Senator for Sale

On the official twitter account of Ted Cruz, Senator Cruz posted the following about net neutrality.

"'Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."

This appears to be a nearly lethal amount of ignorance. Obamacare a terrible analogy for net neutrality, as they are nothing alike. In a nutshell, net neutrality is the idea that internet providers can't discriminate based on content (meaning data heavy users like netflix can't be artificially slowed down by telecommunications companies because they use so much data).

In order to be able to slow down the internet for monetary gain (one instance is where Netflix paid Comcast to return the speeds to normal), it would make sense for such companies to buy influence in washington.

In fact, they have. Senator Cruz owes some of his campaign war chest to Comcast. That explains a lot. He's not stupid, he has just been corrupted. Comforting.

By the way, for those of you living in Utah's 3rd district, Comcast has also donated over $12,000 to Jason Chaffetz.

http://fortune.com/2014/11/10/ted-cruz-is-confused-on-net-neutrality/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fortunebrainstormtech+%28Fortune+Brainstorm+Tech%29

http://consumerist.com/2014/03/11/comcast-goes-on-capitol-hill-spending-spree-in-advance-of-merger-hearings/

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00028958&cycle=2014

Back in Iraq?

I thought we withdrew from Iraq, but the United States is now sending 1,500 troops back.

I understand these are noncombatant troops, but this could very easily be a smaller step toward larger action. Vietnam started with advisors.

Is sending more military the right choice for the situation?

And what exactly does a promise of "no boots on the ground" mean? Does that mean no troops? No combat troops? Should that president break that commitment?

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29961084

 To Pledge or not to Pledge? That is the question...

This topic is close to my heart. An 11-year old in California refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance. His teacher questioned him and the district will apologize.

While some states require the pledge to receive class time, I don't think there is a single law that does or even can require students to say it.

I am as patriotic as the next guy, but I have many problems with the pledge. It seems so bizarre that we teach kids to say it in school before they know what half the words mean. Utah state law requires that the class takes time to say it each day. An Australian substitute I had made an interesting comment: the only other country she had ever seen where the kids swear allegiance is China. Ouch.

Secondly, why is it that a country with no established religion has the words "Under God" in a supposedly secular setting. I'll tell you why, and it has nothing to do with religion. During the height of the Cold War, we wanted to show that we weren't those Godless commies in the Soviet Union. So In 1954, a Republican Dominated 83rd session of congress added a joint resolution to add the phrase to our pledge.

My two questions for today:

1) Do references to God in our pledge, currency, national motto (In God we Trust), infringe upon the rights of Atheists, and should we have these references in our country?

2) Is having a national pledge indoctrination? Should we have one at all?


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/25/calif-district-to-apologize-to-11-year-old-who-didnt-stand-for-pledge/

Attack on Canadian Parliament

A radical Muslim convert attacked the Canadian parliament on Wednesday.  Thankfully this was stopped and Parliament was able to return to work. This raises two questions,

1) Why did he attack?

2) What will Canada do about it?

As for the first question, my opinion is that he was upset that Canada agreed to join air strikes on the Islamic state. He could be mad that they are attacking people he identifies with.

Should we be bombing ISIS at all? That's another can of worms and a discussion for another day, but I will say this: when we have the capability to bomb other people without using ground soldiers, it makes it far easier to overuse deadly force.

As for the second question, the Prime Minister has already vowed to strengthen laws against terrorism. Should we be expecting a Patriot act style piece of legislation form the Canadian Parliament?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29743711

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-headlines-canadian-prime-minister-to-strengthen-terrorism-laws-in-wake-of-parliament-shooting-20141023-premiumvideo.html

Gay Marriage Appeal Refused to be Heard by Supreme Court. Lower Court Rulings Stand. Gay Marriage Legal in Oklahoma, Indiana, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Utah.

The title of this post says it all, even if it's a bit long winded. By refusing to take the case of these states, gay marriage is legal in these states, as per the ruling of the lower courts.

I imagine it's not very long before it is legal in all states, whether by legislation or judicial ruling.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/politics/scotus-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Democracy and Protest in Hong Kong

Hong Kong has an interesting relationship with China. While technically part of China, Hong Kong is a capitalist powerhouse. The official term used for this phenomenon is "One country, two systems."

Hong Kong is due to have elections for its own chief executive. China acknowledges that this is part of their agreement, but with a caveat, candidates who can run must be approved by Beijing.

Understandably, this creates resentment, as Hong Kong's cultural identity is very different than China's and it is unlikely a candidate approved by Beijing would represent Hong Kong well.

Protests ensue. Despite a government deadline for the pro-democracy protestors to leave, many remain. This is a story we will want to keep tabs on for further development.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29494885

Scotland Votes No

In a 55% to 45% vote, Scotland has rejected independence in its referendum.

My major question is this: what separates the UK and the US? Why is it that the UK can allow a vote to happen that would allow part of its territory to leave? Can or should the US do the same?

It's interesting to note that in 1775, had a vote been taken in the American colonies, the majority of people probably would have voted to stay part of Britain. It was a vocal minority that won out independence.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29270441

Where is the Money Coming From?

As you may or may not be aware, Scotland will soon be having an independence referendum. Scots will be asked if they should become their own country, and current polls have each side neck and neck. It's a close race.

Most Scots who favor independence see themselves in a currency union with the UK, although it has been made clear that this is not feasible. Will Scotland have to make a new currency for themselves? Or will they join the EU and use the Euro? Either way, this does raise some interesting questions. How sovereign can a nation be without controlling their own currency? Would the UK have power over Scotland if the Scots continued to use the pound, thus effectively defeating the goal of independence?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29133217

Are We Being Represented?

On May 31st of this year, President Obama exchanged five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay for US army soldier Bowe Bergdahl. Journalists are claiming this transfer was illegal as it violated federal law.

You may be surprised to find that the laws broken were not about the actual swap, but in how it was conducted. It would have been legal to do a prisoner exchange, had the president notified congress 30 days in advance, which he did not.

Members of congress are to be notified for a reason. As our representatives in government, they need to be informed of these things so that they can make decisions  on our behalf, perhaps even block the prisoner exchange, should it be appropriate.

I have two questions. 1) How do we hold our president accountable for breaking the law and acting without authority (especially since it seems congress is unwilling to impeach, not that I am calling for that). 2) How effectively can our congress represent us when they are not informed about what is going on?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28887282

As Always
Humble Admin

Testing...123

This is a test blog. Should it be successful, expect rich political commentary to emerge from this blog. Also, expect the secrets of enlightenment for only 4 easy payments of $19.95.

Yours Truly
Admin
Jacob Finnell