Here Comes "Net Neutrality"...and my comment

Because we have socialists and communists running the Presidency and the Senate, the attempt to shut down the FCCs rules for so-called net neutrality failed and the 30-day comment period on the burden the new rules might place on ISPs (conforming to the Paperwork Reducation Act, or PRA) has begun. So, I set about to register my extreme dissatisfaction. I can only pray that legal experts will mount an all-out attack in the courts once the rules become law 60 days later. Below was the email I submitted to the Office of Management & Budget:

Regarding: OMB Control Number:3060-XXXX; Title:Disclosure of Network Management Practices, Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices, Report and Order, GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.

I want to lodge my complaint against the FCC and its ill-informed, socialistic and misguided effort to stifle business in the form of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) via the “Disclosure of Network Management Practices” rules submitted for implementation. I am a consumer. I am a consumer who primarily uses wired internet services for personal use but I do have a business-class service because part of the time I do use it for business purposes. I also use wireless internet services through AT&T. My complaint is that the rules you are proposing to put into place provide NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER and, at the same time, INFLICT ADDITIONAL AND UNEQUAL BURDEN upon businesses that provide internet services. As a taxpayer, as a consumer, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE and I demand you rescind your proposal. Once again, you are exhibiting an example of gross and negligent misuse of the “commerce clause” of our Constitution.

Contrary to the clearly liberal-leaning attitudes the FCC and our federal government demonstrates, internet service is NOT a public right. It is a commodity. PERIOD, end of that line of discussion. It does not matter how much you think our economy, our society “depend upon” it. It is still a service provided at a cost by companies that must make profit to continue to be an ongoing concern. You are interfering with that right of businesses to conduct their affairs, and you are doing so unfairly with no real justification for your actions. I remain convinced that you are NOT acting in the best interests of the consumer but, rather, are acting in the best interests of certain, well-paying lobbyists. Market forces are the best determinant of whether a business—of any type—is providing value to the customer. If you wish to create a “public utility” version of the internet, then I suggest you try to get taxes or bonds passed to create a separate internet that operates that way. Ultimately, every single premise you are basing the so-called “net neutrality” rules and philosophy on are false, and are firmly rootedin a socialist/communist mindset. This, too, is unacceptable.

We already have many rules in place—burdensome enough to business operations—that provide for a fair degree of transparency. Aside from that, consumers don’t take long to determine if an ISP (or any business, for that matter) is providing the service they expected for the price they paid. As a result, consumer choice and Voice Of the Customer (VOC) is spread and said business lives or dies by what customer perceptions are. You are creating a burden through the reporting rules and related that achieve no value to ME, and force ISPs to incur even more expense just to operate and satisfy your ignorant and misplaced sense of service to the public. As for prohibiting blocking, again, you create an unequal and unfair difference, between fixed-line ISPs and wireless carriers. Even if I agreed with the premise of no-blocking, your implementation is unethical and unacceptable. As it is, you insist on treating the internet and, more specifically, ISPs as if they are a right. They are NOT. Each company must manage its resources as it best sees fit. If they have certain limitations, implemented as a network management philosophy, in order to continue to provide service to the most profitable consumer base while still provided a level of service the consumer is satisfied with, then you do not have the right to interfere. Finally, regarding the idea of unreasonable discrimination, I refer you to market forces being the preferred method again. I was just as disgusted when satellite service companies were forced to carry so-called “local television stations”. This was unethical. Value is NOT determined by the government. It is determined by ME. I do not wish to pay for local TV stations. In fact, in my case, there ARE no local TV stations, and the stations the sat providers were forced to carry --- and me to pay for --- were for a city 150 miles away. And every last one of those stations were stations you could not PAY ME to carry, yet I’m forced to pay for them. So, if and ISP determines that it’s reasonable to discriminate against certain applications, etc., and the consumer disagrees, then it won’t be long before consumer choose to spend their money elsewhere. When an ISP has to make network access and bandwidth decisions in order to maintain a certain level of service, discrimination is a matter of course. Until someone comes up with a new paradigm in communications, we will always run into some degree of limitations within which companies must engage management philosophies that balance their ability to provide the service, make a profit, and keep consumers happy. It is NOT your place to interfere.

With all that said, these rules add insult to injury by placing unnecessary addition burden and cost upon ISPs and, therefore, transfer it to me, the consumer. This is unacceptable. I demand you rescind these rules. I am the Voice Of the Customer.

I guess let's see what happens. If nothing else, I am exercising my duty as a citizen to stop the oppression of an ever-overbearing federal government. So, what have YOU done lately?

Casey Anthony: The Good Mother?

Sean Hannity is an idiot. There, I said it. He can't understand why many of us are "beating up the jury". I can't believe he watched the same trial. He actually said the closing comments by the defense were masterful. I couldn't disagree more vehemently. What angers and frustrates me is that he and all those who think the jury got it right just don't get the concept of circumstantial evidence. When you can't produce witnesses, when you have a body so horribly decomposed and otherwise destroyed by the environment it was disposed of in, you must resort to building a circumstantial case. There are levels of certainty that simply cannot be reached with circumstantial evidence compared to a case with eyewitnesses and typical physical evidence.

Sean---and the rest of you---it's not enough to feel that Casey's behavior was "deplorable". That doesn't serve justice. Juror number 3 claimed that they couldn't prove that Cayley was even murdered. As I said, when you don't have enough physical evidence all you have left is evidence that weighs heavily on the circumstance. The probability that the circumstances could point to anything other than a murder is so miniscule that I'm convinced that the jurors were all mentally deficient. Or morally bankrupt.

Sean Hannity lamely argued that some new types of forensics, non-peer-reviewed area of study were easily discounted. The problem with this is that every new type of evidence gets used for the first time somewhere. Sean---and the rest of you---you are a foolish, ignorant person.

What disgusts me more about this is what Casey Anthony has demonstrated is how anyone can get away with the perfect murder. It's a simple recipe. Murder the victim with any method that will not leave evidence on the bones; dispose of the body in a swamp-like area where there is plenty of heat & moisture and wildlife to decompose and consume the body down to the bones; lie with sufficient believability to allow several months to pass.

Finally, the most horrible aspect is that Casey is going completely free and will profit considerably from this. Why? Because she's a sociopath and because there are so many people and businesses who will be morally bereft enough to offer her money. As for me, I will attack and boycott anyone who does offer her money for anything. I am disgusted with every one of those jurors, and I'm disgusted with Baez and the entire defense team.

But what about the continued contention that Casey was a good mother? Clearly she is evil and has not a shred of morality. Anyone like that can pretend for the cameras...and they frequently do. Casey clearly craved attention, of any type. When the cameras roll she puts on the show. When she has an audience--family or not--the facade is brought out. But the bottom line for Casey is that she is shallow and selfish. And we will see more evidence of that in the coming months, mark my words. Nobody who is a good mother goes out partying all the time when they have a child. Nobody who is a good mother chooses not to contact authorities immediately if an alleged accident happens. Nobody who is a good mother goes out and parties with abandon knowing their child is dead.

I hope I never meet any of you who actually think that Casey was a loving mother. And I shudder that you might have children. I will pray for them.

Ignorance On Weath From Liberals

I was watching a Frank Luntz focus group on Fox News and the topic moved to how can we fix the debt issue. The perceptions and philosophy between liberals and conservatives couldn't have been more stark. The consistent argument liberals gave was that we had to increase revenues to the federal government in order to fix the debt issue. Oh, sure, they gave some lip service to making cuts. But I nearly went through the roof when one woman said that she didn't understand why we keep talking about cuts when we also have to increase the money coming in, and that if the top 1% are making so much why they can't give back a little more. Give back? Excuse me? Give back to whom?

Let me explain something. When we work for a business we earn the money that the business is paying us. The business draws customers in to purchase---spending money THEY earned---the product or service the business sells. So, if I happen to be the business owner, making the top 1% of all wage-earners, exactly who does this ignorant liberal think I should be giving it back to? Certainly not the people who paid for my product or service. They wouldn't have paid the price I asked if they didn't believe it was worth it. So, where do we give this money "back" to? I would have loved to have asked that woman. I am convinced that she and most liberals believe that, as President Obama actually said, there comes a time when a person has made enough money, that anything above this magical threshold should go to the government to redistribute to those making less. In other words, redistribution of wealth.

This is disgusting and unacceptable. Government it too big because it's created a culture of entitlements and dependency. I maintain that most of government, particularly federal government, has grown to unconstitutional levels. Liberals have been allowed to abuse the commerce clause of the Constitution and the concept of "general welfare", stretching them well beyond what our founders had in mind. There is no way that we are entitled to all the things that liberals insist. Federal government was designed to only have the very limited and very specific responsibilities and authority granted it in the Constituion. Everything else goes to the states or the citizens.

"Give back"? You have no right to make that demand. Period.

Anthony Weiner Should Resign

It's that simple, folks. First off, shame on every single one of you who take that stance "well, it's his private business and we shouldn't care about what he does in his personal life". Let me tell you something: he's an elected official. ALL elected officials should be held to a much higher standard. To be honest, all of US should be held to a higher standard. I'm sick of people playing to the lowest common denominator. Someone tell me exactly what there is to be proud of when we behave this way? How does this kind of disgusting behavior better us? How can anyone put the future of this nation in the hands of people who can't even manage their own lives?

HE LIED, folks. He admist now that he lied from the start. He faked being all upset. It was all a show. There was absolutely no remorse there. What you saw was someone caught completely red handed and he's sorry he got caught. Now, to be fair, I absolutley do NOT give conservatives a pass when we discover their reprehensible behavior. But here's a major difference: liberals don't find anything wrong with it! In fact, liberals routinely parade and celebrate such behavior. Where is the shame in this nation? Even IF we overlooke the adultery (which, according to scripture, is exactly what Anthony Weiner participated in), the man LIED to EVERYONE. Exactly how is this someone we want running government?

Congressman Weiner is wrong. He DID do something to warrant his resignation. Anyone who thinks he shouldn't resign needs to re-examine their standards. What are you using as your moral compass -- Jersey Shore, Desperate Housewives?

Those That Curse You....

God's Word is pretty clear on treatment of His chosen people, the Jews. Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you. In you all the peoples of the earth will be blessed." Now, our President has decided that Israel should give up a piece of the nation to terrorists. I have news for you, Mr. President. Check out the Bible and see what land God actually gave to them. It's a far cry larger space than they have now. And you dare to tell them to give up more? You are a foolish man. And ignorant. What makes this all the worse is that you, as leader of this nation, endanger our blessing AS a nation by making such an irresponsible statement. Please refrain from saying anything to or about Israel until you've have truly sought God out on the topic.

Now, in another example of blunders, "the most intelligent president" in our history decided he wanted to attack conservative criticism of his policies and actions so far. Of course, this took the form of joking about some of his challenges, like an oil spill and pirates. "You remember the pirates, right?" he laughed. "Thomas Jefferson had to deal with pirates." Why, yes, Mr. President, he did. John Adams had to deal with them first, and you might want to look up the history and context of the Treaty of Tripoli and the Barbary Coast. Perhaps you might recognize something about the pirates who terrorized our shipping for many years. What? You didn't study that in public school, you say? Oh, you'll love this, Mr. President. They were Muslim. That's right. The people who sailed those marauder ships, terrorizing our merchant ships, killing or enslaving their crews were Islamic terrorists. Oh, they were driven by greed and hatred, to be sure. But they used the excuse that they were targeting the infidels. Hence the reason for the first Treaty of Tripoli. It wasn't until we built a superior navy and kicked their little behinds that we renegotiated the treaty and put them in their place.

Okay, so now we're finding out that Obamacare---universal health care, paid for by forced participation---isn't quite so universal. We find the overwhelming majority of waivers for the mandate have been granted to liberals and liberal groups (e.g., unions, etc.). Oh, and to favorable districts like a LOT of those under Nancy Pelosi's jurisdiction. Oh, what lies we were told going into this scam. But that which is hidden in the dark will be brought into the light.

A History-making Deal? Seriously?

Like many of you, I stayed up watching the news as it followed the exploits of our elected officials and their struggel to avoid a government shutdown. The result? Something that Boehner, Reid and Obama all called historic in cuts. I would have laughed had I not been to completely disgusted. You see, we sent a whole bunch of new people to Congress to do a lot more than that. We wanted Obamacare defunded if it couldn't be repealed altogether. We wanted--for starters--$100 billion in cuts. We wanted NPR, Planned Parenthood and a number of other things defunded. What did we get? Over the course of several continuing resolutions and what is expected next week as a budget is $38 billion in cuts. Planned Parenthood will continue to receive MY tax dollars to murder more innocent babies. Obamacare will continue to move us away from freedom and force us toward socialist health care and rationing. John Boehner actually said there was "no daylight" between himself and the TEA party. Um....got a news flash for ya, there, John. You just opened up a gap big enough to let a supernova through. The Progressives will tell you "governing is the art of compromise". Oh, I suppose in some cases that might be true. But I maintain that there are plenty of instances where it is immoral to compromise. Let me refer you to a little incident involving King Solomon and two women to were arguing over a baby. Solomon offered a "compromise" on that deal, too. Had the women actually agreed to it, do you think it would have been right? Doubtful. No, this deal was not historical. It was a travesty. It was a sellout. It was unprincipled. I think we need to do some more housecleaning in 2012.

Of Unions and Lies

I am one hundred percent behind Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Let me state for the record that I also fully support the right of the teachers, etc. to protest and have their (whiny) voice heard. The fact is that Wisconsin is broke....just like most of the other states. What the state is trying to do is not eliminate collective bargain, which is the big lie that fools like the president of the AFL-CIO and the President are telling. The state is simply limited the bargaining to that of pay, not benefits, etc. Personally, I'm against unions in American. You simply cannot make the case in this country that unions are necessary. We have more than enough laws that favor labor over management. All unions do now is unnecessarily sap the life out of any business--or public sector--they exist in. If you look at most unions, the pay is often out of proportion and benefits packages are insanely out of touch with the private sector. And I say this as a federal employee, so I know what I'm talking about.

The public education system in this country is horrible. In some places teachers are way overpaid for the quality of work they do and way underpaid in others. It doesn't help that liberalism has bred a generation of parents who don't parent and wouldn't know discipline if it came at them with a paddle. But when I see that there is a choice between states firing teachers and other public employees by the droves or ask for modest reductions, I should think that teachers, above all people, would be smart enough to take the latter over the former. The downright outrage that teachers in Wisconsin are expressing gets under my craw. I can't help but say, "How DARE you?" I can say, without any reservation, that if federal cost-cutting measures resulted in a need to cut the pay of federal employees I'd be first in line to agree with having my pay cut. I could do, and would do, what's necessary to tighten my family's belt in turn.

When you see the interviews with a lot of those out there protesting they routinely are saying that they are willing to take reductions or shoulder a little higher portion of the health care benefits costs. What they get all rabid over is the limitation of collective bargaining power. This disgusts me. It disgusts me a lot. Even as a teenager I despised unions. I made it a point to never, ever submit job applications to any business that had a union (and back in those days if a union existed you had to join it if you went to work there). Even more so, I despise the TEA and most of the associated teachers' unions. And the fact that the AFL-CIO is right up front here in this Wisconsin fight shows you just how much in cahoots all the unions are. Then, of course, you have our socialist president chiming in and calling this an "assault on unions". Liar. You want to see "union busting"? Then put ME in charge of the fight. I'll SHOW you a blatant effort at union busting. Socialist.