed care and attention. These are the same people who the media claim appeal to women. Saying that a candidate shouldn't run because she belongs in the kitchen feeding her children is appalling and insulting. And yet, it was acceptable coming from Democrats. If men can serve in office and have children, then so can women. Palin's children did not in any way constitute a legitimate reason for why she would not be suited for the job.

Yet, when we mention Dayton's recent issues with alcoholism and relapses, we're derided for our "shameful" character attack. This is a criticism of Mark Dayton, rather than his ideas, yes, but isn't this an arguably more valid criticism than drinking and driving twenty years ago, in terms of having a relevant impact on performance?

It is important that Republicans maintain campaigns based in integrity, but it is also important that we understand that omitting certain things from the public that are clearly relevant is quite the opposite of integrity. People deserved to know about Obama's affiliations. Granted, Obama came in sort of as a ghost candidate, present but without anything solid to characterize him, let alone criticize, but had we known even a little more about the man, perhaps voters would have sensed the warning and cast their vote in favor of a more suited candidate. If you're thinking that such information is the media's responsibility to present, as the nation's self-called watchdog, then you're right. The media workforce failed the American people last election to say the least. They were so busy presenting Obama as some sort pop culture icon to boost their ratings, that they forgot completely that the purpose of having our media is for it to serve the public. Just as their star candidate forgot that the purpose of having a government is also to serve the public.

But be that as it may, representing the actual beliefs and ideals of the citizenry requires that we better support our reasons for presenting this candidate instead of simply agreeing with the other party's choice. And that involves not only what our candidate has to offer, but why we feel the other candidate will be unfit to represent or hold office.

Mitch Berg outlined several points about Dayton that the media neglected to mention during the endorsement process and election, among which were of course the alcoholism and relapses, along with "quitting his job as economic development commissioner under Rudy Perpich, the closure of his DC Senate offices in 2005, his record as a New York 'Teacher'-it was up to Sheila Kihne to find out that 'the toughest job of his life' lasted sixteen months of working about 1/3 of the time until his draft status let up." He also listed Dayton's educational record, commenting, "the University of Massachusetts at Amherst won't say if he got his teaching certificate (or, indeed, whether he completed any coursework at all), which'd be an odd bit of history for someone who opposes alternative teacher licensing."

Erin Haust, writing for the Minneapolis Conservative Examiner wrote:

Dayton's history of ties to socialist, progressive groups is far from secret. Dayton spokeswoman and Executive Director for Alliance for a Better Minnesota, Denise Cardinal, was a featured speaker alongside self-avowed communist and community organizer Van Jones at the America's Future Now! conference last summer. They and other speakers demanded redistribution of wealth in the United States and discussed radical, revolutionary tactics to accomplish that end. Neither the state party nor the Emmer campaign made the connection between radicals like Cardinal and Van Jones and the Dayton campaign.

She mentioned as well that Alliance for a Better Minnesota led a smear campaign against Target. Bill O'Reilly luckily exposed them for this "hypocritical and shameful tactic used by ABM to disillusion Minnesota voters." Haust pointed out that once again, "the state party and Emmer campaign was silent."

She continued:

Dayton's campaign received millions of dollars from groups and individuals linked to socialists, progressives and communists. George Soros funded organizations like Democracy Alliance contributed heavily to his campaign. Soros himself is scheduled to co-host a fundraiser for Dayton in the coming week.

The Republican Party of Minnesota and the Emmer campaign failed to take advantage of the national media attention Dayton's friends and allies were receiving during the campaign and throughout the recount. The opposition research was non-existent. The state party and the Emmer campaign failed miserably to expose Dayton's past and present relationships, even when national media outlets were on the cusp of breaking the stories wide open.

Though Tom Emmer ran a campaign focused on the facts and issues of the race which were of course to his advantage, the Emmer campaign and state party did appear to forget that smear still is effective. That false ad that played over and over again with the mom talking about how Emmer voted to lessen punishments for drunk drivers received no response from the campaign, which was basically the same as confirming it. The Republican Party desperately needs to touch up on some of the basics of public relations, because the opposition is using it with such proficiency that they can bring in candidates like Mark Dayton and win elections.

We should continue to run the more professional and respectful campaigns, by focusing on the issues and facts and only mentioning those personal and character attributes that directly affect how well a candidate can perform a job. We shouldn't simply rule out all personal criticisms, though, because those affiliations and personal issues will surface while Dayton is in office, just as we saw the manifestations of the concerning beliefs and affiliations of Obama's surface in his radical reign. I would have hoped that history would have taught us just how dangerous it is to choose representatives based on intentions rather than their ability to carry through those intentions, the means they are willing to justify in getting there, and whether or not public opinion or reaction holds any weight with them in terms of evaluating their grand plans.

Apparently, it hasn't yet. But I still hold out hope that this is not due to the carelessness or selfishness of the voter in most cases, so much as the general ignorance, fostered by a negligent and agenda-driven media, which had allowed for campaigns like these to turn out the way they do. If we truly care about our fellow citizens, we will ensure that next time around, our campaign presents all of the facts, including why voters should not vote for our opposition, and about which attacks on our candidate are or aren't true. Despite how it sounds, it won't be simple. But it will certainly be necessary if we don't wish to repeat these same mistakes a third time.

Cross-posted at True North and Ladies Logic.