Skip to main content

Get this: according to Mike McCurry, shill of the telco companies, the net neutrality fight is now a "leftists" versus "centrists" battle.

McCurry said the response to his new job demonstrated the "constant jihad" of 21st century politics and the ongoing struggle between the liberal and centrist wings of the Democratic Party.

"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum."

What a dishonest piece of shit McCurry has become. This is an anti-corporatist jihad, is it? Is that why we are aligned with Microsoft, Google, and eBay? And when did the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America join the "left"? What a pathetic attempt to marginalize those of us working for net neutrality.

You see, from K Street (and its environs), anyone who dare oppose the exhalted lobbyist class must be anti-corporation. The riff raff from the hinterlands (i.e. outside the Beltway) must bow to the wisdom of those writing the million dollar lobbying checks.

McCurry is now a sad, sad, pathetic man. Completely stripped of all goodwill he had built over the years. Relegated to peddling lies like this one:

With no major problems of Internet discrimination yet, the government should stay out, he said. It's a classic, centrist Democrat position straight from the Clinton era.

"We don't always have to be in favor of government regulation," he said.

As Matt Stoller has countered, time and time again, that is pure bullshit.

The internet has always had rules. One of those rules is that even if you own a pipe, you're not allowed to tell people what they can put through that pipe.  You can't block web sites, you can't say 'don't stream video', and you can't dictate what people and can't say. You do have to pay for the pipe you use; Google pays millions a month on one end, and millions of consumers pay smaller amounts ($20-$60) a month on the other. But no one can tell you what you can do with those pipes. It's very much the opposite of cable TV. There are no gatekeepers, and that's by design. This has created a highly competitive marketplace.

Through a series of regulatory decisions from 2002-2005, the FCC stripped these protections for broadband pipes. Now telecom companies can do whatever they want, and they have basically announced business models that depend on their ability to turn the internet into a more cable-like service. This new playground for them is tenous, because the FCC could at any point reverse themselves. To firm this up, the telecom companies want to legislate a change in the rules, stripping authority from the FCC to hold ISPs accountable for degrading service.

So that's what this is all about.

McCurry, lying sack of shit that he has become, continues to claim that he's fighting for the Clinton-era status quo. But that is what we demand, and what a growing bipartisan army of allies in Congress are working toward. We want the Clinton-era rules. Not McCurry. He and his allies are working to gut those regulations to allow the telcos to run roughshod over a free internet.

And now, ever more brazen in his dishonesty, he wants to make this a "left" versus "centrist" battle?

It's all just par for the course for the new, bought-and-paid-for McCurry. The millions his clients have spent on this issue are being sucked down the drain by genuine people-power (not the astroturf his company specializes in creating), so he must marginalize and lie about the opposition. SOP for the K-Street Gang.

The reality, of course, is much different. McCurry is enabling an extremist, out-of-the-mainstream effort by a few obscenely powerful telcos to hijack one of the most successful creations in human history.

He really shouldn't be talking about "centrism" in this context. He obviously will, because the modern-day Mike McCurry will lie for a buck. But he really shouldn't.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:28 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That guy is childish. (7+ / 0-)

    He sounds like a kid who just got sent to the principal who calls their teacher the "meanest teacher ever." The fact that all he can do is cry and play the victim means that they have already lost the argument. This is no different than our trolls who do the same thing -- they bully people and then cry and play the victim when they get their deserved zeros.

    •  Argue you are reading this wrong ... (9+ / 0-)

      or this is how comes across to me ...

      "Losing the argument ..." is irrelevant -- what he / their side needs to do is find the hook that will enable them to get the Rethugs to sign up to the agenda and then it is a done deal legislatively.

      'Watch out for those lefties' is a pretty powerful argument to achieve this -- IMHO -- and we should not even be tempted to dismiss for a second this argument as 'childish'.  That risks not taking it seriously.

      Re those trolls -- they can divert our attention to their whines and thus can be achieving their agenda of diminishing the value / quality of this site.

      Perhaps, again, I am totally reading your post in the wrong way ... but one reason we have the Bush-Cheney regime is that too many "misunderestimated" George the W.  (NOTE:  I misunerestimated their ability to screw things up ... and to be so utterly incompetent at governance.)

      9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:40:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are ABSOLUTELY right! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        besieged by bush

        It's like saying Hitler was childish. Or to say : Fuck Bush! BIG DEAL! It shows nothing but frustration and hopelessness. We need some warriors not name callers. If the war is too much for you you can always go AWOL. There is a war of extinction going on against WE the People. We do not need flowers but serious weapons of Republican Destruction.

        Faramineux Galliano: I am Pro-Life therefore I am Pro-Choice.

        by galliano on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:24:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  WRD ... (0+ / 0-)

          Kudoes to you if you came up with it ... Sadly, WRD have been as absent from the US for the past decade almost as absent as they were in Iraq ...

          But ... but ... but ... What are 2006 & beyond WRDs?

          • CTG -- crash those gates people!
          • 50 States
          • Daily Kos / Yearly Kos
          • Olberman / John Stewart / etc ...

          A great diary:  "Name your favorite WRD and why?"

          9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

          by besieged by bush on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:45:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But then: (0+ / 0-)

        Won't he lose the Democrats? After all, not all Republicans support this, and we still have enough Democrats in the Senate to filibuster.

      •  to say watch out for those lefties (0+ / 0-)

        At this point in the debate, to me that means that McCurry is desperate. Yeah, those lobbyists from Ebay, Microsoft, et. al. are lefties too!

      •  watch out for those lefties? (0+ / 0-)

        You mean like the Christian Coalition and other groups I've called wingnuts all these years which are in our corner on this specific issue? I think calling them "lefties" would piss them off, and the GOP is in no position to piss off any more of its own base no matter how much money Mike McCurry's telco friends offer them.

        Actually, McCurry is framing this fairly accurately in the current political context.

        Remember that in our party, DLC "centrism" = what people outside the Beltway call corporatism and what Mussolini called fascism. It's the DLC that's profited from deliberately conflating this with "what Americans actually believe".

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:52:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  'crying'? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anotherdemocrat

      No.  He's getting PAID for his point of view...a
      lobbyist like a lawyer, if you will.  

      Don't accept McCurry's dumbass frame for the debate.
      Make sure the masses know what it means ($$$).

    •  He is not the one (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eternal Hope

      It's the telco's that we need to snuff.

      (Get ready to build your own wireless phone system folks. )  It's actually cheaper and simpler than you think. (soon, give it another 2-3 years. you gonna yakk for free on wireless 24/7)

    •  But I AM anti-corporate. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jett, DocGonzo, rolandzebub, AllanTBG

      Or more precisely, anti-capitalist. The fact that there is a sector of corporate interests that oppose this particular piece of odious legislation doesn't alter the fundamental fact of the generally anti-democratic, ecologically destructive and anti-worker consequences of the corporate ownership of productive wealth in this society.

      This whole battle illustrates several importanmt points:

      1. Markets are not "natural," they are legal creations of the state. Already established markets seem natural to us because they were created before we were born. Markets are created by the legal recognition and protection of new property rights (hence the dramatic expansion of so-called intellectual property rights in recent years) and laws regulating exchange of those rights. What we are witnessing right now is an attempt to legally create a new rental market in cyber-space as a new profit center for ISPs.
      1. Capital takes two main forms: productive and financial. Both are neccesary to the workings of capitalism but the balance between them is not stable and has often enormous social consequences. When the profitability of productive capital is in decline, as it has been since the late 1960s, capitalists shift their investments increasingly into non-productive financial forms of capital producing increased demand for the creation of new such forms. Hence the wholesale deregulation of banking and investment, speculative bubbles in real estate and other areas, and the creation of new markets in intellectual property and privileged access to ISP subscribers eyes.
      1. The rentier economy we are presently living under  has historically represented the "autumn" of a hegemonic capitalist power. Over the past 500 years Genoa, Holland, and the UK all experienced cycles of dominance in commerce, production and finally finance before their eclipse by the subsequent hegemonic power. These autumnal phases are enormously profitable for a very small fraction of the population but generally bad news for everybody else. Previous transitions between capitalist hegemons have been characterized by chaos and violence. The transition from the hegemony of the UK to that of the US for instance occurred between 1914 and 1945, involving two world wars and the Great Depression.
      1. The present crisis in U.S. hegemony promises to be the most chaotic and violent yet for two main reasons. First, capitalism is reaching the ecological limits of growth, making its competitive logic increasingly a zero-sum game. Second, the world suffers from what (evil racist scumbag) Samuel Huntington, writing in the mid-70s for the Trilateral Commission, characterized as an excess of democracy -- namely the increasing expectation of the world's population that their voices be included in decisions that effect their lives.

      Are there individual capitalists and corporations who oppose this legislation? Yes. The competitive nature of capitalism often produces different particular interests and even outlooks within its own upper ranks. But lets have no illusions. This legislation flows from the general demand of corporate and financial capital as a whole for new (non-productive) areas for investment and rent collection. This insatiable demand is dismantling every hard fought democratic and social right won in the 19th and 20th centuries and it is threatening to drown the planet either in the blood of resource wars, melting icecaps or both. The idea that corporate power and capitalism can be tamed and made nice and humane has been tested and proven impossible. WE need to start talking about a post-corporate, post-capitalist alternative to this descent into barbarism.

      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:17:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk

        How can you claim to be anti-capitalist and then launch into a screed that the reason why you are is because the system is not free market enough?

        (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

        by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:47:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  more dangerous than unbridled capitalism (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ducktape

          are 'Free Traders', the ones who reject capitalism in favor of some sort of libertarian free for all.

          Where the rich get totally filthy richer, and the rest of use either become slaves or die.  

          It's exactly where we are headed.
          Much more dangerous than 'conservatives'.

          Much more dangerous.

          "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus"
          Nasty, freshly-demoted
          Soon-to-be-indicted
          Co-conspirator
          -7.63, -9.

          by shpilk on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:13:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Captialism and Democrasy are completely (0+ / 0-)

            at odds with one another...

            A democrat society cannot be sustained with a purely capitalistic marketplace, and vice versa...in the past we've chosen regulation, but we aren't even getting to choose with this current administration.

            General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

            by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:15:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

              I think you meant to say Capitalism and Democracy are not completely at odds with each other.

              For capitalism to work, the rights of producers and consumers must be in balance.  Producers who attempt to squash rights of consumers, are iether going to find themselves with less business, or govt regulation.

              (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

              by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:30:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually i meant to say (0+ / 0-)

                Democracy and Capitalism are completely at odds with one another.

                Democracy = government run by and accountable to the people who create the state.

                Capitalism = system of markets completely accountable to the people who own the markets

                Democracy =  every member has an equal say, a vote, in how the state function, and the state functions for the greater good of the society with a foundation on basic natural rights (life, liberty, property, etc.)

                Capitalism =  owners of the company and market determine what is in their own best interest, and run the company accordingly, at the expense of outsider's natural rights (life, liberty, property, etc.)

                Democracy =  when unbridled can lead to mob rule, and tyranny of the majority, but if maintained in such state, still grants each member an equal voice in the functions of the government, and basic natural rights

                Capitalism = when unbridled will destroy a state's system of governemnt and replace it with...capitalism (plutocrasy), ALWAYS at the expense of the non-capitalists

                The goal of capitalism is to make the owners of CAPITAL wealthy(er), full stop! People can hem and haw about other aspects of Capitalism, but 100% of those other aspects are not aspects of capitalism, but are aspects of the societies that REGULATE capitalism and keep capitalism from running roughshod over society. Whereas the purpose of Democracy is to create a government that is responsive to the people, with all citizens getting an EQUAL voice and certain basic gauruntees, full stop. Other aspects such as protecting the minority voice, etc are not fundamentals of Democracy, they are "versions" of Democrasy. Both have flaws, yes, but a democracy is completely at odds with capitalism. Capitalism is based on INEQUALITY of the individual in relationship to the power structure and in the relationship to the corporation. Democracy is based on...shared power through relationship of the society/state, and an equality in that relationship.

                People in America don't truly support either pure Democracy or pure Capitalism, we support our American version of both. And we've been able to sustain a balance over the last 60 or so years, but recently we've seen the plutocratic aspects of capitalism encroaching on our social system more and more, like the Robber Barrons of the early 20th century. And like cycles before, we'll see the subjegation of the American workers and we'll see it get worse before it gets better, but lets not pretend Capitalism is the friend of Democracy.

                General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

                by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:56:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think you need to read Adam Smith (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ducktape

                  The goal of capitalism is to make the owners of CAPITAL wealthy(er), full stop! People can hem and haw about other aspects of Capitalism, but 100% of those other aspects are not aspects of capitalism, but are aspects of the societies that REGULATE capitalism and keep capitalism from running roughshod over society.

                  Capitalism is about two things.  People who produce, and people who consume.

                  The Consumers have every right to let the producers know how they feel.  Boycotts, protests, etc. are part of a capitalistic system.

                  I think you're falling for the Republican "It's not right to complain about companies" mumbo-jumbo.  It is right, and it is fair, and it is part of capitalism.

                  I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't believe that what you are identifying as capitalism is capitalism.  I think it's corporatism, or crony capitalism, or something.

                  (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

                  by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:15:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've read Adam Smith (0+ / 0-)

                    You are talking about the RELATIONSHIPS of a capitalistic structure, not Capitalism in and of itself.

                    Thanks for the RNC spin jab :), but it should be more obvious, that I despise pure capitalism.

                    I think that you have a misconception about capitalism though. You are confusing our version of capitalism, with pure capitalism.

                    Yes, corporations make money by "seeing a need, and filling a need." But in a pure capitalistic societ, truly "free" markets, the power follows the money. A pure capitalistic system will ALWAYS end in a purely monopolisitic system. This can be accomplished through a variety of ways, but a corporation always has the corporation's best interest in mind, in a capitalistic system, there are no checks against what a corporation can do to further its best interest. A perfect example is slavery, yes, capitalism causes things like slavery to be permissible. Look at other non-regulated "black market" industries, such as prostitution, drugs, etc... that is the best example of capitalism in action (on a local scale), the power of the boss, murder is equated to a business decision, the workers are worthless beyond their production, slaves to their owners, slaves to their product or service. When you support capitalism without keeping in mind that OUR SYSTEM REGULATES capitalism because of the inherrent lack or morality, fairness and equality in capitalism, you support all those things we as a society have deemed to be bad, evil, immoral.

                    General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

                    by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:21:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I have no misconception (0+ / 0-)

                      I think that you have a misconception about capitalism though. You are confusing our version of capitalism, with pure capitalism.

                      I just think it's better to fight our version of capitalism by pointing out it's not capitalism than by saying you hate capitalism.

                      A perfect example is slavery, yes, capitalism causes things like slavery to be permissible.

                      Huh?

                      Obviously you aren't interested in a serious discussion.

                      (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

                      by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:53:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Um.. ok...obviously you don't (0+ / 0-)

                        understand capitalism then!

                        Capitalism leads and causes societal evils, such as slavery.

                        Look that is a very serious statement, and it has been a part of the "capitalism, good, evil or amoral" debate for longer than our lifetimes. Ever heard of Marx? You don't have to be a Marxist to agree with his indictment of captialism. Its just a shame that you want to issue broad statement of support of capitalism (meaning our regulated, castrated version after you clarified as much) but then when the issue turns to the repulsive side of capitalism, you want to claim I am not being serious? Give me a break!

                        I don't, and never said I hate capitalism, I just pointed out the fact that capitalism is INHERENTLY at odds with a Democratic social system, and therefore we can't truly implement capitalism if we value our social system? Do you disagree with that statement? If so, then explain why and how your disagree, bring an argument not just some cliche, and don't say I'm not serious because I point out the dark sides of capitalism that are bit harder to think of ways to support!

                        General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

                        by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:10:54 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm sorry (0+ / 0-)

                          But there is nothing inherent to Capitalism which leads to slavery.

                          No more so than any other form of economic system.  The system of slavery here in America was created by the Spanish and English under a clearly statist(i.e. what Smith argued against) economic system.  Smith clearly argued that capitalism would encourage human rights, because it was in the best interests of the system.

                          Then you look at some of the alternatives, beyond the statist govt here in the Americas which brought us slavery, such as the model of Communism in the Soviet Union and China which was nothing more than slavery to the State.

                          Anyway, your point is clearly not serious, or you have not put much great thought into it, if that's all you have to say.

                          (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

                          by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:38:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Last word, because this debate is fruitless (0+ / 0-)
                            1. Any student of economics know that Smith was revolutionary, but not omnicient. Much of what Smith suggest turned out to be wrong, or not at all. Keynes illustrated this best with some of his greater failures. Lets not pretend Smith is God, Smith helped take a mercantile theory to the next level.
                            1. I never said that Capitalism inherently leads to slavery, I said:

                            Capitalism leads and causes societal evils, such as slavery.

                            Lets not play semantics, I meant exactly what I wrote, no more, no less, don't attempt to make me into a radical because you can't defend capitalism on its merits. Honest discussion is a necessity in our community, and there are some here that would have troll rated you last comment and called it a lie, I think you just misread my comment above, or glimpsed over it, but the fact that other would consider your response dishonest,  or even a lie. Just becarful how your debate and discus, it is important to clarify, or ask for clarification when needed, that's your and my responsibilty as contributing members to this community.

                            3)It should be fairly clear to anyone that observes the market, that even in a regulated capitalistic system, human rights are of little or no importance. Perfect example; sweat shops. Sweat shops benefit the consumer of a given product and the producer, but not the worker, in the name of capitalism the worker is virtually a slave to their product, most of them cannot even afford to purchase their own product. Thats capitalism, and Adam Smith was wrong.

                            1. The Dutch started the African slave trade, not the Spanish and English. And the new world was the laboratory for capitalistic experiments. Perfect example is the QUICK rise of a merchant landowner in the colonies, that rivaled the holdings of noble landowners. Call it fledgling capitalism, was it pure capitalism? No, the homelands taxed, and imposed tarrifs and demanded a share of production. But it was the very beginings, and until the governments around the world stepped in and regulated AGAINST slavery and indentured servitude, the growing capitalistic systems continued to exploit people. This is an obvious case of how capitalism exploits people for profit of the capitalists, and how only GOVERNMENT (in our case a fucking civil war) could restrain capitalism from its exploitative and societally evil practices.
                            1. You again misrepresent me, I've not said anything about needing an alternative, or desiring one. I simply said:

                            I don't, and never said I hate capitalism, I just pointed out the fact that capitalism is INHERENTLY at odds with a Democratic social system, and therefore we can't truly implement capitalism if we value our social system.

                            And again, you have refused to debate my claim, and have instead resorted to attacks on my seriousness, and snide remarks on my intellect, which I can assure you, you've made obvious you cannot and do not wish to match:

                            Anyway, your point is clearly not serious, or you have not put much great thought into it, if that's all you have to say.

                            1. I've been patient, I've more than clarified and engaded you with all seriousness, but you continue to play with the truth, and pretend to have more than a casual knowledge on the point I raised. Like I said above, either engage me in a discussion, and bring an argument or do not engage in the discussion at all.

                            ...Do you disagree with that statement? If so, then explain why and how your disagree, bring an argument not just some cliche, and don't say I'm not serious because I point out the dark sides of capitalism that are bit harder to think of ways to support!

                            You seem intent on being trollish, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, others are not as gracious, and my patience is running thin. So again I ask you to either debate me in fact and theory based on fact, or...shut up.

                            General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

                            by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:25:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Doesn't really matter (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            patsprouseyo

                            I never said that Capitalism inherently leads to slavery, I said:

                            The argument was still specious.

                            (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

                            by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:23:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, and just FYI (0+ / 0-)

                            Just to clarify, Adam Smith is NOT the father of Capitalism (a concept resulting from the Germanic philosophers, Marx, Hayek, "The Austrian School...)

                            Adam Smith was the father of "modern economics." The "invisible hand," in otherwords, SUPPLY AND DEMAND!

                            General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

                            by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:36:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Also, more to the point (0+ / 0-)

                For capitalism to work, the rights of producers and consumers must be in balance.  Producers who attempt to squash rights of consumers, are iether going to find themselves with less business, or govt regulation.

                For capitalism to work, the rights of the producers must TRUMP the rights of the consumers.  Pure Capitalism will ALWAYS result in monoplies, that is how capitalism works. The consumer ALWAYS loses in a monopoly, and the company sustains itself, because their is no alternative, and the economies of scale become so great that any upstart is easily quashed.

                Microsoft was a perfect example. But unlike pure capitalism, our system REGULATES capitalism, and we inacted penalties that may not have hurt microsoft badly, but significantly helped the competitors. Why? Because choices are good for democracy, bad for corporations, and ultimately we are more democratic than capitalistic, or a better way to say that is, we value the choice of products more than we value the brand of the products

                General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

                by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:01:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Aye (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ducktape

            The Libertarian free for all, that is, where you ignore intangible costs such as environmental destruction, is harmful in the long run.

            (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

            by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:31:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I have no idea (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard

          how you came to regard that as my view. Care to elaborate?

          I'm not arguing that the system "isn't free-market enough." I'm arguing that, contrary to the mythology of neo-classical economics, so-called "free markets" are all creations of the state in the first place and that we are witnessing the state-sponsored creation of such a market right now in the assault on net neutrality.

          "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

          by Christopher Day on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:58:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You're talking about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Answer Guy

        The 'Enronization' of the marketplace.

        It bothers me that so many people look at Enron, see Skilling/Lay go to jail, and think "Problem solved.  Dishonest manipulators caught and convicted.  Let's move on."

        In fact - Enron itself was flawed from its inception.  They produced nothing and they delivered nothing (at least, not to the end-user of energy).  They simply inserted themselves into the pipeline and made their bucks.  Why would anyone be suprised to see them manipulate the supposedly free market?  Why would anyone be suprised to see the house of cards crumble?  

        That's all the Telcos are looking for here - a nice, safe opening to insert themselves in the market, Enron-style.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:33:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Socialism (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Balam

          The devil is in the details of course, but I believe the social ownership of the means of production is a precondition for a genuinely democratic society. Making it work in a hostile world environment, especially in poor countries, has proven very difficult, but I don't see what the alternative is. The 20th century experiments in socialism have lots to teach us, both positive and negative. We have been fed a lot of anti-socialist propaganda that often makes it impossible to even acknowledge the positive accomplishments. In any event it is very much still a work in progress.

          "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

          by Christopher Day on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:05:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What about China? (0+ / 0-)

            The state still owns a lot of different industries there despite the fact they have gone capitalistic. Doesn't state ownership result in monopolies, leading to the stifling of competition and thus poor quality products?

            And doesn't that also lead to corruption, black markets, and more organized crime, similar to prohibition?

            •  This Leads to That (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eternal Hope

              First, we need to get beyond simplistic ideas of causation. Very similar projects can yield very different results for all sorts of reasons.

              State-ownership is not the same as socialism. But it is true that attempts at socialism have confronted various combinations of the problems you refer to. The record is actually very complex. The Soviet Union was able to carry out a very impressive industrialization up until the late 1960s, but there were always distribution problems. China has to be viewed in terms of what it was before the revolution: a basket case that experienced major famines every year or two for over a century. The advances made there in terms of food production, nutrition, the status of women, literacy and political participation were staggering. In both cases however there were enormous problems in terms of commandism and absence of democracy.

              The abolition of the slave trade led to a blacvk market in slaves but it was still a good thing. The question is always one of looking at the balance sheet and determining what you can properly compare a system to.

              "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

              by Christopher Day on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 04:00:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I think you are half correct (0+ / 0-)

      I've read McCurry's recent comments, and his past ones, and while I don't agree with McCurry, I can clearly see the rub.

      I think he feels like people that would support him (as a Democrat) under different circumstances, are tearing apart aspects of him that are disconnected from his lobbying job. I frankly I think its true! His analysis is clear victimology, but it seems to be because he believes it, not because he is  "shilling" or "spinning." He feels like his friends, or political allies are tearing him down well beyond a reasoned ammount, and we are! McCurry's possition he is entitled too.

      And just like the recent troll wars have re-established, disagreement on one position, or even more than a few, doesn't make someone a troll. You're right though, he is acting exactly like those posters here that feel they are being unjustly wronged, which he is! We (Kos and others too) are attacking an ally, not his message and position. Instead of saying, we agree, and here is how you (McCurry) are wrong, we are saying:

      What a dishonest piece of shit McCurry has become...McCurry is now a sad, sad, pathetic man. Completely stripped of all goodwill he had built over the years. Relegated to peddling lies...McCurry, lying sack of shit that he has become, continues to claim that he's fighting for the Clinton-era status quo...

      (most people would probably troll rate these quotes if made in the diaries about another poster over a disagreement of ideas!)

      But to be fair, after the personal attack, the real issue we have is ALSO being addressed:

      The reality, of course, is much different. McCurry is enabling an extremist, out-of-the-mainstream effort by a few obscenely powerful telcos to hijack one of the most successful creations in human history.

      I think we should be focusing our attack on McCurry to the latter, the former is wrong. In the American Civil War more officers were shot in their back, meaning they were killed by their own troops. If we disagree with one of our allies, let address the disagreement, and stop shooting each other in the back.

      General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

      by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:32:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, McCurry IS peddling lies (0+ / 0-)

        With no major problems of Internet discrimination yet, the government should stay out, he  said.

        Oh yeah? Well, I call bullshit, and I'm quite happy to prove it.

        What Internet Discrimination Can Look Like (with Pix)

        America will never again be the land of the free... Unless she first becomes the home of the brave.

        by Ducktape on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:30:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whereas there have been some issues (0+ / 0-)

          with discrimination, especially more recently, ie. DOD blocking liberal websites, I actually think there is an underlying issue McCurry is correct about (albeit, probably not what he meant at all).

          The fear of government legislation of the internet will  ultimately open the door wider for issues like FEC regulation of blogs, broader copyright cases (mainly brought by big companies, after THEY rip off someone elses intellectual property), and global ownership being placed into the hands of a single government (an issue the UN brought up just this year for similar reasons).

          General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

          by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:36:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is NOT what this is about (0+ / 0-)

            The telcos are going into the cable TV business. It is called IPTV, and that is the field that I work in. Verizon is doing is with FIOS and SBC/AT&T with Project Lightspeed, and it's also being done by telcos all over the world.

            Telcos want to have all the telco advantages. That's why they don't think they should have to go through local franchising like cable for their services -- they want state or, better yet, national franchising. After all, they're common carriers.

            Except they also DON'T want to be common carriers, they want to be the gatekeepers. If I get in there and do a deal with them to carry my service on their lines and split the revenue with them, then they'll make sure that my competitors' services either aren't accessible or don't perform very well.

            That's fine for cable, because that's how cable works. But it's NOT fine for Internet access itself.  

            IPTV is NOT the same as Internet TV. IPTV is essentially cable TV delivered over the same lines as the Internet and using Internet Protocol; it's quite likely that cable itself will begin to use it in a few years because it uses less bandwidth than the current methods of transmitting digital cable.

            Internet TV, and VOIP services like Vonage, are what they are REALLY scared of. YouTube is Internet TV, as is iTunes and a bunch of others that aren't yet HD (or even SD) yet but will be in the future. Those push them back into the carrier business if they succeed, and they want these new business areas they're lusting after.

            My biggest issue, and an additional reason why I am so against this, is the dishonesty that they are using to try to sell it.

            Having myself been push-polled in the last 10 days, I can personally attest that they completely lie about what the issue is, and that they also were trying to collect an audio recording of my saying "NO!" and then also giving my name and address -- and they did NOT care what I was saying "no" about. The push-poller tried to get me to say "no" -- when I told him that I disagreed with what he was selling, he then tried to get me to "go on record about your disagreement, by saying No! and then giving your name and address...."

            They are going to try to use that tape to influence the Senate and House, and it is a fraud.

            ANYONE who has to resort to that doesn't have a leg to stand on, and I'm not willing to give a lying sleazebag ANY benefit of the doubt that he has a "correct" underlying issue...

            America will never again be the land of the free... Unless she first becomes the home of the brave.

            by Ducktape on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:54:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No shit! (0+ / 0-)

              Reread the thread and my comments. I said that I can understand the line of thought, and it goes something like...

              Thanks for the school lesson! Jeez...

              General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

              by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:14:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  True: (0+ / 0-)

        I think he feels like people that would support him (as a Democrat) under different circumstances, are tearing apart aspects of him that are disconnected from his lobbying job. I frankly I think its true! His analysis is clear victimology, but it seems to be because he believes it, not because he is  "shilling" or "spinning." He feels like his friends, or political allies are tearing him down well beyond a reasoned ammount, and we are! McCurry's possition he is entitled too.

        But it seems to me like he is confusing reasonable job-related criticism with thinking that people are out to get him. He is entitled to his position, but if he can't debate on the merits of the case, then he shouldn't be working as a spokesman for the telecoms.

        Given that he is a Democrat and given that he can't make a coherent case for his new bosses, does he really believe what he is saying?

        •  Agreed, sort of :) (0+ / 0-)

          But it seems to me like he is confusing reasonable job-related criticism with thinking that people are out to get him.

          I think certain criticism have gone a bit beyond "reasonable job-related criticism." Markos today was downright personal, and in the past Markos and other here and elsewhere have attack him, calling disassociated parts of McCurry's public life into question, such as his loyalty to the party (its the equivolent to the 2002 election strategy the RNC rolled out, attacking Democrat's patriotism). I think its wrong to do to our own, especially when we disagree on an issue. Debate the issue, we both can agree that this is the correct course of action to take with our compatriots (and McCurry is on our side in the larger battle).

          but if he can't debate on the merits of the case, then he shouldn't be working as a spokesman for the telecoms.

          Agreed! But we haven't been fully debating on the merits of the case either, we've been doing plenty of attacking the messenger.

          Given that he is a Democrat and given that he can't make a coherent case for his new bosses, does he really believe what he is saying?

          Interesting, maybe not, but who knows, only Mike McCurry.

          I just disagree with Markos' course of action. Net neutrality is probably one of the most important issues regarding the current tech progress boom of the last 20 years, and I am whole heartedly for it. But I just think the approach we've taken to hang our own so quickly is shameful; McCurry, Begala, etc.

          General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

          by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:32:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Haven't we lost our principles? (0+ / 0-)

            Haven't we had too many Democrats act like Republicans these past few years? What about Lieberman? Is this why we have been losing elections?

            •  I am not so sure about that charge either (0+ / 0-)

              I think LBJ was a much different type of Democrat than say, John Kerry. I also think JFK was much differnt than Teddy. Just like our party has evolved, our principles have too.

              Harry Reid is not as liberal as say, Feingold, and Feingold is not as liberal as Kennedy, but we like the three of them. So what princples exactly are you talking about? Abortion rights? Reids anti-abortion. Feingold supported the Republicans in their impeachment of Clinton. All our politicians have...character. If making our party lockstepping, dittoheaded, groupthinkers is the goal, then I'm not with you. But if taking common values like equality, civil rights, love of the constitution, eviromental protection, corporate regulation and fair play, etc are our principles then we're in the same boat.

              I think the idea that disagreement cannot be suffered that permeated the Republican party long ago, and is creeping into our party now, will result in EXACTLY the same devisions that are splintering the Republicans as we speak. There IS room for the Liebermans in our party, and believe it or not, Lieverman DOES NOT WRITE OUT PARTY PLATFORM, so what he says does not damage the party outside of our own sewing circles (contrary to popular beliefe otherwise).

              I think what people, and it may be what you mean, are fed up with is the PANDERING. The pandering to the religious, the pandering to the corporations, etc. But the real issue is we still want them to pander, to us!! A senator from VA, my state, represents me, represents my Republican neighbor, represents the VA headquartered companies (AOL, Sprint, Phillip Morris, Capital One, etc...) so there is SOME pandering that will be done, we just want less pandering to those that don't agree with out platform, agreed?

              General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

              by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:26:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  you've made a big mistake (0+ / 0-)

            You consider Mc Curry "one of our own".

            He's not one of our own, he chose to stand with his corporate friends against the rest of us. His right, but expecting to stay friends with the rest of us after doing this is rather unrealistic. Though the outcome of this for him may be to put him out of business as a lobbyist due to his no longer having any influence worth peddling. Also his misfortune and none of our own.

            He's not one of 'yours'... unless you are yourself a "Big Tobacco" or "Big Pharma" lobbyist or represent another unusually malignant corporate interest. If you are, you really ought to tell us about it.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:38:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I just want to live a world where (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, Ozzie

    Daily Kos, Google, internet telephone application companies do not have to separately fork over money to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and every other telecom company just to not have shitty or no service to their subscribers.  If that's what defines a lefty, we're going to have a massive amount of them in this country very shortly.

    But we know, truthfully it doesn't.

    True leadership isn't done by committee.

    by Viktor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:34:53 AM PDT

  •  Let's not forget that (19+ / 0-)

    the framework for TelCo control over content, usage, pipes, and etc was actually set by the Deregulation of the Clinton era.

    This is part and parcel of Neo-liberal advocacy and world-view.

    Their view of "deregulation" means "you pay for everything" and if there is one eensie teensie bit of "stuff" that you are getting without us getting a cut, then we are gonna get money out of it, by hook or by crook.

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:37:46 AM PDT

    •  Kos, your descriptor for McCurry is perfect. (5+ / 0-)

      There is nothing to add except you and Jerome were terrific on Russert.  Great job!

      ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

      by dkmich on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:55:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A Truly Magnificent Rant!!! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobinson, dkmich

        You picked him up, you smacked him down, and then you categorically explained to him exactly why--I love it!!!

        •  Totally agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dkmich, serrano

          Keep on kicking ass and taking names.  Call 'em out.  Shine the light.  Nowhere to hide for the lying bastardas anymore.  This issue is too important to keep the gloves on.  Take 'em off and use 'em.  Or evil will prevail.  Politics is passion people!!!!

          Honesty had been the single trait most closely associated with Bush, but in the current survey "incompetent" is the descriptor used most frequently.

          by Progressive Liberaltarian on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:17:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gotta Keep on Punchin' (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Progressive Liberaltarian

            till the bell goes 'ding!' !!!

            •  Yes agreed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              serrano

              But why do we seem to save our hardest punches for those in our own fold that we disagree with (often on only one or two issues)?

              Shouldn't we be striking out harder against Bill Frist,  Denny Hastert, John McCain, Libby Dole, Norm Coleman (a real Benidict Arnold) and others?

              We seem to save the nastiest attacks for McCurry, or Lieberman (i'm no fan), this makes little sense to me. Lets address McCurry on the issues, not on his being a "lying sack of shit" because we differ on an issue. Let s address Lieberman on the issues, like Ned Lammont has choosen to do, opposed to calling him "Bush's favorite democrat" (he does vote with us more often folks, again though, I'm no fan). Do we have a self-loathing issue or something?! Seriously!

              General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

              by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:07:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Deregulation wasn't just Clinton, (14+ / 0-)

      it started with Reagan and was kept going by Republican control of the House and Senate during the Clinton years (with Dem complicity, unfortunately).  

      Otherwise, I agree with all you say: deregulation means "privatize everything" and "let the companies take whatever they can grab."  Basically it means 'regulation' of the public to prevent them from taking a stand against the bloodlust destruction of the world by the super-rich.  

      I refuse to be 'regulated' by 'deregulation.'  I refuse to be told that I cannot act politically to oppose the burning of the earth and its people.  And I thank Kos for providing one forum of opposition.  The free internet is one of the last frontiers where opposition is actually possible.  

    •  I think that is one of the key issues... (11+ / 0-)

      ...the one of who pays.  Your, "Their view of "deregulation" means "you pay for everything"," is exactly correct.  'We' do pay for everything, already, under the existing structure.

      How many telcos are in the red?  Yet they claim a need to increase revenue so infrastructure can be upgraded.  Sounds reasonable until you realize they have been upgrading all along, under the current structure, and are still profitable.

      Not to mention that there is unused infrastructure already in place.  How many miles of unlit fiber are there in the US?  Granted, to light it up as needed requires equipment upgrades, but the most costly parts are already in place.  And this was all done (the yet-to-be-used placement of fiber) while at the same time, telcos were upgrading other existing infrastructure and returning a bottom-line profit ... all under what was essentially the existing regulatory framework.  In other words, some revenue has all along been plowed into infrastructure in anticipation it would result in even greater profits in the future.

      The position the telcos are taking is both disingenuous and deceptive.  When looking at balance sheets, there is no justification.  As already pointed out, they are getting paid at both ends of a connection now, whether it be by traditional telephone or the internet.

      Unfortunately, it is this uber pro-business administration and rubber-stamp Congress that pose the danger of the telcos succeeding with their agenda - with the help of multi-million dollar lobbyists, of course - who have no concern with the outcome other than satisfying their clients and reaping their rewards.

      At present, there is absolutely no justification for any changes in law or rules that change the current business model as applied to the internet.  And that is the bottom line!

      Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

      by wgard on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:49:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's more complicated than that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ducktape

      The Telecom Act of 1996 was in a way deregulation, but it also was not.  It was a way to keep further competitors out.

      Most regulation is not about keeping companies in check.  It's about acting as a BARRIER to ENTRY for smaller entrepreneurs into the marketplace.  You may think it's about keeping companies in check, but when you look at it and wonder why all the telecom companies were demanding regulation, wouldn't you want to step back and go, "Hey, wait a minute?"

      Regulations add cost and complexity to a degree that only the larger players can assume those costs and still maintain profitability through economies of scale.  Smaller players can not.

      Now that's not always a bad thing, because these regulations have certain desirable effects.  But consider for instance the Automobile industry.  It costs around $5-10 billion to enter the market and sell a car in the United States.  That cost is largely the amount of time and effort that must be put into the design of the automobile to accomodate all the various safety, environmental, etc. regulations.

      Consider that when putting that car on the market, you've got to build several hundred of them and then slam them into walls and/or other destructive testing to see how they perform.

      It's expensive.  It's why cars today cost $20k or more.  It's why the only new competitors into the US are foreign government sponsored entities.

      On the other hand, we have MUCH BETTER cars today than we had 30-40 years ago.

      (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

      by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:53:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Note that the Government, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, anotherdemocrat

        specifically in the case of the Telecoms, put billions of dollars into "assisting" the "deregulation" of the Telecoms...

        The amount of Tax Dollars spent on the massive overinvestment in currently underutilized fiberoptic cable is just staggering.

        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

        by RedDan on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:58:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmm... (0+ / 0-)

          The telecoms aren't as profitable as people seem to think they are.  These aren't oil companies making billions every month.  It's a high competitive commodity business.  They have thin margins.  They've been laying people off, off and on now for the past decade or so.

          What they're doing now is looking at these internet companies like google, etc. and saying "hey, those bastards are making money!  We need a bigger part of it", which is how they came up with this scheme.  It's not because they are greedy per se, it's because they want to be profitable and they're too fucking stupid to recognize that you do that by doing what you do better, not demanding extortion payments.

          (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

          by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:13:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This guy has no character and no soul (5+ / 0-)

    He's willing to sell himself to the highest bidder. If Bin Laden paid him for it he would attack the war in Afghanistan as an extremist liberal cause.

    What a pitiful mess of a man. On the wrong side of history, and on the wrong side of democracy - for what? A handfull of dollars...

    Today "balance in the media" means a balance between political fact and conservative ideology.

    by Joe B on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:51:47 AM PDT

    •  How much credibility can a guy have... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      averybird, Nightprowlkitty

      who's peddling a philosophy to financially benefit his benefactors, and thus himself? Worse, the guy is trying to use the good will people feel for the Clinton years (though Clinton was wrong on deregulation) to make himself richer. Isn't it a little transparent? "So what if they're paying me to say this? Trust me when I say, this legislation is centrist...it benefits both Republicans AND nice Democrats like me!...and of course the glorious corporations who pay us!!!"

      •  McCurry Does Hillary No Favors ... (0+ / 0-)

        with his silly, anti-Left rhetoric.  

        Only reinforces the suspicion that Clintonistas would sellout Dems to corporate interests if given the chance.

        Knowledge is the Past. Wisdom is the Future.
        Visit Hoot at the Dark.

        by Night Owl on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:42:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a suspicion... (0+ / 0-)

          that seems more than a little warranted. I trust Hillary less than I trust Joementum...

        •  the essense of the Clinton (0+ / 0-)

          political philosophy is selling out Democrats to corporate interests.

          From the Rightweb DLC article:

          n his “Saving the Democratic Party” memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a “governing council” that would draft a “blueprint” for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from “the new bosses”—organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups—that were keeping the party from modernizing.
          snip
          Writing shortly before the November 2000 election, John Nichols observed that the DLC had been founded “with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition,” namely, “to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right.” According to Nichols, “the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart.” (9) Although the DLC can rightly claim to have yanked the Democratic Party to the right, it has repeatedly failed to sideline what Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall has disparaging labeled “the party traditionalists.” Since its founding the DLC has aimed to subsume all Democrats under its ideological umbrella. But persistent (and resurgent) resistance to neoliberal prescriptions, neoconservative foreign policy, and social conservative domestic policies has curtailed DLC ambitions and obliged it to operate more as a powerful agenda-setting and lobbying group within the party. In effect, the DLC has focused on controlling the party’s platform and leadership rather than on selling “big tent” politics to all Democratic Party constituencies.
          snip
          , and it was Clinton who made the DLC a major force in the Democratic Party rather than the other way around, a

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:21:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This guy has no character and no soul (0+ / 0-)

    He's willing to sell himself to the highest bidder. If Bin Laden paid him for it he would attack the war in Afghanistan as an extremist liberal cause.

    What a pitiful mess of a man. On the wrong side of history, and on the wrong side of democracy - for what? A handfull of dollars...

    Today "balance in the media" means a balance between political fact and conservative ideology.

    by Joe B on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:52:51 AM PDT

  •  Procedure for selling one's soul... (10+ / 0-)

    First, find the right price.

    Second, seize on any justification for betraying all of your principles.

    Third, attack your opponents for having no principles.

    •  re: Soul selling (0+ / 0-)

      Wouldn't bother me as much if some of these folks set a higher price.  My soul would cost a pretty penny (bids?).

      I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky. For I know that the hypnotized never lie. - The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again

      by bherner on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:40:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just lie? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, averybird

    Sounds like Mikey would run over his own dog if he thought there was $20 in it.

    Experience may differ in online play...

    by OCD on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:56:16 AM PDT

  •  Confessions of an ex-Telco shill (32+ / 0-)

    The #2 at the Treasury Department under Lloyd Bentsen was a fellow Texan named Jack Martin. After leaving the Treasury Department, Mr. Martin went on to found the public affairs firm, Public Strategies, Inc.(PSi).

    From it's start in Austin, Texas, PSi has grown into a juggernaut of a firm. Originally a Democratic firm, with the rise of GW Bush they grew more Republican oriented, but have mainted strong bi-partisan ties.

    When I left PSi, Mike McCurry had recently been hired to direct the newly opened Washington, DC office. He isn't listed on their current employee roster, but that doesn't mean he no longer works there. This was common practice when I was there, as obstensibly I worked for SBC, now At&t.

    On that note, PSi initally was built through their close relationship with San Antonio-based SBC/At&t. At one time, more than half of PSi's revenue came from SBC. When I left PSi (on good terms) they had been working to diversify their revenue stream and from their international growth it looks to have been accomplished.

    SBC/At&t's VP of External Affair's, Cassandra Carr, left SBC/At&t and became a senior person at PSi. This cross-pollination was a common occurence when I was at PSi.

    In terms of the "Astroturf" groups, Hands Off the Internet reeks of a PSi designed campaign. When on the SBC account I worked on a astroturf group that battled the cable companies, called Project Connect (STATE NAME HERE), it was under the national group if I recall correctly called Connect USA.

    In my opinion this is just another prime example of why we need clean money for Federal elections. As Internet Neutrality is pay to play legislation that wouldn't have seen the light of day without all of the telco money involved in this.

    I am sure posting this may piss off some former superiors, but so be it.

  •  'The constant jihad of 21st century politics' (9+ / 0-)

    Might as well have called us terrorists.

    What a tool. Markos, where was your double-secret plan to destroy the DLC again? (you know, the one you were working on before Hurricane Katrina)

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 02:13:42 AM PDT

    •  Jihad (10+ / 0-)

      As I understand the definition of 'jihad', it's an apt description of struggle, yet I know full well that McCurry meant it to be derogatory, and I also know that called on it, he'd say he only meant it in the true sense of the word.  Thus, it's a weasel word from the mouth of a true weasel.    

      I'm so tired of constantly having to add people to my shit list, but people that deliberately fuck with the language like this go right to the top, and never get off that list.  In my mind that does more lasting damage than his position on the issue of net neutrality ever will. One doesn't intimate that I am like a terrorist and then expect me to forget it.  

      "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." --George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

      by littlesky on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:47:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This, the whoring and shilling, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averybird, papercut, esquimaux

    seems pretty typical Clintonista/DLC behavior. Or maybe I've just become cynical and bitter. Only Al Gore seems to have broken the mold.

  •  If I were Mike McCurry I would sue... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eikyu Saha

    but I'm not so I can only congratulate you on being the ballsiest guy around. Keep stomping man, we love it!

    When NSA employees are spending their days spying on Americans, what is it they should actually be doing, and what is slipping by because they aren't?

    by MuldraughTim on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 02:23:54 AM PDT

  •  Clinton Era Folks: Please Retire (7+ / 0-)

    Or at the very least, stop letting the air out of our tires.

    Mike McCurry is a fool.  Corporations got a good deal out of telecom dereg. in the 90's.  Now they want the whole thing.  I, like a great many I'm sure, would be fine with the deal they got in the 90's continuing, provided we are able to keep net neutrality.

    The internet was fine just the way Al Gore made it.

    Political dispatches with a view of the Market Pike Place Politics

    by Belltowner on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 02:51:02 AM PDT

    •  McCurry is more than anything... (0+ / 0-)

      An opportunist, who will go where the money takes him, no matter any other consideration (like morality, ethics, fairness, etc.).  OMO, mind you.

      Cheers:)

      Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

      by wgard on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:54:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree wholeheartedly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mimi, papercut

      The Democratic Party isn't a Clinton family heirloom, and it isn't 1992 and never will be again.

      It's time to usher in the post-Clinton era in Democratic politics.

      "People react to fear, not love. They don't teach that in Sunday school, but it's true."--Richard Nixon

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:35:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Losing strategy. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat

    In case Mr. McCurry hasn't noticed, the 90s are over.

    His strategy has led to the loss after loss, of every branch of government.

    What's helping take back power for his party? The power of the 'net!

  •  Rolling in their graves (5+ / 0-)

    Picture this at a meeting of the founding fathers back in the 1770s...

    "We'll allow the people to elect their Congressional Representatives.  Then, we'll allow hordes of lobbyists with oodles of cash to spend to throw it at those representatives so that corporate interests will hold sway over the will of the people."

    Founding Fathers in unison: "NO FUCKING WAY"

    A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

    by Paper Cup on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:11:21 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't trust Alexander Hamilton (0+ / 0-)

      Or maybe I've just read too much of Jefferson's mountains of bile directed as him.

      True leadership isn't done by committee.

      by Viktor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:22:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Prithee, what are these 'corporate interests' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anotherdemocrat

      of which you speak?

      For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controlled the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

      http://reclaimdemocracy.org/...

      Pumped and ready for "the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."

      by sagra on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:40:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i'm not sure i understand the difference (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Harkov311, Eikyu Saha

    between the internet and cable tv at this point.

    from a telco's point of view i can certainly see how they would fail to see a difference.

    no broadcast tv legislation should have ever been applied to cable tv anyway.

    "No, I understand that. But I - I would really like to have a chance to discuss what you keep telling me what I'm not discussing." -- Rep. Barney Frank.

    by BiminiCat on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:16:07 AM PDT

    •  Still a difference (0+ / 0-)
      You can buy stuff from both ebay or amazon. If telecoms have their way, ebay may be blocked or put on a very slow bandwidth, or available only after 8pm...

      Something like that.

      Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

      by chemsmith on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 04:58:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One of the nice things of the internet... (0+ / 0-)

        Is we're all not stupid, and many of us have familiarity in the markets we're talking about.  I'm a software developer.  I build website stuff for a large financial company.

        The ebay, amazon, google and so on companies are in a position that they can fight the ISPs.  Not just so much on political levels, but on competition levels.

        If you're AT&T, and your customers can't get to google.com because you're fucking with them?  What do you think happens?  Your customers are going to complain, and more likely than not switch services.

        When they find out they cannot because the cable companies control the lines, unlike the telecos which do line sharing for DSL.  You're going to see demands to change that.

        I don't like this teleco shit, and I think McCurry is a moron.  But I also don't think the market is going to support control of this level.  There's a lot of competition in the market of providing bandwidth.

        So I don't think it's going to happen, I don't think it's feasible.  But I still don't like it.

        (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

        by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:01:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No Difference? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ducktape, mimi, bobinson, joanneleon, Dauphin

      On the Internet, I can choose what I want to see. And if there's not a "channel" I like, I can make my own with very little money.

      Cable TV is completely controlled by the cable company. I barely get the ability to pick which channels I want to watch, let alone the ability to make my own.

      People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people

      by The Icelander on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:34:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because you don't have a website (5+ / 0-)

      As a passive consumer of internet service, naturally you don't see the difference between internet and cable tv.  The huge difference is that as of now, with net neutrality, virtually anyone can be a creator of internet content, and there are millions of us that are providers.  In a sense, the internet as it exists is the libertarian's dream, a marketplace withalmost no "barriers to entry" for new content providers.  The result is the greatest creative, intellectual and artistic commons in human history. Whether your interest at the moment is canary breeding, medieval Spanish history, or cooking with tahini, the low barriers to entry that exist now on the web mean that you can find dozens of websites that are relevant to taht interest.  With the end of net neutrality and the dominance of McCurry's corporate moneybags friends, suddenly huge barriers to entry, the need to make huge payments to every telco that carries a share of the web's traffic, the 95-98% of websites taht are not commercially profitable enough to cover those costs, or any new potential website developer that doesn't have access to large quantities of capital to pay those fees, will be driven from the net.  Suddenly, the ONLY things you'll be able to find on the net are the big, established, commercial and corporate sites.  The telco plan is to the internet what the Enclosure Acts of the 18th century were to Ireland and the Scottish   Highlands.

      •  If I'm 'Joe Schmoe's Blog' (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        papercut, anotherdemocrat

        With 100 hits a day, I could see where the telcos would be happy to host me and charge me a not-exhorbitant fee.  What the heck, they get my money (and thousands upon thousands of other fees from similar sites), and I'm not competing against anybody they can get me into a bidding war with.  If I'm Kos, on the other hand, lot's of traffic, lot's of hits, some bandwidth considerations, I could certainly see where the telcos could try to hit him up for 'premium' service (really the service he's gotten all along) in exchange for them not screwing with his 'customers' access and/or pushing them towards a competing site by giving them better access.

        I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this issue, but I can see the business case for why the telcos want this power.  It's evil, of course, goes without saying, but makes good business sense.

        I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky. For I know that the hypnotized never lie. - The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again

        by bherner on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:03:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  actually (0+ / 0-)

        as someone who used to deliver access to customers, not even that, just sittin here as a customer seeing the same friggin wire attached to a decoder attached to my tv that's attached to a modem that's attached to my pc, i see know difference between the two.

        most decoders even have RAM and hard drive space at this point.

        if i could create a cable channel or any number of cable channels or select things to buy or bid on  from my tv through the decoder that others would have access to then they would be the same.

        "No, I understand that. But I - I would really like to have a chance to discuss what you keep telling me what I'm not discussing." -- Rep. Barney Frank.

        by BiminiCat on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:26:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Prevent a level playing field (3+ / 0-)

        I agree with your comment.  And further, some of these providers of internet content are potential threats to some of the telco's revenues.  For example, providers of Voice over IP (VOIP) services are beginning to take hold, and they take revenue from traditional telco phone services.

        The telecom companies have had an advantage and the last thing they want is a level playing field that allows competitors to nip at their heels.  I'm sure there are other monoliths in other business sectors who keep similar tabs on their potential competitors, and they would be supportive of the telcoms' current efforts because it would suit their purposes too.

        That's what this is about - keeping up those barriers to entry.  When individuals or small business entities start to become more empowered, the privileged institutions (corporations) get nervous and seek to keep the field sufficiently tilted in their favor.

  •  Great to have you back KOS!! An example (8+ / 0-)

    I love your take on McCurry.  What a sham and a shame.  I'm a US citizen living in Macedonia, a small forgotten corner of the Balkans.  We have a state owned (SO) telco monopoly controlling internet access.  Sure there are lots of small ISP's, but they all have to hook up through the SO telco pipes.  This firm makes a LOT of money on out of country long distance, so they do not allow access to Skype, net2phone, et al.  So people are stuck paying through the nose for LD service.

    Funnily enough, our government (i.e. taxpayers), through USAID, is helping the country develop a country wide wireless service, first of its kind in the world. for the specific purpose of ensuring "net neutrality".  Why do they get it and we don't??

    •  People looking out for the common good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sourmash

      USAID professionals -- within all the inadequacies of their situation (don't get me started) -- are seeking to look after the common good and the common future of FYROM's population and the nation.

      Hmmm ... sadly, that is absolutely not what we see from the Bush-Cheney cabal, their Republican Congressional enablers, George the W's tuxedo wearing base, and the K Street project team that has flowed money in.

      Sadly, in this case, we're on the side of the Corporations that -- in general -- are not top on the list of Ricky Santorum's friends ...

      9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:48:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ugh (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bherner, anotherdemocrat

    I haven't fully decided where I stand on net neutrality.  But the notion of this being "leftists" versus "centrists" is absurd.

    This debate divides economic libertarians from the civil libertarians of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and unites huge corporations with progressives.  Meanwhile, the so-called 'centrists' have so far been the one group with almost nothing to say about net neutrality at all.

    On the other hand, the idea that Reason Magazine is advocating a 'centrist' position was good for a hearty chuckle.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:32:52 AM PDT

  •  lying sack of shit? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carnacki, bherner

    Now, now.  You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    Kossacks: a large population of Medieval exegetes who each day grapple with the fabulistic opportunities of the early third milennium.

    by DCDemocrat on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:33:07 AM PDT

  •  Killing enterpreneurship (7+ / 0-)

    Currently, most enterpreneurs and small businesses have their own websites that compete with the big guys on a level playing field.  These days, they ALSO purchase most, if not all, of the merchandise they resell and their supplies over the web from OTHER small businesses.  

    If Net Neutrality goes away, it will seriously screw up the small business supply chain.  Killing Net Neutrality could kill commercial enterpreneurship in America.

    So - how many small business people know that this move is afoot?  Ask them.  As you patronize your local small businesses this week, ask them about this.  If they don't know about it, get them outraged.  Have them contact their Congresscritters.

    Private life is all about managing pain. In business and government, this means externalizing and deferring costs whenever possible.

    by sxwarren on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:40:59 AM PDT

    •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pithy Cherub, sxwarren

      If the telecom companies have their way, this would be the equivalent of another dot com crash.  The corporate paranoia will only get worse as more and more consolidation occurs, companies become bigger, less innovative and less able to adapt quickly to changing market conditions.  They will become more irrational about smaller, more innovative competitors nipping at their heels.  And of course there is that sense of entitlement that goes along with unbridled, robber barron like power.  The effect will be to send us further down the path toward mediocrity - which is just fine with Corporate America, as long as they can ensure a steady stream of revenue.  

      I've seen this happen on a smaller scale within big corporations that I worked for.  Extremely competent, creative and ambitious people are encouraged up to a certain point, and can be very successful (so long as the upper levels of management can take credit for their work in their circles.)  When they get to a certain level and begin to gain some measure of power and recognition, the insecurity of their mediocre superiors becomes a factor and leads to their demise.  I've seen it happen more than once.  I have no doubt that things work the same way on a more macro level too.

  •  Kos, as the Non-Prog Newbie here... (0+ / 0-)

    When Matt says and you cite "One of those rules is that even if you own a pipe, you're not allowed to tell people what they can put through that pipe.  You can't block web sites, you can't say 'don't stream video', and you can't dictate what people and can't say."  Does this include kid porn and terrorist planning?

    I am not trying to troll, but that is a pretty sweeping statement.

    Best regards,

    •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, Nightprowlkitty

      ....child pornography and terrorist conspiracy are already illegal. That's already adequately covered by criminal law and not necessary under regulatory law, I wouldn't think.

    •  A technical explanation: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Steve4Clark, Nightprowlkitty

      ISPs technically can't filter for any sort of specific content, per se. A packet is a packet is a packet. They could set up a proxy server of sorts, but the data would need to be manually sorted through, basically it's just not doable. So you really can't filter out kiddy porn or terrorist activities without cutting off practically the entire connection.

      But packets DO have some identifying features on them...the server where the packet originates from, and the "port" that the packet is set to connect to.

      The concern about destroying net neutrality, is that corporations will choose to give preference to certain orginators over others, choosing winners and losers in other fields. It's market manipulation.

      While there's possible ramifications for sites like this one, more than likely you'll see it used to nudge out various online services in favor of telco-alligned competitors.

      That's the funny thing. We really have the traditional "centrist" pro-free market view here.

      This is our story...

      by Karmakin on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:03:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Steve4Clark, Nightprowlkitty

        In actuality, porn would probably be in the "Lexus Lanes" these scum want to create. It is one of the most profitable web businesses, and could easily afford to pay up.

        So, to USAFguy, above, this would give priority to porn over, say "Wal-Mart Watch". Great stuff, eh?

      •  Well, it seems that (0+ / 0-)
        the right of free speech is not diminished so much as the right to electronically broadcast that speech.  

        One can still go to the White House with a sign or stand on an apple crate in the town square.  It changes when one relies upon another non-owned medium like the net, the telephone, etc.

        Best regards,

        •  Can't yell 'F (0+ / 0-)

          America: Love it or leave it question it or bend over

          by bobinson on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:52:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater (0+ / 0-)

            Used to be a hobby of mine until the courts decided that the hundreds of people dying in the stampedes were not worth it. It benefitted society to shut down all the theater yellings. Now the US legislature is trying to decide if  society will be benefitted by the big telephone companies charging boatloads of money to consumers and other big businesses to use the pipes we all now use for internet communication.

            Anyone can stand on a soap box in front of the White House and say his piece, but what if the only place you could get a soap box charged $10,000 per. Monopolies require govt. regulation to protect consumers. In this case the regulators are debating weather or not to protect the monopoly holders.

            America: Love it or leave it question it or bend over

            by bobinson on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:05:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I was under the impression (0+ / 0-)

          and please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the internet is not owned by AT&T, Verizon, AOL, or anyone else.

          I thought cysco, and a number of other companies maintain it(including the US government...we the people ), but that by an large it was an entity unto itself, without a country, boarder, etc...more organic than other communications mediums like phone lines, or airwaves.

          General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

          by patsprouseyo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:56:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think there is (0+ / 0-)
            a subtle difference between the "Internet" and the "Internet Service Providers".  Certainly there is someone WAY smarter than me who can answer your question...but I think that ISPs are governed by certain national sovereignty things (like China's restrictions on Google and other ISPs in China), and some that go on here.

            Best regards,

    •  Clarification (0+ / 0-)

      The rights we propose do not exceed legality. People should be allowed to do whatever they want on the Internet, so long as it is legal. Just like real life.

      People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people

      by The Icelander on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:36:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I take issue (5+ / 0-)

    with your sentence: “what a lying sack of shit he has become”—the “he has become” part.  Dems have always been as corporate as the thugs; if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be the careful, sentence parsing ineffectuals that we have to beg to take a stand.  The difference is, as Clinton said in his 2004 convention speech (I paraphrase), that dems don’t mind if everybody else gets rich, too.  Dems practice egalitarian graft.  Thugs want the pennies off our eyes.    

  •  McCurry as Fallen Hero...Help me out, here (0+ / 0-)

    What good did he achieve, to have goodwill in the first place?

    He's a who-the-hell from where I'm sitting. I have no idea what he is, save for his modern-day pimp work for the pipe owners.

    Hey, Republicans: We Brought It On. :)

    by cskendrick on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:46:07 AM PDT

    •  McCurry's Prior Good Deeds (5+ / 0-)
      Oddly enough many journalists say that McCurry never lied to them. Also, McCurry did a fairly good job handling the Lewinsky tempest-in-a-teapot during his last few months. Joe Lockhart, McCurry's successor, probably did a better job, though.
      •  What turns good character to evil so surely? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anotherdemocrat

        Money? Fear? Power? Conversion experience? Psychotic Break? Peer Pressure?

        Whatever the pathology is, it has to be fairly generic, as so many have succumbed to it in about the same time, to the same extent, in the service of the same cause.

        Maybe they've bought into the schtick that these are the last days of our civilization, and anything goes to keep it going.

        I hear conservatives talking this thread; it's rather unsettling. We're not talking Rapture, here; it's a secular fatalism, that the center (meaning us) cannot hold off the inevitable (meaning them) forever...or even for very long.

        And it's an attitude that excuses a lot of things; get yours, while the gettin's good. Forget the niceties like rights and rule of law, so long as something's being done. Against...what? Against...whom?

        I think the more religious among the right don't quite believe the Rapture is nigh anymore; I think they've sadly accepted the Robertson/Falwell line that was so imfamous right after 9/11: That God has basically said "Tell it to the Hand!" to America's cries for help.

        And they are mad as hell about that, and blame, you guessed it, everybody unlike themselves in this country.

        That's why it's so easy for the right to drop everything to go after homosexuals, for example. It's not a sideshow to them; it's the whole shooting match in their worldview. Sort of a sick "If we take guns to gays, God will come back" approach to national security.

        I don't know how this all fits into McCurry's head, but I do think he's part of the problem now -- the problem of fatalism.

        Hey, Republicans: We Brought It On. :)

        by cskendrick on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:24:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Public thoroughfares or fiefdoms? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat

    (I'm a latecomer to this discussion.)
    Isn't the internet necessarily a network of public throughfares? Without free access there never would have been a modern economy, let alone globalization.
    It's true there are now tolls on a number of major trunk lines, and that this tax-collecting has sometimes been privatized. That's a dangerous road to follow.
    In any case, it's different from corporate fiefdoms.

    •  What? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nightprowlkitty

      'Public thoroughfares'?

      Considering that the internet is not public, the broadband cables and broadcast towers are mostly privately financed, and that globalization began with the East India Trading Company, I'm baffled by what you mean.

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 04:15:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A Libertarian challenge! Good! (0+ / 0-)

        The internet looks to me like a quintessentially public project, from its inception.
        Of course that doesn’t mean its installations must be publicly owned.
        Would you say that harbors and shipping lanes could only be called a public facility if all the ships and port installations were state-owned?
        But I’m guessing the details are not your concern, either, since you immediately jump to globalization, and affirm that it was initiated by the East India Company! You might just as well say it was started by the Norsemen who enslaved Celtic populations and took them to populate Iceland.

        I don’t pretend to know a great deal about the internet or about the business or legislation of it. Rather, I’m moved by the conviction that access must be maintained open and traffic regulated in the public interest.  
        I was about to ask what the givens are for you,  what you take for granted when making a large judgement [Is there, for example, such a thing as a public interest?]
        But now I see there’s some much more substantive material coming out on this today on dkos, so I’ll leave it there.

        Ask not for whom...

  •  AT&T should fire this guy (0+ / 0-)

    McCurry is a very ineffective lobbyist on this issue.  He doesn't understand the underlying technical issue, he doesn't understand who the opposition is and how to position his client.

    AT&T should get its money back.

    •  How do you know he doesn't understand? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      Obfuscation is his job, after all. Most people (including those in Congress) don't understand the technical issues either...confusing the issue is the best way to line up support for his clients. It's been a very successful strategy for Republicans.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:05:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  straight and passionate (6+ / 0-)

    This text is a perfect example of why I count on the internet in general and dK, specficially. The facts, as well as the background, are clear. The analysis cogent. And there's no mistaking your position or interest.  All of it's right out there, sizzling away in broad daylight.  McCurry, however, couches his spin in the false objectivity of trad media expression, with a little world-weary "oh that 21st century jihad" bullshit.

    This is exactly what I need in order to thread my way through the current fashion in political discourse in America, where plain truth has become entirely irrelevant to the version of buzz that serves one's interests at this very moment.

    The most horrifying thing to me about the Rovian strategies that created and have thus far sustained BushCo is the complete disconnect between word and meaning.  You say whatever gets nervous systems jumping in the direction you want. Doesn't matter if it's true. Doesn't matter if you have no intention of doing what you say.  Doesn't matter if you believe it or not.  As long as it works.

    Buzz.  All, still taken at face value, as if the words still have meaning. Then: Zap. Tilt.  And before you know it, there are so many twists on the lingo that we are clueless.  Utterly clueless. About what's going on & what's at stake. The ultimate Diebold machine.

    This post, straight and passionate, facts founded, sources stated, and personal position right out there, in your face, is the antidote to the sickly miasma of blather, distortion, subversion and spin. Its effect, like its purpose, is the opposite of McCurry, his ilk and his sponsors-- to clarify, to inform you and help you think.

    Jeezus, what a relief.  And invigorating.

    A perfect example in a nutshell of the whole point--the crucial importance of a free internet & of exactly why big Corps & their vassals on K Street are out to get it.  Yes, it's all about money-- but only in the short term-- they're out to own us, stem to stern,synapse to paradigm, mind and belly, heart and crotch. They may not have invented it, understood it, evolved it but, shit, that doesn't mean they shouldn't own it, right? Control it. Turn it in just another mall. An Ebay on every corner, paying them rent.

    After all that, I think the thing I love most about this post is the confidence in every word Kos writes.  Warrior adrenalin.

    Yes!

    "Sovereignty belongs to those who determine the state of emergency."

    by Tulip on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 04:08:12 AM PDT

    •  Bingo (0+ / 0-)

      the tele co want to control the content.. the information.. money is a side issue now..since most of it is stored in 1s and 0s. Once the tele co get this control.. the govt will have access to every single thing in our lives...

  •  Since the early eighties... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ActivistGuy

    Since the early eighties the center of American Politics has been steadly shifting to the right. That should really be no surprise when one considers that the power and influence of corporate boardrooms in our government has been growing by leaps and bounds, by Reagans, Bushs, Clintons and Gores.

    The heart of liberalism is a respect for Democratic values and its ability to keep the economic opportunity playing field level with a set fair set of rules. The aim of Corporatism is the increase of centralized power and wealth in the hands of its officers.

    There is little difference expect for the rhetoric between a state that controls the means of production and distribution and a state where a conglomeration of interlocked Corporations which in its natural monopolistic fashion has reached out and taken over the control of that state. The result for 95% of the citizens in either example is remarkably the same. They are prisoners of a totalitarian State. One is justifed in the name of the people, the other in the name of property and enterprise and both are a justifications that are lie. Both are situations where a minority of  power hungry individuals have usurped all the perks and privileges they can and are willing to enforce them with the power of the state.

    In truth Communism is a corrupted form of Liberalism springing from the twisting of the values of democracy and Fascism(Corporatism) is a corruption of Conservatism which sprang originally from Royalist political philosophy. The confusion people have with this springs from the emotional reaction to the buzz words the advocates of the extreme left or right have injected into political arguments to help them gain power (money and property other names) over their neighbors.

    McCurry ought to be view with this argument in mind and just what the locus of the political center ought to be. Were are today in America nowhere near a Golden Mean in our political realities.

  •  There are millions and millions... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    metal prophet
    of good (small d) democrats who are to get paid by waiting corporations.

    In Bangalore. In Taipei. Anywhere but in America...

    This is also the Harris Miller position.

    Vote Jim Webb June 13 in Virginia.

    People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

    by rgilly on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 04:20:22 AM PDT

  •  There's unfortunately a lot of talk.... (5+ / 0-)

    ....in progressive circles about which "special interest group" we need to throw under the wheels in order to win over the broad mainstream of American thought. Some say it's the gays, others say women (particularly those who dare to be pro-choice), still others say Democrats shouldn't try to appeal to closely to racial minorities. Well, the elephant in the room is big corporations and their slimeball lobbyists (Harris Miller? Mike McCurry?). Corporations are not widely trusted by regular, mainstream Americans. It's a perfectly reasonable position to be anti-corporate. Or, more precisely, anti-corporate theft and malfeasance. Instead of genuflecting before the allmighty corporation, let's throw them under the proverbial wheels and leave other constituent groups alone. That's the sort of big tent I'm interested in. Gun owners, non-gun owners, environmentalists, veterans, non-veterans, gays and lesbians, straight people, bisexuals, too, hell, even some social conservatives who think the national good is more important than making sure the queers can't get married. That's my big tent. Corporate lobbyists are the only ones who aren't going to get in. Well, not with any more rights than anyone else.

  •  It's never about what they say it's about. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat
    At some point in the last fifteen years it was decided that the US can most easily maintain global control by controlling the communications systems.  Remember that it was under Clinton that the mandate of the intelligence services was expanded to prevent "industrial and financial espionage."  I other words, the US was setting up a system to do just that--gain industrial and commercial advantages by spying on "competitors."

    Remember also that in both Gulf I and Gulf II there was a lot of emphasis on destroying or degrading (selective destruction) the "enemy's" command and control structures.  In other words, the agression against Iraq was designed in part as a test of the military's ability to intercept and manipulate communications systems, as is the more recent collection of data by the N.S.A.
    There's a reason why Iraq still has a significantly degraded electric grid and it's land-line phone service is kaput.  

    Forget "GOD, GUNS, GAYS, GIRLS & GETS"

    by hannah on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 04:46:47 AM PDT

  •  Nothing Wrong (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rabel, esquimaux, Eikyu Saha

    With being anti-corporate.  Just, in this case, he has his facts all wrong.  The point is to keep the Internet open and free to all.

    We get screwed by big business and their know-nothing paid pimps all the time.

    Geez, can't they ever get enough money or does greed just run on forever?

  •  Would be nice if Clinton (Bill) spoke up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Icelander
    against McCurry, but I'm guessing that won't happen.

    Thinking back on it, Clinton hasn't championed liberal causes well in the last 6 years. Carter kind of puts him to shame. Clinton seems more interested in raising his image. He's done some good, but I think he could do a bit more.

    Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

    by chemsmith on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 04:55:43 AM PDT

    •  Better yet, Al Gore (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pithy Cherub, The Icelander

      That would shut McCurry up right quick.

    •  It's shame (0+ / 0-)

      But what turns Clinton's crank besides women polishing his crank proving to him is worth as a man is winning elections and holding elective offices. In high school he held so many offices at once his school adopted a rule that a student could only hold one office at a time.

      He is somehow personally validated by winning an election I'd say it is to him like a woman winning a beauty pageant. He appears to have has a deep-seeded need for approval one could guess it may have come from not having a full time dad. Sadly it's so important to him he will do almost anyone’s bidding who will insure/buy his winning. The guy is so bright and in his own way sooooo needy, it boggles the mind to think of the good he could have done.

  •  the 'clinton legacy' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe, mimi, averybird

    is a lot more like mccurry than many would like to admit. whoring comes very easily to the DLC.

  •  Grassroots Enterprise Needs to Feel the Effect (0+ / 0-)

    I just emailed this to a friend of mine at one of Grassroots Enterprise's (McCurry's company)non-profit clients.  Grassroots Enterprise actually does do a lot of online community building and genuine grassroots work - not just astroturf.  I don't think most of those clients doing legitimate community-building are aware that McCurry's work is going to make much of what they do ineffective.    

    •  Wrong company, dude (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boadicea

      I work at Grassroots Enterprise. We are not working on this issue. Please do a little research before you go attacking companies.

      •  Wasn't McCurry... (0+ / 0-)

        One of the Execs there? Is he still?

        •  I should've explained better (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boadicea

          DBJ, sorry to snap at ya, it's just that this has come up a bunch, and we keep trying to explain -- to no avail.

          Mike was earlier the CEO, but now is a board member, not one of the execs.  Folks may or may not know, but board members do not have day to day involvement the way a CEO, CFO, CTO, etc., would have.  We also have board members who are involved with a host of other efforts, ranging from Paypal to Flicker to fighting AIDS in Africa, to... you name it.

          So needless to say, we are not involved with things that board members do on their own time.   And we are simply not involved at all with the net neutrality fight, any more than we are involved with Paypal, Flickr, well... you get the idea.

          Now, I've made no secret -- personally, I like Mike a lot, and have defended him against what I think have been waaaaaay over the top attacks.

          But that being said, Grassroots Enterprise is not involved in this issue.  At all.  Period.  So I understand the confusion, I just get frustrated when people assume without asking, and make attacks on the basis of those assumptions.    

          •  Isn't that a leeetle easy? (0+ / 0-)

            After all, the connected with the oney selling those connection makes available are in all sorts of companies. One may to smack back is to start an economic boycott of said companies. Hit them where it hurts.

            I know...and it hurts all you innocents too. Mayhaps it's time to ask him to leave the Board?

      •  so what? (0+ / 0-)

        I don't need to do research to know that what McCurry is saying is going to hurt your clients.  

        Why should anyone do business with you when one of your principals is undermining the medium you work in?

  •  I hope... (0+ / 0-)

    That someone from the Gun Owners of America or Christian Coalition reads this and figures out that all that marginalization of the left bullshit can apply to them as well if they take a stand on somthing they believe in and figure out is a lie used to demean people who take a stand against someone with a bigger bullhorn and nothing else.

    The Republican Party: The Bridge to Nowhere

    by flounder on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:03:56 AM PDT

  •  McCurry is exhibit A.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averybird

    ...for the fallacy of allowing DC Democrats to continue running our party.... into the ground for corporate interests and so they can continue padding their wallets.

    Disgusting.

  •  Clintonism's true colors - green (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ActivistGuy

    at the end of the day they sold us peons out, constantly, under the banner of "centrism".

    I wish they'd join the thugs.

    rmm.

    http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

    by seabos84 on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:45:35 AM PDT

  •  What you're not supposed to know (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boadicea, anotherdemocrat

    For several years, academics, government agencies, elected representatives have adopted use of the term, "commodity Internet" to distinguish our Internet from Internet2:
    "The discussion will be netcast on both Internet2 advanced networks and the commodity Internet. Anyone is welcome to participate in this event, and the museum encourages students to organize groups on their campus to view the presentation. For updated information about the program and the panelists, visit the event webiste. To view the program on April 17, see the webcast site.
    http://arts.internet2.edu/...

    Type in "commodity internet" in your favorite search engine, and track the use of the term for yourself.

    When lobbyists step in front of our elected representatives, they make sure those representatives understand that Internet2, the universities, government agencies, and large corporate members of Internet2 are handling all creativity and innovation, while the "commodity Internet" needs to become just another distribution channel, and we need to pay, and pay, and pay, and grow and prosper and enjoy unlimited economic growth on our Internet.

    A fine way to care and nurture our airwaves that we own, don't you agree???

  •  false conflation (3+ / 0-)

    What's new here is McCurry's conflation of his role as a Democratic wise man and his role as a lobbyist.  According to McCurry, people on the internets don't like his falsifications, ergo they reject good sound advice from Democratic wise men who just want to win elections.

  •  Mike McCurry (0+ / 0-)

    Wrong for America.

    Wrong on the Internet.

    Mike McCurry is an Ass!

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:04:54 AM PDT

  •  Reading between the lines, (0+ / 0-)

    I suspect Kos is a tad critical of Mike McMurray.  Or am I imagining it?

    We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

    by david78209 on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:15:08 AM PDT

  •  You Corporation is soooo fat. (4+ / 0-)

    "There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum."

    Yes, hon.  We do get paid by corporations.  But we're their employees, not they're precious babies.  We know up close and personal that they screw us whenever they get away with it.  And yes, we've seen them whine and play the victim every time someone demands that they play fair.

    Pumped and ready for "the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."

    by sagra on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:16:19 AM PDT

  •  I love this post (0+ / 0-)

    so much I think I'm going to frame it.  So glad you are back, Kos.  You just blasted through McCurry's lying rhetoric.  And to think, only a few years ago there was no opposition voice to this kind of malarky.  I am very grateful.

  •  Ah, yes, Bill Gates and Meg Whitman... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averybird, joanneleon

    ...those tribunes of communism and anti-business furor.  Man, now that's funny.

    All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

    by Harkov311 on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:49:01 AM PDT

  •  you've been slashdotted! (0+ / 0-)

    Congradulations! Now watch this site come to a crawl.

  •  you go, kos! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty
  •  Left Slash (5+ / 0-)

    Another important development in this story is the quick publishing of this DKos story on Slashdot's front page. Slashdot is the biggest geek blog, running since the late 1990s. Slashdot ("/.") is much bigger than DKos, and much more youth oriented - geeks and wannabees, especially science and engineering types in college / grad school, who don't have lifelong political affiliations.

    Possibly the most powerful political action you can take this week, outside an actual election, is to go post on Slashdot something slightly wise, slightly funny even, with links to the best, freshest discussions of progressive politics. Technology and interactive angles a plus, but mostly these people are in the vast uncharted middle, and many will otherwise blow their first or second votes of their lives in the critical elections this November. Go get 'em!

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:14:31 AM PDT

    •  This is true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, anotherdemocrat

      The most ferverent allies that we have in the fight for net neutrality are at slash-dot.

    •  You bet (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boadicea, anotherdemocrat

      I'm a regular at Slashdot and Techdirt and you are right, the young techies there badly need some exposure to progressive ideas.

      Naturally, there are a fair number (if a small minority) of pseudo-neo-con types there, who basically just parrot whatever politics their bosses have, which mainly means they support whoever gives them the biggest tax cut.  Never mind that those tax cuts don't mean squat for the front-line techie at Slasdot who's making 40k a year doing end-user support, and by supporting the rapacious neo-con agenda they're just cutting their own throat.

      I encourage people from DailyKos to visit these sites (slashdot.org and techdirt.com) and get into the conversations that are important to us.  You will find a grateful welcome from most, and nasty childish disdain from a very few, but connecting with these mostly young people should be a priority for us.  They're smart, energetic, and when they get fired up they'll swing into action in a way that will make the most committed activist envious.

      We want these people on our side and we should let them know it.

      •  Us + Them (0+ / 0-)

        Telling them we want them on our side will make them suspicious of our message. Slashdot culture prioritizes the message over the messengers, and distrusts the messengers: it's the scarred battleground of tech "religious wars" like Microsoft vs [you name it].

        Better to show Slashdot readers that you are already on their side, working hard before they even opened their eyes, and welcome their help. They'll trust you more, and tell more of their friends.

        I'd like to see a lot more "cross posted" stories appearing in both Slashdot and DKos in the same (American workday) news cycle, preferably before Lunch (11AM EST). Especially with links between the sites' respective discussions, the synergy is extremely powerful. And sooner than later some geek will deliver a new feature that unites the discussions cross-site simply and easily.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:02:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  biggest geek blog? (0+ / 0-)

      I think that might be overly qualified. If I remember correctly, slashdot is the biggest blog, period.

      •  Big Bigness (0+ / 0-)

        Well, it's overly qualified to specify Slashdot - redundant SQL, if you will (and I won't, not any more on DKos, but at Slashdot... ;).

        But qualifying Slashdot as the biggest geek blog is important when directing the DKos readership there. The qualification tells us that it's not political, per se, unlike DKos, which helps frame people's minds when reading, and probably more importantly posting in the new site. And it advertizes the relative lack of polarization in the face of new ideas.

        That Slashdot is also (probably) the biggest blog, possibly the biggest message site (regardless of the definition of "blog") outside of the Web organs of the biggest mass media publishers (and bigger than most of those) makes it even more attractive a target for enlightenment.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:55:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You'll love this: (4+ / 0-)

    There were some stories in the techie world (slashdot, techdirt) last week about people being hired by telcos to raid blogs and do tag-team commenting on any story about net neutrality.  You know, the usual:  "Let's keep the government out of our Internet." then "I agree with him", and "Me too!".  The funny part is that the teams use the same usernames to comment in dozens of blogs, and their comments always come up in the same order.

    I've never put a  link in a comment here, but I'll try.  This is from Techdirt.com:

    Telcos hire phony blog commentors

  •  Telecos already get too much money from Internet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat

    The US Telecos charge much more and deliver significantly less bandwidth compared to their European competitors. So why the fuck should we, or should websites, have to pay even more money to the telecos. The Telecos argue that in order to provide the infrastructure for high bandwidth things like streaming video more money is needed to offset the investment cost. We have already paid the money to cover this needed investment. It is not our fault they chose to pocket it versus invest it. Let them fund the upgrades out of their own money.

    The Telecos should learn to deliver a high bandwidth product at a reasonable price. If they don't want to do that, then sell their pipes to someone who wants to do it without continually stealing from everyone.

    •  I'm not so sure (0+ / 0-)

      Phil,

      Are you sure that bandwidth in the US is more expensive than it is in Europe?  Do you have any sources you can point to?

      I'm not challenging you on this point, but it contradicts what I've learned in my travels and conversations with friends across the ocean.

  •  I'd write to McCurry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat

    However, he's probably the type to not read it out of spite. It's a sad day when a person I had a certain amount of respect for uses loaded terms like "jihad" to denegrate people who don't agree with his corporate masters.

    Excuse me, Mike, if I'd rather not have corporations trample all over the one place where people like me can still get the information we need when we want it.

    It's the beat generation, it's be-at, it's the beat to keep, it's the beat of the heart, it's being beat and down in the world and like all time low-down

    by Splicer on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:44:11 AM PDT

  •  Calm, reasoned discourse. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve4Clark

    Kos:

    Tossing around "Lying sack of shit" is not the way to prove your point.

    And you wonder why you're called a loony flamethrower?

    Your opinions are valid. But when you act like a stoned 18 year old, you'll always be treated as such. And so will your followers.

    •  hmm (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      but its ok for them to called us loony , fringe and a host of other names... bahs..  

      Unless you have not noticed.. the way of being polite has gone by the way side once  we have been called traitors because we do no agree with what the govt is doing...

    •  I have to agree (0+ / 0-)

      For someone who is writing in the NYT and increasingly has one foot in the blogosphere and one in the MSM, I am surprised that Kos would write such a nasty post.  Go ahead and disagree but don't sound so juvenile - just make your case.    

  •  The important quote: (0+ / 0-)

    Kos wrote:

    lying sack of shit that he has become

    There are so many sacks of shit lying around that the whole mess sticks to high heaven.  Didn't our mothers teach us better when they told us to clean stuff like this up?

    Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

    by m00nchild on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:06:44 AM PDT

  •  I Love It (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat

    This story, and the way it has been written is very nicely done and highly accurate.

    If the government has a hand in developing, building, funding or in many cases, just looks at an issue, then government will absolutely take it upon themselves to say they own and need to regulate The "Free"dom Internet. Terrible, but true.

    This effort of course would have to be funded, and funding means there's an objective, and we all know what that objective is. Way in the background of this issue lies the essence of what can and should define the Democratic Party.

    Thesis statement should read:

    Regardless of what party your from, we will work with honest, transparent and sincere people, and those intent on representing the needs, desires, dreams and goals of the people that intrusted them to represent thier ideals. In practice and in fact, assist them in the pursuit of happiness.

    Regardless of what party you are from, you will be exposed, investigated, and made to face public reprisal or justice if it is found any elected official is doing otherwise.

    The people "Will" be represented, that day is coming. The internet is the foundation on which that will become Monolith of public strength over thier elected officials and the companies that attempt to Buy-Them-Out. I'm sure that doesn't sit well with any part of the ole' establishment.

    There in lies the true power of one portion of the foundation of the internet experience. And, there in lies the problem for those who could not bare to see that happen.

    The party should actually make a stand about this entire issue of corporate influence on Washington. Many in the party will be in a position where they have to hold thier collective breaths, but that's not the fault of "The People", that's thier fault.

    The party would do well the hold thier own members accountable, and anyone else out there would wishes to continue this bizarre behavior against thier own people for personal or lobbied gain.

    Once again, lobbying efforts, fund raising, corporate influence, and poin_blank, in-your-face corruption should be what is regulated. If anything should be "deregulated-to-be-regulated" it should be for the issues stated above, this internet crap is absurd!

  •  The NRA Supports Net Neutrality (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat

    What a bunch of hippies.

    Knowledge is the Past. Wisdom is the Future.
    Visit Hoot at the Dark.

    by Night Owl on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:17:27 AM PDT

  •  GOP is antiprivacy, anti-small business (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, anotherdemocrat

    Net neutrality is the poster child, a perfect example of the Bush kleptocracy run amok. Millions of Americans have built freelance careers or small businesses based upon a level playing field for all.

    The way to peel off pissed-off libertarian or moderate GOPers is to point out how the Bush Junta constantly sells small business and consumers down the river for larger corporate interests. Why do those who espouse "free markets" want to tamper with the internet? To pay off their contributors. After all, small business owners are consumers, too. They are struggling with high health care costs for themselves and their employees, and high gas prices are eating into their operating margins. And what do they see Bush focusing on? Gay marriage. Tie it in with all of the appalling privacy issues/transgressions. Why does the GOP want to fuck up the internet?

  •  Using the republican 'liberal' claim (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat

    "And now, ever more brazen in his dishonesty, he wants to make this a "left" versus "centrist" battle?"

    McCurry just wants to get the same affect out of using the phrase 'lefty' as conservatives do when they say 'liberal' but since too many of the democratic party are quite liberal if still centrist, he can get away with implying that 'lefty' is in fact a segment or breakaway rogue republic of liberalism so that he can get the rest of them to scorn those who oppose him and his telcom masters.

    So 'lefty' is to liberals what 'liberals' are to conservatives.
    It's like the Klu Nuts Klan trying to distinquist between which ni**er is darkest before they lynch'em both.

    MYOB'
    .

  •  Don't throw the baby out with the bath water (0+ / 0-)

    (Disclosure: I work for a telco. But the following is my personal, private opinion, representing only myself).

    The Internet is a packet delivery system, like Fedex or the Post Office. The Internet delivers Internet Protocol data packets instead of the real letters and parcels of the post office.

    You have different delivery options - such as overnight, 3-day delivery, ground delivery, etc., which are appropriate for delivering various size packages at various speeds.

    In addition you have services like registered or insured delivery.

    The price of each of these services is different.

    For the Internet to become more useful, it needs to be able to provide all these services.  Probably not as many options as the Post Office, but still a few are needed, and they will have different costs, and the telcos should be allowed to charge accordingly.

    IMO, net neutrality correctly means that the two ends of the connection can choose which internet delivery option they want.  The telcos have to offer these options to all comers and cannot discriminate between users, any more than the post office can.

    The performance of the various delivery options can be monitored and reported, and every telco should be held to a minimum performance standard for each delivery option, though it may not be necessary in a competitive market.

    IMO, it would be wrong to say that the Internet should be allowed to have only one type of packet delivery, any more than the post office should be required to send everything overnight.

    A little more info on class of service is here:Techweb

    •  the road is not the UPS truck (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, anotherdemocrat

      One thing that all of these options have in common is that they operate on top of public transportation infrastructures: roads, airports, and other forms necessarily held in common. If they're not public property, we'll find over these facilities and their rules until we crash.

      If telcos want to make new charges, they should have new services that piggyback on top of the old ones. They shouldn't device new ways to jack up rates on the same old thing.

      The internet is not like FedEx or the Post Office. It's much more like the roads, railways, and airports they use.

      Once delivery is no longer content blind, there is no common carriage, and there can be no common carriers.

      •  reply (0+ / 0-)

        For the end-user (content-provider, content user) the internet is exactly like door-to-door pickup and delivery.   The airports, trains, trucks are invisible and irrelevant.

        The internet runs on private facilities, owned wholly by one telco or another.  What the public has granted  is the right of way on which fiber or cable is strung on.

        Voice over IP or live video streaming has very different needs from email delivery.  Corporate customers already pay different rates for these different applications on their private IP networks. An arrangement might be that on their internet pipe, X%of the bandwidth is for class of service I, Y% for class of service II, etc.  ""For instance, an enterprise's mission-critical applications (such as Oracle) might be in a Gold class of service, less-important applications might be in a Silver service, recreational applications (such as games, instant messaging, and P2P) might be in a Best Effort service, and VoIP traffic might be in its own class of service that would reduce jitter.""

        •  telcos (0+ / 0-)

          Voice over IP is an application that eats at the telcos traditional phone service. A third party passing that kind of traffic over a telco-owned facility is going to be charged by the telco if there's no net neutrality. One thing is to let the third party volutarily pay the telco for a better quality of service, another thing is to let the telco BLOCK that traffic to those third parties that don't buy the better quality of service. Blocking goes against the "common carrier" rules but that's exactly what the telcos want to abolish. From that point on it will be a free for all for the telcos who would aim to collect more money from third parties for any kind of traffic the telcos decide to charge for.

        •  its not the same when they look inside of the box (0+ / 0-)

          The door to door pickup and delivery analogy is strained when the service provider looks inside of your content, sees what's there, and charges accordingly.

          Providers must remain content blind or they are no longer common carriers.

          I am against: Telcos looking into the packets we're sending now, and jacking up rates.

          I am for: New network protocols that allow packet level security and varying degrees of QoS, even for a price. TCP & UDP just aren't up to this. STP, on the other hand...

    •  Different service types (0+ / 0-)

      Currently, I pay a set amount for a high incoming rate and a lower outgoing rate.  You are suggesting that the telcos be allowed to branch this farther, so that my incoming rate is broken into, say, a streaming and a non-streaming rate.

      This sounds fair, and possibly useful.  A generic user might pay less for a low streaming rate, and a VOIP user might pay more for a higher streaming rate, even though the overall incoming rate was the same.  

      But how do you get all of the telcos to agree as to what constitutes "streaming" traffic?  And how do you keep them from downgrading non-streaming quality to the point that everybody is forced to upgrade their service to streaming quality?

  •  Not leftists ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, anotherdemocrat

    McCurry's wrong. My boss, Bob Shamansky is a centrist who backs net neutrality.  It's not about left vs. right.  It's about right vs. wrong.   Bob had this to say last week:

    Telecom and network providers don’t need any more of a monopoly than the virtual monopoly they already enjoy.

    Tiered access is undemocratic and goes against principles of open communication that have made the Internet the powerful force for change that it has become today. These companies apparently believe that freedom of speech applies only if you can afford it.

    This legislation is simply another example of the Republican led congress putting the interests of lobbyists before the interests of the public. The only opportunities and enhancements provided by COPE are opportunities to gouge content providers, and to enhance corporate profits.

    Congress must protect network neutrality and preserve the free flow of information on the Internet.

    ___________________
    Drew Tappan
    Campaign Director
    Shamansky for Congress
    Honest Leadership for Central Ohio

    by actappan on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:44:54 AM PDT

  •  McCurry is aiming at Republicans. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherdemocrat

    McCurry sees support for the Telecos slipping in Congress, and wants to recast the issue in terms of "left" v "center" to shore up support among Republicans.

    What is needed is the Christian Coalition sending each member of the GOP in the House and Srenate a letter outlining their opposition. And also to note a rejection of the "left v center" spin McCurry is putting on this.

  •  The Missed Opportunity Thus Far (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, anotherdemocrat

    The assaults on net neutrality are assaults on entrepreneurialism.  

    I am a small business owner whose access to the net is critical.  I face competition from people like GE and Honeywell.  If telcos impose a tax on me and a tax on them, who do you think is going to be better able to work a large package deal for access?  The net works because at this point, it's free to both of us.

    It is not just Microsoft and Google who should be opposed to this but every Chamber of Commerce across this country.  

  •  McCurry doesn't care because... (0+ / 0-)

    ...he is a Clintonian insider.

    He's another of those folks who thinks they know whats best for "all them" out there in the grassroots (weeds and dirt, from his perspective)...

    As far as he's concerned, if it gets a few more big donors in his pockets, let the netroots burn...they're outsiders and amateurs, anyways, right?

    It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
    PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

    by floundericiousMI on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:35:54 AM PDT

  •  "McCurry has become" (0+ / 0-)
    I hate to be appear to be nitpicking a tiny issue, and I hate it when people do that to my posts... I agree with the actual content, but, I just wanted to state on the side that I think McCurry has always been a "dishonest piece of shit".  This isn`t a new development.  He was shattering Bullshit Detectors back in the early '90s.  Probably before that, but I don`t remember seeing him prior to that.

    "Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization." - Eugene Debs

    by Smyslov on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 10:43:20 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site