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.

Obama's Pay Freeze Proposal: Placating The Public And Perpetuating The Problem

The President’s recent call to freeze worker pay will hurt us precisely because it is meant to appear to be a step in the right direction. As the media broadcasts this symbolic political gesture, many will be inclined to think that something is actually being done about the grave issue of overspending on public center employees and representatives, and that means that we now may or may not see an actual improvement. For proponents of fiscal responsibility, this attempt to placate the public in order to sweep the issue under the rug poses yet another dimension to a persisting problem.

Let’s start with the details of this crafty political ploy. Obama announced the two-year pay freeze today, which will apply to civilian employees, but not to postal workers, government contractors, federal court judges and workers, or the members and staff of Congress. If approved, the freeze would take effect on the 1st of January as part of the 2012 budget proposals, according to the writers of the Washington Post blog, the Federal Eye.

While the Obama is labeling this act as a broad sacrifice in a bipartisan effort to increase fiscal responsibility in government, this doesn’t actually appear to be very broad. According to the writers of the Washington Post blog, the Federal Eye, the two-year pay freeze announced today, which, if approved, would take effect on January 1st as part of the 2012 budget proposals, will apply to civilian employees, but not to postal workers, government contractors, federal court judges and workers, or Congressional members and staff.

It also isn’t much of a sacrifice. Julie Pace of the Associated Press reported that, “The savings from the pay freeze make only a small dent in the nation's $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. But with voters voicing their anger over Washington's spending during the midterm elections, even a symbolic gesture would show the White House got the message.”

In addition, the freeze will not affect bonuses or promotions for federal employees to higher levels of pay. It will simply limit one method of increased payments, annual raises. Indeed, earlier today, Ed Morrissey posted on True North and Hot Air that “Gabriel Malor received an official explanation given to federal employees today, which assured them that the freeze ‘will not impact step increases or bonuses for federal workers.’ It applies to cost-of-living increases, mainly. If an agency wants to give a worker an increase, they just need to increase their pay grade or boost their bonuses to make it happen.”

And as far as bipartisanship goes, the main agreement we can see between the parties appears to rest in the shared opposition of Mr. Obama’s proposal. According to the Federal Eye (link), President of the American Federation of Government Employees John Gage criticized the announcement as being “a superficial, panicked reaction to the deficit commission report,” while also suggesting that certain government personnel including nurses and border patrol agents are being targeted for Democratic election losses. He said that this pay freeze “amounts to nothing more than political public relations.”
Two aspects of this proposal were acknowledged by the Heritage Foundation (http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/29/after-the-freeze-real-reforms-toward-fair-federal-pay/) as being a step in the right direction: the fact that federal workers are paid more than private sector counterparts, even when considering skills and education, and that our federal deficits are driven by issues in spending. Senior Labor Analyst James Sherk (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Inflated-Federal-Pay-How-Americans-Are-Overtaxed-to-Overpay-the-Civil-Service) acknowledged that not all government employees are overpaid and that determining comparative salaries requires accounting for differences in skill levels as well. However, what he found was that, even when adjusting for skill levels, salaries and benefits are “30 to 40% higher in the federal government than in the private sector.” He also explained that federal employees can rarely be fired, regardless of performance, unlike private sector workers.

His detailed analysis shows that:
• The federal pay system gives the average federal employee hourly cash earnings 22 percent above the average private worker’s, controlling for observable skills and characteristics.
• Including non-cash benefits adds to this disparity. The average private-sector employer pays $9,882 per employee in annual benefits, while the federal government pays an average of $32,115 per employee.
• Overall, controlling for other factors, federal employees earn approximately 30 percent to 40 percent more in total compensation (wages and benefits) than comparable private-sector workers.
• Federal employees enjoy job security irrespective of the state of the economy. Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000—12 percent. The unemployment rate for federal employees has only slightly risen from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent between 2007 and 2009.
• Federal employees demonstrate with their actions that they receive better compensation in the public sector than in the private sector: They quit their jobs at one-third the rate of the private employees.
• Bringing federal compensation in line with private-sector compensation would save taxpayers approximately $47 billion in 2011.

Sherk concluded that, “Congress should not overtax all Americans to overpay the privileged workers in the federal civil service. Aligning federal compensation with market rates would save taxpayers between $40 billion and $50 billion a year. Congress should immediately act to bring equity to federal pay. Congress should abolish the General Schedule and implement performance-based pay, require federal agencies to compete with the private sector, and bring the benefits to market levels.”

Aside from implementing performance-based pay, hiring more private contractors to get task and services accomplished at a more competitive rate while also stimulating the economy, and reducing federal benefits, Sherk also proposed that dismissal restrictions be lifted in order to keep government employees more accountable to their job performance.

This is fairly consistent with the reported statement (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/29/reaction-president-obamas-federal-pay-freeze-plan) issued by Republican Speaker-designate John Boehner:
"I welcome President Obama's announcement, and hope he will build on it by embracing much-needed steps to reduce both the size and the cost of government, including the net federal hiring freeze Republicans propose in our Pledge to America. Without a hiring freeze, a pay freeze won't do much to rein in a federal bureaucracy that added hundreds of thousands of employees to its payroll over the last two years while the private sector shed millions of jobs.
"Today's action is a clear indication that the Pledge to America, which lays out concrete steps to cut spending and reduce the size of government, is the right plan to address the people's priorities. Republicans and Democrats don't have to wait until January to cut spending and stop all the tax hikes. We can - and should - start right now."

Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) of the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform stated that:
"At a time when our nation's seniors have been denied a cost-of-living-increase and private sector hiring is stagnant, it is both necessary and quite frankly, long over-due to institute a pay-freeze for the federal workforce. As Republicans outlined in our Pledge to America there are a number of actions the President and Congress should immediately act on to demonstrate a real commitment to reigning in the excessive growth and spending of the federal government.
"To put this in perspective, the Obama Administration says this two-year pay freeze will save $2 billion, however, just last week, OMB released a report revealing that the federal government's improper payments for FY-2010 totaled $125 billion, $15 billion higher than the previous year. It is unthinkable that we have come to accept having a bureaucracy that has institutionalized waste, fraud and abuse to the point where $125 billion in improper payments were made last year. The first place we should look to make progress on higher costs, increased debt and a stagnant economy is look inward at how taxpayer dollars are being spent and doing more to ensure that tens of billions of dollars are no longer erroneously paid out."

Clearly the President’s proposal leaves much to be desired in actually solving issues in government spending and growth which are causing this deficit, as the problems lie not only in the increasing expenditures in the specific area of annual raises for certain employees, but in the general overspending and misuses of taxpayer’s money across various levels of this ever-growing bureaucracy. Caution should be taken therefore, in crediting this as a “step in the right direction.” While this proposal appears to be incapable of producing significant improvements, its tag line may yet convince many that it is indeed providing some relief to the fiscal irresponsibility we have been seeing, and therefore weaken the efforts to bring about true remedies to these economic concerns.

Cross-posted at True North and Ladies Logic.

What We, As Americans, Can Be Thankful For

Even this Thanksgiving, we have a lot to be thankful for. We can be thankful for the principles and liberties that have made this nation a beacon of hope for the oppressed, the hardworking, the outspoken, the go-getters, and the free thinkers. In honor of today, I started jotting down some (but of course nowhere near all) of the things for which we Americans can be thankful. Here’s that list in no particular order.

We can be thankful that, as seen in the last election, Americans can see through catchy rhetoric and pop culture charisma, and eventually sober up and recognize tyranny once it reaches a certain point. And that those Americans will yield one of the most basic protections we have to remove those from power who are abusing it-the American vote. We can be thankful that each and every one of us, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, ideology, religion, opinion or preferences, can cast an equal vote and participate in our own government. Too often, we forget how truly remarkable that right is.

We can be thankful because members of our military are still out there fighting for our liberties. Despite those who live off of the freedoms, opportunities and success of America while burning its flag and spitting on the principles that have protected their right to live and think as they do, countless brave and selfless men and women have found their own reasons to appreciate what America stands for, and have risked their lives to defend that.

Along those lines, we can be thankful that members of our military have succeeded in protecting us, because it means that we are still answering only to American laws, and therefore answering to no one but ourselves.

We can be thankful that even under heavy taxes and discrimination against higher economic status, some Americans still choose to invest their lives into their business to produce innovative products and services, provide countless jobs, and stimulate the economy. Even when such hard work will bring on a hoard of people demanding their “share” of another individual’s earnings and when success means the objectification of real, working American citizens into a “company” or “big business” in order for society to justify bleeding these citizens’ resources out for societal uses, even then, some Americans will still take advantage of all of the opportunities we have, overcome all of the social and political obstacles, and achieve the American dream.

We can be thankful that we can raise our children to think critically and for themselves, in order to recognize the biases in the media and the classroom. We can still bring up our kids with the religion, principles and ethnic culture we see fit, and still be able to be Americans, united by our appreciation of liberty and intolerance for tyranny.

We can be thankful that the Supreme Laws of this country were written to protect our rights to live, worship, speak, assemble, petition and work as we see fit, in accordance with the lives we want to lead. We are lucky enough to be living in a nation where the framework has already been set for us to embrace our individual freedoms and varying paths in life without the threat of some authority imposing itself on us to force us to live a certain way-whether it be eating certain foods, buying certain products, or supporting certain administrations. Our Constitutional principles already protect us from these things. All we have to do is check our leaders and administrations to ensure that they follow the guidelines they swore to protect.

We can be thankful that if we prioritize our insurance, encourage more competition, and are smart consumers, we will be able to access the highest quality health care available today. Leaders from across the world have flown here for their care, but we have it right at our fingertips.

We have so much to be thankful for. As we eat our thanksgiving feasts surrounded by close family and friends in a warm house, we can be thankful for everything that has brought us here to this point of well-being, abundance and happiness. And tomorrow morning at the doorbusters, we can be thankful for the survival of capitalism and the fact that even in this recession, new technologies, exciting entertainment and quality gifts for those we love are available and affordable to those willing to invest money in them.

Increasing The FDA's Regulatory Power: Should Local Farmers Be Worried?

To the horror of libertarians, constitutionalists and small farmers, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Bill reached the Senate floor yesterday, with the potential to reach the President’s desk by the end of the year. First introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) as “a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply," became the “FDA Food Safety Modernization Bill” on a vote of 72-25. The food safety bill aims to increase the federal regulatory power over food production and distribution in hopes of preventing food contamination and outbreaks.

In the words of Bill Tomsom, reporting for the Dow Jones Newswires, the bill "would give the FDA the power to mandate food recals, keep better track of fruit and vegetable shipments so that contaminated commodities can be found more quickly, and a set of new standards for food manufacturers." But many worry that this government expansion could have severe effects on small farmers, family restaurants, and even our local farmer’s market. “Health Ranger” Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com wrote:

Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called “the most dangerous bill in the history of the Unites States of America.” It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public’s right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer’s markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don’t comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government.

On a more moderate note, Thomas Eddlem writing for New America reported:

The bill would increase funding to the Food and Drug Administration and give it greater regulatory power over foods and medicines. It would require all food producers to register with the FDA and pay new taxes (which the bill calls “fees”) that recoup all the inspection costs for the new army of regulators the bill would create. The impact of S. 510 upon small producers and farms is unclear at best.

If FDA regulators determine a “reasonable probability” exists that the food “will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals,” then S. 150 also gives the FDA authority to shut down the business or farm.

Again, another huge problem that can be seen lies not in the intentions (preventing food-borne illnesses is a worthy cause), but in the dangerously vague wording within the bill, which would grant significant increases in federal power, without establishing clear limits or checks on that new power. “Reasonable probability” can be interpreted in so many different ways, that it will be almost impossible to maintain just standards of consistency and predictability when applying this law.

In regard to the financial burdens that smaller operations will be facing, Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) proposed an amendment that would exempt family farms and small restaurants from FDA regulations. Unfortunately, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has said that he already has the votes necessary to pass the bill without that amendment.

In anticipation of the impending vote on this bill, the John Birch Society, along with countless other libertarian, limited-government, and constitutionalist groups, encouraged citizens to write to their senators. In a sample letter they provided, they wrote:

The Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 150, represents a massive expansion of government regulation of the food industry, even though there is no authorization in the Constitution for this. My right to produce, distribute, and consume the foods of my choice is part of my right to life and liberty under the Constitution. I reject the imposition of an extensive and all-controlling regulatory food bureaucracy.

Food safety is best achieved at the local level; small farmers and local food processors are part of the solution to the food supply, yet S. 150 would grant more power to an opaque and unaccountable agency, hyper-regulating small producers out of business, leaving the industrial food system with the highest ranking of problems of disease and illnesses, to commandeer the marketplace.

This “Food and Safety Bill” poses a threat to local markets and economies, not only due to the regulations which could cripple our local farmers and organic growers, but through inevitable price increases as producers are forced to comply with vague and burdening federal mandates. And, as if that weren’t enough, the bill also includes a foreign aid program designed to assist foreign importers in competing with U.S. farmers.

The producers selling at our Farmer’s Market, or growing vegetables for their family business weren’t the ones responsible for the massive outbreaks we’ve seen, including the salmonella outbreak. And yet, it won’t be corporate producers who will be at risk of going out of business. While regulations may or may not be a step in the right direction at a corporate level, imposing further burdens on local markets, which are already struggling in this recession, by indirectly causing price increases and job losses is not a solution.

Yet opponents of this bill are upset by more than just the impacts on local economies. This bill, as another in what has been a ridiculously expensive series of government expansions, will again follow the now hackneyed assumption that problems can only be fixed by increasing the size of the already incapable bureaucracy that has not been able to fix them. We already have twelve agencies responsible for food safety. And yet here we are spending huge sums of money once again and handing over even more power and control to these agencies that have obviously not fixed the underlying problems.

Dr. Coburn addresses the issues of underlying problems with the way the FDA is attempting to “fix these problems,” which includesd some pretty enlightening points and information.(Check out the YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz58kpAl_Y&feature=channel)

And finally, aside from the arguments about how this will hurt us economically and about how it won’t actually solve the underlying problem, we still are faced with the issue of increased government control and regulation about what we can eat, which medicines we can take, and other important, individual life and health decisions. Until the end of this lame duck session, we can only hope that our letters and our clearly voiced and written opposition will actually be considered when our representatives in the Senate vote on this bill.

Our current government may tell us that we need them to decide these things for us because it’s for our own good or our own safety, but Thomas Jefferson warned us back in 1778 that “If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”


Cross-posted at True North and Ladies Logic.

A Risky and Premature Lift on University Drinking Bans

The Intrafraternity Council at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus has decided after a mere six weeks to lift the drinking ban with the assumption that their high rates of sexual assault are due to letting in too many “non-greeks,” and that if they can maintain a 1 to 1 ratio between Greeks and non-greeks, it will once again be safe to continue their binge-drinking, grinding-in-a-dirty-basement tributes to stereotypical college night life.

With increasing pressure from bored and thirsty fraternity houses, the focus appears to have fallen on preserving the reputation of the Greek community. While the IFC’s cooperation with the Office of Student Affairs to create the peer-monitoring group “Arkeo” to ensure that new policies are followed may provide some level of accountability in these parties, it falls short of actually solving the problem. The issue of sexual assault on our campus runs far deeper than just the recent and terrifying cases which survivors were brave enough to report. Until members of campus communities are willing to recognize the true causes of sexual assault and to accept what that means in terms of core prevention, fraternities will continue to be unsafe for guests and Greeks alike.

Even if we can assume that these Arkeo monitors will be willing to crack down on and report their peers in a manner that will actually protect victims or potential victims of sexual assault, the “solution” that has been proposed by the IFC is based on a series of common myths about sexual assault, and for reasons I will now discuss, will be more likely to silence current and future victims of sexual assault than to prevent the actual incidents of sexual assault and rape on campus.

The University’s campus newspaper, the Minnesota Daily, reported that IFC President Martin Chorzempa “said this was put in place to ensure things remain under control and that the people who have been part of these new solutions will be able to participate, instead of non-greeks, who may view this as a free-for-all.”

Rather than taking responsibility for their part in these sexual assaults, too many members of the Greek community have taken the easy route in assuming that, because the sexual assaults that happened earlier this semester were committed by young men who were not members of the fraternity, sexual assault in general has been something perpetrated by non-greeks sneaking into otherwise-safe greek parties. It sounds ridiculous when worded bluntly doesn’t it?

Yes, the men who committed these rapes earlier in the semester were non-greeks, but, according to the Department of Justice, these stranger-rapes constitute only 10% of rape crimes. Though the first thing that comes to mind for us when we think of rape tends to be this idea of a man in a dark alley, or a man who shows up in a bathroom in this case, in reality, 90% of rapes are committed by acquaintances. This means that a large majority of the rapes which will occur in these communities are actually between acquaintances, often using alcohol as a tool in committing the crime. The act alone of imiting the number of strangers who can attend a party won’t protect sorority women and guests from the incidence of sexual assault.

In addition, it was found that 50% of all sexual assaults were committed by men who were drinking at the time, according to the study “Alcohol and Sexual Assault,” by Abbey et.al. Depending on the samples taken and measures used, estimates for the percentage of perpetrators who raped under the influence of alcohol ranged between about 34 and 75%. According to a study done by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, alcohol is implicated in more incidents of sexual violence than any other drug. So, even though statistically speaking, the presence of strangers is far less risky than the presence of alcohol, the fraternities’ “solution” conveniently chose to ignore the detrimental effects of the latter.

But I don’t mean to give alcohol too much credit here. After all, a beer doesn’t commit sexual assault-the guy drinking it does. (I say guy because, while 14% of sexual assault victims are male, regardless of victim gender, an overwhelming 96% of offenders are male.) Rather than asking how fraternities can satisfy the community enough to be able to keep drinking and partying, or how fraternities can keep out people who could potentially fall within that narrow category of rapists, we should be focusing on what it is about the mindsets and cultural norms that characterize college life which allow for 1 in 5 women to become the victim of rape or attempted rape while in college, according to the National Institute of Justice.

Too often, men are using alcohol at these parties to make women “less resistant.” They utilize alcohol and intoxication as a tool and even sometimes as an excuse for committing these assaults, because among our generation, there’s this widespread and completely false belief that “not taking no for answer” or pressuring someone to have sex aren’t actually considered sexual assault in certain cases, simply because “they were drunk.” People conveniently ignore the fact that consent, by legal and university standards, must be freely given, and is not considered legitimate if extracted through the use of coercion, threats or intoxication.

With all of the issues in our society that combine to create this unsafe atmosphere-the media’s sexual objectification of women, sexual violence in our music, regular derogatory comment towards women, men’s perceptions when drinking at a party that they are going to “get sex” tonight, and our knee-jerk response of blaming the victims of sexual assault for bringing these crimes onto themselves by how they dress or act or where they went-fraternities are only focusing on one tiny little piece, while ignoring some of the far larger contributing factors.
We don’t need to keep non-greeks out of fraternity houses and, if you ask me, we are certainly not ready to have frat row getting drunk again. What we need to see is change in the way campus communities view sex and intimacy. We need to implement educational and awareness programs that will draw attention to these influences in society and to the initial signs of sexual violence. Rather than trying to prevent sexual assault on the level of rapists who are willing to sneak into bathrooms and commit violent crimes against strangers, let’s address this issue even earlier. Prevention could start at that first comment, when a guy says something stupid to his friends like, “just buy her a few drinks. That’ll loosen her up.” Or perhaps addressing core causes like the messages in our culture that pressure young boys to fit into the super-masculine, violent stereotype that perverts the idea of healthy intimacy into a one-sided conquest for sex.

Luckily, there are initiatives on campus that are working to make this happen, including a potential interventions being designed by students volunteering on campus as violence prevention educators and as members of the Men Against Gender Violence group. The fraternities will be back to drinking and partying as usual soon, but the shocking amount of sexual assaults that we have been seeing have provided a rather loud wake-up call to many on campus. Hopefully as these new campaigns and initiatives are designed and implemented, we will be able to see some changes not just in the list of attendees at parties, but in the perspectives of these young men and in the treatment of women on campus.

For now, though, the changes the IFC has decided on have the potential to do more harm than good. With Greeks so desperate to prove that they aren’t the ones to blame for the assaults that we’ve seen, and some even complaining about people who, in making a “big deal” out of these incidents ruined it for the rest of them, the atmosphere at these parties will be all the more dangerous for young women. My greatest worry is that the pressure won’t be on men to treat women with more respect and hold themselves accountable, but on women to refrain from “complaining,” or reporting anything that will make the greek community look bad. As if there weren’t already huge barriers for victims of sexual assault to overcome in their process of healing, including the difficulty in reporting or talking about something that happened when others in the group know the person who assaulted you and may or may not believe you and may or may not turn the blame on you, now these women will have to deal with the possibility of their peers getting upset with them for reporting a crime because of how it will make the greek community look.

So sure, there will be an even ratio, but that will also mean that the greek community will not be able to pass the blame to non-greeks if a sexual assault is committed. And because the factors leading up to sexual assault weren’t prevented, this “solution,” won’t actually be preventing sexual assaults from occurring; it will simply prevent victims from reporting them. Some students may be excited to hear that the ban had been removed, but this isn’t good news. I just hope that the interventions that students, including myself, are planning, will be successful and reach these students before someone else gets hurt. For now, I guess we can only hope that women attacked at these parties will have the courage to at least seek help for themselves by calling 24-hour campus help-lines or taking advantage of the resources and advocates there to support them in their healing process. And hopefully some of these survivors of sexual violence, coercion and violations will also have the courage to report these crimes, in spite all of these new pressures on them to stay silent, just so that others can selfishly protect their rights to partake in their heavy (and often underage) drinking.

Cross posted on Ladies Logic and True North.