Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

October 2024
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

“FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules Endanger a Truly Open Internet”

From the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

The Federal Communications Commission is planning new rules to dictate how Internet providers can manage the information that flows over their private networks. These rules would foreclose the evolution of innovative, pro-competitive network and business models and, worse, would inject politics into the governance of Internet networks, the Competitive Enterprise Institute warned in a public comment submitted to the FCC today.

“America’s challenge is not for FCC to ‘do something’ in the communications and Internet realm, but rather to dismantle and move beyond earlier regulatory impediments that have limited our creative freedoms in expanding infrastructure and content access,” explained Wayne Crews, CEI Vice President for Policy.

The FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules rest on the fallacy that government action is needed to ensure a vibrant, innovative Internet. In reality, today’s Internet is as free and innovative as ever, while consumer choice among broadband providers is at an all time high. Net neutrality rules, announced late last year by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, would empower a heavily politicized federal agency to dictate the outcomes of otherwise-private disputes over network access and pricing, and will also likely extend to the content sectors now advocating the rules.

“Banning proprietary business models is just the opposite of true ‘openness,’” said Crews. “The FCC seems to be forgetting that not every network has been built yet, and tomorrow’s networks and business models need not resemble those that prevail today. The FCC is wrong to assume that today’s politicians and regulators know what’s best for companies not yet created, networks not yet deployed, and business plans not yet formulated.”

Well, the FCC would be wrong, if in fact they considered the foreclosure of private innovation a bug and not a feature.

As it stands, they are proceeding apace with other moves to turn the open market into soft fascism — albeit soft fascism with free market-sounding names.

Or, to put it another way…Lookit! Bunnies!

0 Replies to ““FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules Endanger a Truly Open Internet””

  1. JD says:

    It is simply not possible for me to overstate the contempt I have for the dirty little socialists.

  2. Competition says:

    “Well, the FCC would be wrong, if in fact they considered the foreclosure of private innovation a bug and not a feature.”

    Nice file-sharing protocol. Would be a shame if it slowed down.

  3. Carin says:

    Can someone ‘esplain, in plain English, a for-instance of what they are hoping to do?

  4. newrouter says:

    its a new toy that the gov’t wants to play with.

  5. Joe says:

    What could go wrong?

  6. Joe says:

    ()_()
    (*,*)
    ( )
    @___@

  7. Totally fascist says:

    “Can someone ‘esplain, in plain English, a for-instance of what they are hoping to do?”

    The FCC previously proposed 4 principles that it would take as policy, but not yet make rule. The New proposal is to make rule a total of 6 principles. They are:

    * Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
    * Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
    * Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
    * Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

    The two new ones are:

    * A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner
    * A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

  8. hf says:

    This is just what happens in socialist countries.

  9. Carin says:

    But, what does that ^ mean?

  10. JD says:

    Carin – Those are simply the broad-brush parameters from which they will begin their regulation.

  11. Competition says:

    For example, it means that comcast won’t be able to block or degrade your use of a program that downloads movies faster or cheaper or better or that you just plain old prefer more than the movie download service they want to offer or have partnered with or have gotten a kickback from.

    Also it means fascism and socialism.

  12. Joe Biden says:

    My bunny sucks, but not a much as this idea does.

  13. Jeff G. says:

    Yeah, Carin. Listen to the internet guy using the funny names and the bemused tone. What does the Competitive Enterprise Institute know about competitive enterprise, anyway?

    Federal bureaucracies? That’s where you turn for free market advances.

    I know this. “Competition” itself showed up to tell me everything will be peachy once we have federal regulators regulating growth parameters. On my blog!

  14. DarthRove says:

    Shorter cowardly-troll-what-rotates-screen-names:

    “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help you.”

  15. geoffb says:

    “Scott Brown may not share the political values of most of the state and may lack the experience for the US Senate. And, let’s be honest, his nights probably aren’t tied up with Mensa meetings. But he’s out there hustling, meeting, asking, and convincing. People respect that, a lot.”

    “The FCC is wrong to assume that today’s politicians and regulators know what’s best for companies not yet created, networks not yet deployed, and business plans not yet formulated.”

    The Michael Myers of lefty memes. Even watching O! and Slow Joe for the past year hasn’t killed it, yet.

  16. Jeff G. says:

    From the release:

    Key Points to the FCC:
    *FCC needs to bring something to the table apart from an appetite for regulation.
    *The “Agency Neutrality” proposed here would mean regulators must not be allowed to “discriminate” and choose sides (content over infrastructure) in any market confrontation.
    *At stake is less today’s ground-level dispute, but rather the principle of proprietary control vs. the principle of collective control in the creation and management of infrastructure and communications wealth decades hence.
    *When liberalizing a heavily regulated segment of a mixed economy, the gauge of the impending reform’s appropriateness is simple: The body of private activity subject to regulation must decline rather than increase.
    It is important to appreciate the significance of the fact that the FCC is unwilling to even affirm that it will leave “managed” and “specialized services” alone.
    *The deliberate conflation of competition with government-defined openness and a penchant for compulsory access (and the attendant government role in price and entry regulation) colors the entire proceeding.
    *Pricing and access freedom would result in a constant escalation in the basic capabilities of the network, an intensification of the “background hum” of the Internet as a whole, much as we’ve already witnessed without neutrality mandates interrupting the process over the past decade.
    *The principle of neutrality should be replaced by a new principle, that of fostering competition in the creation of networks. Today’s task is one of lowering transactions costs of building infrastructure.

  17. Jeff G. says:

    For example, it means that comcast won’t be able to block or degrade your use of a program that downloads movies faster or cheaper or better or that you just plain old prefer more than the movie download service they want to offer or have partnered with or have gotten a kickback from.

    Yeah. Cuz why should Comcast have a say in how they run their own company? After all, that would force YOU to make choices based on what THEY offer.

    And that’s the job of government. Making choices for you. And for Comcast.

    Because partnering and things like that? They might help drive down bundle prices, sure. But they are also all, like, complicity. And complicity is for, like, GM or Fannie and Freddie. Not Comcast and their proprietary streaming software.

  18. geoffb says:

    It’s just like the new National Health-Insurance Exchange proposed as the latest Obama-care. The private companies keep their name on the door. Behind it every decision made as to what to sell and what to charge is made by those, oh so much smarter, people from the federal government.

    All the private sector will become like that strip of land from the sidewalk to the curb in front of your house. You get to maintain it, get fined if you don’t keep it to government specs. But you don’t really own it, though you are allowed to think so because it is a convenient fiction.

  19. happyfeet says:

    At stake is less today’s ground-level dispute, but rather the principle of proprietary control vs. the principle of collective control in the creation and management of infrastructure and communications wealth decades hence.

    Duh. You think? Welcome to 2010.

  20. Jeff G. says:

    It’s just like the new National Health-Insurance Exchange proposed as the latest Obama-care. The private companies keep their name on the door. Behind it every decision made as to what to sell and what to charge is made by those, oh so much smarter, people from the federal government.

    When you call that soft-fascism, make sure you do so with a wink. Otherwise people might believe you are serious. And that’ll be the last invite YOU get to a salon or an Oprah Book Club party.

  21. competition says:

    “Cuz why should Comcast have a say in how they run their own company? After all, that would force YOU to make choices based on what THEY offer.”

    If they lied about what they were doing, I couldn’t really make choices based on what they offered.

    “Yeah, Carin. Listen to the internet guy using the funny names and the bemused tone. What does the Competitive Enterprise Institute know about competitive enterprise, anyway?”

    So another example would be companies wouldn’t be able to lie to you about why some of your services are being degraded — you know, because lying is so key to competition. Yet another would be your ability to choose a VOIP provider without it being degraded by your broadband provider. So your startup VOIP provider can compete with someone who has more cash and can pay off your ISP to screw your packets.

    All of this on the road to socialism.

    “After all, that would force YOU to make choices based on what THEY offer.”

    see, Carin that flows from:

    * Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
    * Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
    * Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
    * Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

    Just like every fascist you have ever met.

  22. Carin says:

    I’d like to know what the government is going to do to improve the internet for me?

    How is government interference intervention going to improve my ‘net?

    What exactly can’t I do right now?

    I mean, besides access it beyond the capabilities of my stupid Satellite, which limits my daily down-load to 425 mb w/i any 24 hour period.

    Is Obama gonna lay a cable or DLS line down my country road? Is he gonna force hughesnet to improve my speed or allow me a reasonable amount of bandwidth per day?

    ’cause otherwise, he ain’t doing shit for me.

  23. geoffb says:

    “Totally fascist” becomes “Competition”. Gets called on the name changes and so becomes…
    “competition”, for the plausible deniability while avoiding Trollhammer® one more time. Next up the misspellings of “competition”.

  24. sdferr says:

    “…companies wouldn’t be able to lie to you…”

    Yeah, caveat emptor is the perfect motto of the fascist all right.

    Oh, wait… I meant: Government wants to hold your hand as you don’t decide while government decides for you, because government loves you so well it only desires your interest and well being and no other. It’s like your mommy, government is.

  25. Jeff G. says:

    If they lied about what they were doing, I couldn’t really make choices based on what they offered.

    Because how would you ever know that the movie downloader you prefer doesn’t work with Comcast if they don’t tell you?

  26. Jeff G. says:

    You can’t not trust “competition,” Carin. After all, he’s called “competition.” And just like “at hope,” the relabeling makes it so!

  27. JD says:

    Another vapid inane troll, or the same one cowardly sock-puppetting?

  28. Jeff G. says:

    RD.

  29. geoffb says:

    And that’ll be the last invite YOU get to a salon or an Oprah Book Club party.

    I have always worked nights, I like it. Even if I ever got an invite I couldn’t go and wouldn’t because I can’t think of anything more boring than listening to a gaggle of lefties in full of themselves mode. Like a faculty meeting I expect.

  30. Jeff G. says:

    Just like every fascist you have ever met.

    Well, actually, no. The fascists I’ve met are the ones who change their names to things like “competition” while circumscribing who gets to compete. Or they talk about free markets, so long as they can control what gets included in the market and what needs to be kept out. For our own good.

    What they never seem to be able to identify if fascism.

  31. Carin says:

    I find it interesting pathetic that “competition” can’t put these net neutrality deals into plan language either.

    Why do I need the government to handle this? What DON’T I have now?

    I mean, beside speedy internet. Or a reasonable amount of bandwidth.

  32. Jeff G. says:

    The FCC got a few billion to expand access to broadband.

    And like NPR, they’ll put that money to neutral use. I love today’s left. TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!

    It’s like David Crosby and Jerry Rubin have never gone away.

  33. Pablo says:

    This a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.

  34. Carin says:

    There’s actually a separate issue going on called the National Broadband Plan. The FCC got a few billion to expand access to broadband.

    I’ve got $500 bucks that says the “National” broadband plan is more of an “Urban” broadband plan.

    What say you?

  35. Pablo says:

    There’s actually a separate issue going on called the National Broadband Plan. The FCC got a few billion to expand access to broadband.

    Since when is it the government’s job to pay for broadband access?

  36. JD says:

    Has there ever been a topic that RD has not proven itself to being a full deep throated statist?

  37. sdferr says:

    “Since when is it the government’s job to pay for broadband access?”

    Since the “plan” language went into effect Pablo! Duh.

  38. Carin says:

    Ba haa haaa :

    Because of relatively low population density, topographical barriers, and greater geographical distances, broadband service may be more difficult to obtain in some rural areas. In attempting to address these challenges, some rural communities have found it helpful to develop a strategic plan for broadband deployment that includes creating a comprehensive business proposal to broadband providers. Such a plan, for example, could demonstrate to broadband providers that deployment is a sound business decision that would benefit both the providers and the community. This strategic planning process may include, but is not limited to, the following elements and strategies:

    Educating the community about the potential benefits of broadband service.
    Creating partnerships among community organizations and institutions that might benefit from broadband deployment.
    Systematic assessment and prioritization of the community’s needs for broadband service.
    Aggregating (consolidating) demand within the community to make service profitable for broadband providers. Participants may include, but are not limited to, individual consumers, businesses, educational institutions, health care facilities, and government agencies.
    Identifying an anchor tenant with adequate demand to spur infrastructure investment in broadband.

    LOL. So, the National Broadband Plan in regards to rural areas is to hold a few meetings and convince them to pay for it themselves.

  39. Carin says:

    How much money are spending on this? Shit.

  40. Respected Economist not on minority payroll says:

    Since when is it the government’s job to pay for broadband access?

    cUz tHeRez PeEpz tHaT AiNt GOt AcCeSs tO ArTz N LeTTaZ dOT Com yO.

  41. Carin says:

    Pablo – they’re not paying for our broadband. They’re paying for meetings to explain to peps how how they should buy broadband because it’s good and stuff.

  42. Pablo says:

    I’ve got $500 bucks that says the “National” broadband plan is more of an “Urban” broadband plan.

    Verizon has sunk some $10 billion into their broadband plan. The intent is that, when finished, it will connect everyone in their service areas. The thing is, not only does it vastly improve their service offerings, it also dramatically improves their maintenance issues because glass (fiber optic cable) doesn’t rot. It’s just good business.

    And we need the federal government to do what, exactly?

  43. Carin says:

    Pablo, I’m just bitching because neither private industry NOR the government are going to get me decent broadband.

  44. Carin says:

    I pay over $100 a month (the equipment was over $600) for rather slow internet with a daily download limit that makes even watching youtube videos a luxury.

    In fact, I’m about to head to STarbucks to download an educational program for my daughter.

  45. Pablo says:

    LOL. So, the National Broadband Plan in regards to rural areas is to hold a few meetings and convince them to pay for it themselves.

    Wow. And that only costs a few billion? Change you can choke to death on!

  46. Sigivald says:

    “A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner”

    In other words, you can’t get your VOIP QOS’d such that it actually gets the priority it needs to function properly because the kid next door is using BitTorrent.

    Because QOS on that latency-intolerant content would be “discrimination” at the application or service level, you see. All possible IP traffic must be treated the same, which means, in practice, as if it was a giant file transfer. So what if you want to do anything that needs low latency, or low jitter, like VOIP or gaming? It might slow down someone’s BitTorrent a little to offer you useful QOS, and that would be discrimination!

    “Net Neutrality” is bullshit. I blame Google.

  47. meyacone says:

    Bureaucracy is always the answer, no? It’s most efficient when allowed to compete against the private sector. Look no further than the Post Office as an example of a government success story with reagard to enhancing competitive markets—eleventy!!1!1! What could possibly go wrong?

  48. Pablo says:

    In other words, you can’t get your VOIP QOS’d such that it actually gets the priority it needs to function properly because the kid next door is using BitTorrent.

    My server full of porn is just as important as your 911 call, ya Net Nazi!

  49. McGehee says:

    folks like Genachowski see this as similar to the government building infrastructure like highways and roads.

    They are wrong.

  50. JD says:

    MORE REGULATION IS ALWAYS BEST YOU STUPID RACIST WINGNAZIS !!!

  51. cranky-d says:

    How long ago was it that there was no internet? I didn’t even know about it until fall of 1995. And now, apparently, it’s another positive “right” that everyone get access.

    As soon as the FCC started spending money on internet stuff (which, BTW, is NONE of their frelling business) that also gave them the power to regulate it. Once the government spends money on something, they own it in perpetuity.

    I wouldn’t move anywhere that didn’t have good internet access, or I would learn to live without it (*shudder*).

  52. competition says:

    “In other words, you can’t get your VOIP QOS’d such that it actually gets the priority it needs to function properly because the kid next door is using BitTorrent.”

    If both applications still worked, then the argument for discrimination would be weak. There’s also an exception for reasonable network management. Though this would have to be done transparently. And there would of course have to be a situation such as you described, not just breaking a protocol when it is using the service as advertised.

  53. sdferr says:

    Abe Greenwald

    Wang Chen (China’s State Council Information Office minister): Our country is at a crucial stage of reform and development, and this is a period of marked social conflicts … Properly guiding Internet opinion is a major measure for protecting Internet information security. Internet media must always make nurturing positive, progressive mainstream opinion an important duty. Currently, the Internet gives space for spreading rumours and issuing false information and other actions that diminish confidence, and this is causing serious damage to society and the public interest.

  54. DarthRove says:

    Though this would have to be done transparently.

    Transparently.

    Transparently.

    Think about what that word means. Think about the current administration. Think about what the current administration thinks that word means.

    Then think about the universe collapsing into the gigantic singularity of contradiction that just opened up.

  55. Squid says:

    I don’t see why everyone’s getting so upset over this, for a couple of reasons.

    1) It’s For Your Own Good, and
    2) It’s the government, and everything that the government regulates works out fine. Just look at broadcast spectrum, airport security, banking and finance, elections, space travel, et effing cetera…

  56. Pablo says:

    If both applications still worked, then the argument for discrimination would be weak. There’s also an exception for reasonable network management. Though this would have to be done transparently. And there would of course have to be a situation such as you described, not just breaking a protocol when it is using the service as advertised.

    Do you see where the bold part negates the rest of the paragraph, RD?

  57. competition says:

    “Do you see where the bold part negates the rest of the paragraph, RD?”

    Now, I’m no network engineer. But I don’t see how bittorrent breaks if your neighbor gets better latency. I do see how it breaks when comcast tries to break it. And then lies when asked about it. But if not all VOIP applications get this benefit, then you might be in trouble.

  58. mojo says:

    I’m interested in what the FCC is using as justification for regulating a privately-owned network.

    The got control of the broadcast spectrum in the US by saying it was a “limited resource”, or words to that effect. But that very definitely does NOT apply to these networks.

  59. JD says:

    GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER LIE TO YOU !!!!

  60. dicentra says:

    Consumers are entitled

    And there’s your problem right there. Since when were consumers entitled to jack, let alone squat?

    AT THE COMPANIES’ EXPENSE, no less. Companies lay cable, install routers, (develop and create cable and routers), develop software, hire people to maintain the systems.

    And the gubmint believes it’s entitled to say how they get to recoup their expenses. Or not.

    Usually not.

  61. dicentra says:

    Now, I’m no network engineer.

    Then quit opining on stuff you don’t understand. Private companies are entitled to shape traffic that runs over THEIR networks any way they want.

    You’re sounding more and more like a character in an Ayn Rand novel, and I don’t mean one of the heroes.

  62. Makewi says:

    And we need the federal government to do what, exactly?

    Get out of the way, and stop colluding with big business to keep our options limited. Why does Japan and S. Korea have better internet connectivity and more access to cutting edge technology than we do? That’s what the FCC should be focusing on.

  63. Makewi says:

    I have to disagree a little bit dicentra. As a consumer I believe I am entitled not to be poisoned or illegally cheated by those I am doing business with. A small quibble.

  64. Pablo says:

    I do see how it breaks when comcast tries to break it.

    Have you seen that, RD? Or are you dying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist with government intervention?

  65. competition says:

    You’re not familiar with comcast’s shenanigans with bittorrent? Go to the search engine of your choice and you’ll be able to find some more info on that.

  66. Charles says:

    Oh, I don’t know, just look at how the DMCA has accelerated innovation. I mean, DVD manufacturers had to develop a whole set of technology to prevent fast-forward from actually working. It also nerfed Intel’s new WiDi technology, and about a million other things. But that’s a small price to pay to make sure there are no pirated movies floating around.

  67. Charles says:

    You’re not familiar with comcast’s shenanigans with bittorrent? Go to the search engine of your choice and you’ll be able to find some more info on that.

    You’re not familiar with all the people who’ve dumped Comcast broadband just because of reasons like this? Ring, ring… it’s the free market calling.

  68. JD says:

    What, exactly, is wrong with them doing that, Charles?

  69. LTC John says:

    JD, I think he is trying to educate RD that the consumer can take it out on COmcast, rather than have the dead hand of Government smother all and sundry.

  70. JD says:

    That was directed towards #68, BTW.

  71. JD says:

    LtC John – Thanks. I can be a bit dense from time to time. Plus, people what are named Charles do not have a good track record.

  72. Squid says:

    RD’s just pissed that the BitTorrent/Comcast drama is ending, and all he got out of it was a $16 credit. But really, what do you expect when you hire the same lawyer that Homer Simpson used to sue the all-you-can-eat buffet?

  73. Squid says:

    “Come see Pointless RD! Nature’s cruelest mistake!”

    –Captain Horatio McCallister

  74. Pablo says:

    RD, I see that Bittorrent and Comcast are living in peace and harmony and that BT acknlowledges Comcastms right to m/anage peak traffic on its network. And I see that this occurred without net neutrality.

  75. dicentra says:

    I believe I am entitled not to be poisoned or illegally cheated by those I am doing business with.

    Trouble with “illegal” is that it depends on what law is passed. And no, you’re not “entitled” to not be cheated any more than you’re entitled to health care.

    However, the enforcement of contracts, maintenance of weights and measures, and truth-in-labeling-type laws are universally recognized as legitimate gubmint roles in the free market.

  76. dicentra says:

    On another note, how come Port-au-Prince got the devastating earthquake and not Washington D.C.? Much rather see the latter get hit and rebuilt than the former.

  77. dicentra says:

    On that same note, there’s a volcano in the Canary Islands that just needs a well-placed explosive device on the west slope to cause a massive landslide, which would then trigger a tsunami that would wipe out the whole east coast.

    Am I a horrible person for wishing that? Am I?

  78. Competition says:

    “And I see that this occurred without net neutrality.”

    So you didn’t see an FCC order telling comcast to stop this behavior? Ok then no worries about statism!

  79. Makewi says:

    To be fair, I do assert a right to not be cheated and a right to access health care. On the first, if someone breaks a law to defraud me I will live up to my part of the social compact and allow the gubmint to handle the fraud on my behalf, otherwise it is my natural right to handle matters myself. On the second, I have a right to access health care but not the right to take it from someone else. Those providing health care have a right to compensation for their labor.

  80. geoffb says:

    I don’t see why everyone’s getting so upset over this, for a couple of reasons.

    Really pushing the pitchforks and torches now, eh?

  81. sdferr says:

    “Am I a horrible person for wishing that?”

    As Isla de la Palma happens to sit not far from the coast of Morocco, home to at least a few jihadi types, mebbe it’s not a great idea to be offering up suggestions on explosives placement, is what I’m thinking. Let’s leave the landsliding to geologic forces instead. Oh, and hold our breath on the coastal wiping business.

  82. JD says:

    RD appears intent on proving its idiocy again today. We get it, RD. You have satisfied the burden of proof, well beyond reasonable doubt.

  83. baxtrice says:

    Internet access is provided by companies who’ve laid vast amounts of infrastructure and wrote lots of code for software to maintain and upgrade this infrastructure. When one signs up for net access, they are routed into the network with other customers, that can be thousands or hundreds of thousands or..you get the picture. When one person is hogging all the network bandwidth by downloading big apps/DVD movies from BitTorrent, it tends to degrade network service for other customers on same network. Slow internet makes for upset customers, upset customers flood the tech support and warn other potential customers not to use said service. Having government step in and telling the providers how to manage their network seems a little hypocritical seeing as they can’t manage their own house (see Post Office).

    While I despise the bandwidth limits sometimes (I have gone over and been punished for it before), I understand why (as stated above.) I do find it funny though, that people who are advocates of Net Neutrality think that it will allow them to do whatever they want on the internet, however the DMCA is not going to go away.. So don’t hold your breath pirates.

  84. AJB says:

    The government should just stick to sending Our Boys overseas to gang-rape Arab children. Regulating the internet is far beyond its capabilities.

  85. baxtrice says:

    Besides, IMO the biggest threat to the internet are Youtube commenters. Youtube has become the gathering place for the lowest form of intelligence on the internet.

  86. competition says:

    “Internet access is provided by companies who’ve laid vast amounts of infrastructure and wrote lots of code for software to maintain and upgrade this infrastructure. When one signs up for net access, they are routed into the network with other customers, that can be thousands or hundreds of thousands or..you get the picture. When one person is hogging all the network bandwidth by downloading big apps/DVD movies from BitTorrent, it tends to degrade network service for other customers on same network.”

    Some of this trouble is of their own making, going around promising people download speeds they can’t deliver, and which people will get in trouble for if they use. Because of the competition. However, in the torrent case, Comcast was blocking no matter how much of a hog someone was.

  87. Silver Whistle says:

    I don’t know, baxtrice. The one before you is pretty retarded.

  88. JD says:

    AJB is trying to out-douchenozzle RD, and is doing quite well.

  89. sdferr says:

    AJB better hope “Our Boys” never learn just who he is.

  90. Ajax says:

    Unlike Competition, I *am* a network engineer. Thankfully the network I work on (Time Warner Northeast) is not congested enough to require QoS YET. But we all know it will soon. VOIP is becoming huge and its a fact that VOIP applications REQUIRE a constant thin stream of bandwidth, and voice quality issues occur if the pipe is loaded and there is no QOS (which a politican will tell you, is a synonym for UNFAIRNESS). Similarly, what will the politicians who agitate for the “common man” say when we are forced to send porn bittorrents into the bit bucket in favor of commercial customers such as, say, hospitals who have to transfer X-Ray data? Which constituent group is larger, the hospital IT staff or the masturbating 30 year olds?

    Do you really believe, Competition, that the politicians will make better determinations about what is fair than the ISPs? If so, you are an idiot.

  91. JD says:

    That was an incredibly hate-filled devoid of truth steaming shitpile AJB left there.

  92. baxtrice says:

    Some of this trouble is of their own making, going around promising people download speeds they can’t deliver, and which people will get in trouble for if they use. Because of the competition. However, in the torrent case, Comcast was blocking no matter how much of a hog someone was.

    Well if you overpromise and underdeliver, and then mistreat your customers what happens? Well your namesake happens. Competition. Comcast isn’t the only deal in town and people left Comcast in droves. It’s not just Comcast that owned all the levers and gears. Were they in the wrong? Since I am not familiar with the case I can’t cite specifics or debate them with you. But if I take what you said with a grain of salt combined with what little I’ve read about it, yeah they f#cked up and lost customers. What I was attempting to do was explain the rudimentary elements of how ISP’s function. Whether you like it or not, if I install a pipeline to the internet and charge for access, it’s still mine and the government can sod off if they don’t like how I run things (as long as it’s LEGAL).

  93. Ajax says:

    I must add to my previous post, that I loathe justifying a free market in telecommunications on practical grounds.

    It really should be enough to say “Build your own fucking network if you don’t like it, asshole”

  94. JD says:

    Why do all of that when you can suckle at the teet of Mother Government?

  95. Squid says:

    AJB —

    Putting aside for the moment that you’re an anonymous coward not fit to shine the boots of those you slander, I must ask: if you don’t think the government is fit to handle national defense (one of the few duties actually granted to it in the Constitution), then why are you so supportive of its efforts to fuck up a thousand industries it was never granted the power to regulate in the first place?

  96. Squid says:

    As an aside — is AJB’s assertion that the United States military is a bunch of pedophile rapists an example of libel, or slander? I realize that this is technically print media, which would make it libel, but it seems such a transitive forum that slander seems more appropriate.

    Maybe I should put the question to AJB while I’m at it. Only a lawyer could command words the way he does.

  97. JD says:

    Squid – You don’t really think that piece of filth will respond, much less notice the inherent inconsistency of its position, do you?

  98. SPC Jack Klompus says:

    I extend a warm invitation to AJB to meet me and discuss his views of the military. I’ll buy the beer.

  99. Mr. W says:

    Hey, have some sympathy for AJB.

    He got a Rainbow Colored Magic Presidential Pony for Christmas last year, and all it has done since then is kill Democrats and crap all over the socialist house of cards that he built for it.

    And that singular truth is eating him alive inside.

  100. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Never having served but having a best friend who is a proud former Marine, I’ll be glad to buy the next round, SPC Jack Klompus.

  101. Makewi says:

    Bit Torrent makes mother Gaia cry. Do you have any idea how many fossil fuels have to be burned for you to watch that pirated copy of
    The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Earth hater.

  102. SPC Jack Klompus says:

    What’s your shot of choice, OI? If you ever make it Austin or Philly I’ll set ’em up!

  103. Mr. W says:

    Based on his performance so far, I am inclined to believe that Obama is the most effective Republican operative ever.

    Bow your heads when you say the name Rove, men. He is one magnificent bastard.

  104. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Presently, SPC, it’s bourbon. Preferably Buffalo Trace. Thanks for the invite. If I’m ever in either place, we’ll make it happen. If you’re ever slumming in cleveland, let me know.

  105. SPC Jack Klompus says:

    My address is going to be Kandahar soon where I don’t think they have a very lively happy hour. Haha.

  106. Mr. W says:

    Hey, you know what’s cool?

    If you floor a 2010 Cadillac Escalade loaded with strippers, booze, and guns, you can actually hear the baby seals cry.

  107. SPC Jack Klompus says:

    Just watch out for fire hydrants and 9-iron wielding Swedish wives.

  108. Silver Whistle says:

    My dad is an old Marine and he never mentioned the Arab boy gang raping. I would have remembered.

  109. McGehee says:

    there’s a volcano in the Canary Islands that just needs a well-placed explosive device on the west slope to cause a massive landslide, which would then trigger a tsunami that would wipe out the whole east coast.

    I’m skeptical. The slopes I’ve seen pictures of don’t look anywhere steep enough. The claim is that a huge mass of mountainside is supposedly going to go into the ocean all at once, but it looks to me as if most of the energy is going to be dissipated long before anything actually hits the water.

  110. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Good luck and Godspeed, SPC. I’ll hoist one (of many) for your safety.

  111. sdferr says:

    Look at the history of East Moloka’i and the Ko’oluau McGehee. Both collapsed catastrophically (in seconds) in much the same manner as has been projected for de la Palma, which itself has suffered this sort of event before.

  112. TWC says:

    Ajax,
    One word for you, CTBH.

  113. TWC says:

    Well, its actually four words…

  114. McGehee says:

    Look at the history of East Moloka’i and the Ko’oluau McGehee.

    Judging from the way the pieces are scattered on the ocean bottom I wouldn’t say the Molokai event is like what they’re saying would happen at La Palma. And no one seems to have turned up evidence of similar mega-tsunami events having struck the Atlantic coast of North America.

    Anyway, IANAG.

  115. happyfeet says:

    I think the big calamity for the other side of the country has something to do with jellystone

  116. John Bradley says:

    I extend a warm invitation to AJB to meet me and discuss his views of the military. I’ll buy the beer.

    OMG, DEATH THREAT!1!!1!

  117. Kresh says:

    Bittorrent? That spells Anime. Good stuff coming out this season as well. Still, I recommend Crossgame over any of the new stuff. High-School Baseball FTW!

    Er, FCC regulated anything pretty much sucks. Was that enough back on-topic?

  118. SPC Jack Klompus says:

    OMG, DEATH THREAT!1!!1!

    Depends on how cheap the beer is.

  119. royf says:

    Comment by McGehee on 1/15 @ 3:34 pm

    I watched a TV program about massive land slide tsunamis which talked about the Canary Islands. They also tied it in with sand deposits several yards tick and felled forests on the East Coast which were done by tsunami. I can’t remember which program it was but IIRC it was on The History Channel.

  120. royf says:

    yards tick = yards thick

  121. SDN says:

    “Depends on how cheap the beer is.”

    And what horse it came from……

  122. Lazarus Long says:

    Consumers are entitled to nothing.

  123. LBascom says:

    My step-son boarded an Air Force transport plane leaving Iraq today. We’re hoping to see him around the end of the month. Perhaps AJB, you would like to drop by and make the charge in person?

    I think not. AJBs mouth dwarfs his courage and makes insignificant his brain.

  124. dicentra says:

    Quick Glossary for the Uninitiated

    QoS = Quality of Service, a concept similar to an SLA (service-level agreement), wherein you assign different amounts of bandwidth to traffic types.

    VoIP = Voice over IP, a type of telephony that uses a packet-switched data network instead of a circuit-switched telephone network.

    jellystone = Yellowstone National Park, the caldera of an ancient supervolcano that still has enough juice to make the geysers and hotsprings go and which supposedly has the capacity to become a supervolcano again, the thought of which makes Hugh Hewitt wet his pants.

  125. happyfeet says:

    Chelsea Clinton plans to do her part to raise money for Haitian relief efforts by co-hosting a special 90-minute spin class in Manhattan.*

  126. Makewi says:

    I spent $1000 spinning with Chelsea Clinton for charity is a good story. A better one would be I spent $1000 doing lines off a hookers ass with Chelsea Clinton for charity. Admittedly the world is an imperfect place and those sort of opportunities don’t often present themselves.

  127. Makewi says:

    For the record, I don’t do drugs but I do like a good story.

  128. donald says:

    Speaking of which, the John Birch Society is holding a convention at the Sheraton in Atlanta today. At the same time, there is a Playboy Bunny cattle call going on AND on Monday it’s Martin Luther King day. I’m bopping down tomorrow to get the inside skinny, so to speak.

    I ask , who dares call it a conspiracy?

  129. I was in the audience when Julius Genachowski announced his plans. The carriers were not amused. In fact, AT&T had a marvelous presentation with a lot of supporting material showing how the USA had the most innovative, vibrant, capable, and cheapest network and cellular service anywhere in the world while providing consumers with the broadest range of choices. And that is what is threatened by the FCC deciding it will pick the winners and losers instead of the market doing so.

  130. McGehee says:

    I think the big calamity for the other side of the country has something to do with jellystone

    Yup. The Yellowstone supervolcano is one bad mutha —

  131. McGehee says:

    They also tied it in with sand deposits several yards tick and felled forests on the East Coast which were done by tsunami.

    I think I saw the same program and, if so, the tsunami evidence that was found was related to the Cascadia fault off Oregon/Washington — not the east coast.

  132. McGehee says:

    …which was why, when they were talking about the Canary Islands volcano I kept waiting for somebody to turn up evidence that such a mega-tsunami had hit the east coast before. Not a word.

    Subsequent articles I’ve seen online quoted a number of experts claiming that the people sounding the alarm about a Canary Islands mega-tsunami didn’t know what they were talking about.

  133. sdferr says:

    No one made any claim as to any certainty that la Palma will collapse McGehee. It’s a possibility though, even if an extremely remote one. Experts rightly argue both sides of the question and good, that’s what they ought to do.

  134. royf says:

    Comment by McGehee on 1/15 @ 6:05 pm

    I saw the program your talking about as well they speculate the slide originated in Hawaii. No this was a different program and it was the East Coast, I can’t remember the state but it was coastal river bottom where they found the sand and felled trees. And they did a good part of the program about the volcano on the Canary Islands, They used diagrams and computer graphics to show how the island is splinting in two. Almost half of the island is sliding into a deep abyss, it has happened in the not two distant past because they American Indian type artifacts buried in the sand deposits.

  135. royf says:

    Subsequent articles I’ve seen online quoted a number of experts claiming that the people sounding the alarm about a Canary Islands mega-tsunami didn’t know what they were talking about.

    I see if I can find the name of the show It might be tomorrow but I will get back to you. Maybe the guys that made the show were full of it as I didn’t really research it but I definitely watched the program about it.

  136. sdferr says:

    royf, you’ve got your coasts beflipped. The deposits you are referring to were in the Northwest, up a river in Washington state I think, and had nothing to do with the Canaries but may have been related to a tsunami recorded in Japan, as I recall, but unrelated to the slides in Hawaii, which took place in pre-history).

    Whether there is any tsunami evidence, found or as yet undiscovered, associated with the Canary landslide I don’t know. There ought to be a debris field at la Palma though. Otherwise, McGehee’s theoretical posit of a slow erosive process unlikely to generate any wave would be clinched from the get-go.

  137. royf says:

    Comment by sdferr on 1/15 @ 7:00 pm

    No I don’t have them flipped I’ve seen the program on The Puget Sound buried logs and what I’m talking about is not that show. Again I’ll look for more on it and I can’t speak for the validity of the theory because that program is all I have ever really seen on East Coast Tsunamis so it is what it is, but I do not have it mixed up with what you are referring to, I have read articles and watched at least two programs about those Puget Sound deposits.

  138. sdferr says:

    Ok then, my mistake. So where was the stuff on the east coast?

  139. “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”
    –Henry David Thoreau

  140. royf says:

    Ok here is a article that talks about what the program was about .

    Volcano could flatten US cities
    By Steve Connor

    I’ll continue to look for the name of the TV show its been a couple of years since I’ve seen it.

  141. sdferr says:

    Here’s one counter-argument (among many, I assume), royf.

  142. royf says:

    Here is a earlier article from CNN on the this same subject. Again I don’t know that much about this it could be some scientists trying for grants but the show I saw made a substantial case for this happening in the not too distant past.


    Scientists warn of massive wave

    August 29, 2001 Posted: 11:35 AM EDT (1535 GMT)

  143. Darleen says:

    would someone please tell AJB that Scott Ritter is not a member of the US military?

  144. McGehee says:

    McGehee’s theoretical posit of a slow erosive process

    Actually, what I was saying was that I think even a massive collapse wouldn’t create a mega-tsunami. The mega-tsunami argument would require that massive amounts of the mountainside collapse into the ocean even faster than a pyroclastic flow would move. Pyroclastic flows move as fast as they do because they’re mostly propelled by superheated gas collapsing from an aerial column ejected in an eruption.

    Krakatau’s eruption in the 1880s produced the famous tidal wave but also a pyroclastic flow that I believe actually outran the tsunami initially. All the gas and solid material in the pyro blew out over the water instead of displacing it and creating a wave; the wave itself was caused by the collapse of the volcano but that collapse was mostly back into the magma chamber, not into the water. When the collapse had run its course much of the island ended up below sea level, which was the explosion’s main direct effect on the ocean and, I believe, the cause of the tsunami.

    The thing about catastrophic collapses is that the material has to have somewhere to go. I just don’t see that at La Palma. Large amounts of rock don’t fall sideways at high speed, and while pyroclastic flows will move horizontally they don’t displace large amounts of water with the suddenness to create a tsunami.

  145. sdferr says:

    Just to recap: dicentra facetiously fantasizes a tsunami to wipe out the “bad guys”; I play along, again in jest: don’t give the jihadis any ideas; McGehee says, hey wait a minute, there isn’t any threat from la Palma; I respond, what? no threat? see etc, etc. And on it goes.

    Please permit me to bow away from this particular discussion if I may, as I have nothing but nothing to contribute to it. (Just a question aside before I cease though, McGehee, I had thought that the Canary problem wasn’t one of explosive eruption, but was simply a fault that might collapse due to gravity, permitting the material to fall downhill, as opposed to sideways, and thereupon, into the sea en masse, displacing water and generating a wave?)

  146. newrouter says:

    clusterf88k in mass:

    seiu workers for scott brown

  147. Pablo says:

    Holy. Fucking. Shit.

    Mr. W, you were right. I was wrong. Miracles do happen. Where am I sending the money? Haiti or the host?

    I just called my sister in MA to make sure she and her hubby were voting. She plans to, and plans to vote for Brown, though she says she was going to vote for Martha a couple of weeks ago. I need to sit her down.

  148. royf says:

    Comment by sdferr on 1/15 @ 7:21 pm #

    Yeah that looks like it will do it, As I said I just watched the show and now I can’t find any trace of it. Perhaps it’s gone down the memory hole, Looks like someone angling for some gubmint money I guess. Thanks for the link.

  149. Pablo says:

    So, is Baracky still going to Massachusettes? Is he really going to climb on Martha and ride?

  150. sdferr says:

    Dr K’s take this evening on Barry’s trip to Ma. was that it generates “awareness” in the dummy Dems who aren’t as yet aware that an election is on, Pablo, and that they’re hoping merely to increase turnout thereby, not to convince anyone that Martha is peachy. Which, who knows, sounds like as good a theory for the trip as any, if some cover were wanting.

  151. Lazarus Long says:

    Just back from seeing “The Book of Eli”.

    Amazing piece of film, and amazingly it treats Christianity with respect.

    ALSO extremely violent, so be careful.

    Denzel just picks this film up and carries it.

  152. Pablo says:

    Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Makes Worst Stock Photo Choice Ever

    That Voltaire quote seems appropriate again.

    I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.

    God rocks.

  153. Pablo says:

    Yeah, I get that sdferr. But is he really going to do it? Because he’s gonna look bad when she loses. They had Doug Hoffman to spin when they lost VA and NJ last November, but Coakley/Brown is the only thing on the table now. With ObamaCare riding on it, is he really gonna saddle up that brokeleg pony and ride? On camera?

    I like those optics.

  154. sdferr says:

    He already looks bad, so far as I can see. Heh. I mean, he’s getting it in the neck coming and going, so what the hell, he may be saying to hisuglyself, may as well take a chance as I’m screwed either way she goes.

  155. Pablo says:

    I like that Bill Clinton was trotting around for Martha today. I wonder what W was doing.

  156. sdferr says:

    That is a good question. Maybe, like me, he’s been attempting to stifle otherwise uncontrollable laughter and not succeeding very well?

  157. geoffb says:

    I think his ego believes he can pull it out for her. Just like he got those Olympics for Chicago. It’s in the bag once the O-man comes to town.

  158. sdferr says:

    ‘Cause he’s the O-man
    Ye-ah he’s the O-ma-an.

  159. Pablo says:

    What a friggin’ idiot.

    See? That’s God right there. He’s a comedian, I tell ya.

    sdferr, I think Allah has the gist of The One’s strategy.

  160. geoffb says:

    Yeah, Taxman is his tune.

  161. geoffb says:

    Even if she gets blown out, he can turn around and claim that she only lost because she was a walking disaster whom no one could save.

    This is perfect. They push this out as the new “spin reality” and they then believe that everything is fine, it was just a fluke. The “D” Party is still the beloved of all citizens. As long as they run a competent candidate, which they all think they are, even Coakley did/does still. They are the smart ones after all.

  162. sdferr says:

    A commenter, Scott, at neo-neocon wrote:

    Remember how Palin, DeMint, Huckabee, Thompson, Pawlenty and other nationally recognized conservatives very publicly endorsed Hoffman in the NY-23 race? It seems to me the Brown camp must have reached out to them and asked them not to publicly endorse him to avoid turning off the Independents and moderate Democrats that Brown whose votes he must get to win.

    Is Scott on to something, or was the absence of scene stealing interlopers more a happy accident?

  163. Pablo says:

    Is Scott on to something, or was the absence of scene stealing interlopers more a happy accident?

    No one gave a damn about this race 3 weeks ago, sdferr. It was Coakley’s seat to lose, period. And now she’s doing it.

  164. geoffb says:

    The difference may be that the polity in MA is a different animal than the NY-23. So yeah, he may have asked for no support from the “leaders”, but got plenty from the base.

  165. Duke Lowell says:

    My address is going to be Kandahar soon where I don’t think they have a very lively happy hour. Haha.

    Allow me to pass to you what Mel told me as I was leaving for Desert Shield as a young sergeant of Marines:

    “Son, keep your eyes open and your head down. Make it through the first month and you’ll most likely make it through it all. Don’t go trying to be a damn hero. Just do your job and come back. Come back. That’s all that matters.”

    Wise words from an old warrior. I remember it like it was yesterday. Damn, I miss him.

  166. Darleen says:

    NY23 is not MA

    and what you have is a majority of people not only against ObamaCare, but Obama’s own approval rating wilting like a …

    well, I thought of a very graphic metaphor and thought I might need at least a couple more glasses of wine before I move it from my brain to ‘puter …

    however, Scott made his campaign “national” as a referendum on ObamaCare while keeping it local (his calling out Obama saying “don’t come here, we don’t need outsiders”)

    Shrewd. Very shrewd.

    While Coakley is hysterically calling in Obama to parachute in on Sunday to try and extract all the feet she has stuffed into her mouth.

  167. Darleen says:

    to be a little clearer

    at the time of NY23, people were still supporting ObamaCare and Obama.

    Not so much this week.

  168. LTC John says:

    SPC – #168 is smart stuff. But I don’t need to remind you the first 60 days in and last 30 on the way out are the most dangerous. BTW – Take all the Pashto you can ahead of time.

    Good luck, stay safe.

  169. newrouter says:

    there’s tasty veggies in michelle’s garden! enjoy

  170. SPC Jack Klompus says:

    LTC – thank you sir and thank you Duke et. al. for your good advice and wishes! I have been hitting the Rosetta Stone. I want to gain some proficiency since I’m doing PSYOP and will interact with community leaders and key communicators. Right now I’m working on the packet for direct commission and getting squared away with the unit. I’m hoping to get an appointment in front of the board when I get back.

  171. Bagram Dewclaw says:

    SPC, first of all thank you for your service. I am currently in Bagram working Force Protection Training, and if you find yourself here (or need anything from us here), please feel free to call me at DSN 481.8056 or ROSHAN 0796159209. My name is Sean Holden and I’ll help you out as much as I can.

    Stay Safe

  172. Brian says:

    Actually the scaremongering about a so called La Palma Tsunami is only being actively promoted by 2 people. Bill McGuire, who is the head of a ‘research center’ which makes its money by on projects designed to warn about Hazards. They get paid to give courses, they get paid to do research about a specific a hazard and they get paid to install monitoring equipment.
    Of course, they only get paid if a government can be convinced that there is a problem, which is why they made the Discovery/Horizon film in the first place, just plain dishonest publicity to line their own pockets.
    McGuire has also produced a series of fantasy books about ‘the end of the world’, money-grabbing pseudo-science which may have some basis but basically belong in the Star Wars, Jurassic Park genre.
    Day is McGuires mouthpiece.
    Both of them lie about what happenned in the past.
    The Cumbre Vieja has never exploded, it just erupts with a dribble of lava.
    The so called ‘block’ did not drop 4 meters in 1949, that is a complete lie.
    There was never a ‘similar event’ on La Palma in the past, there has been erosion and sometimes a landslide but only about 100th of the size that McG and SD suggest.
    Other real scientists have looked at the evidence and have found nothing to worry about. The governments in the areas which these 2 people say will be devastated have looked at their story, looked at the evidence and dismissed the whole story as unfounded bullshit.
    Nobody takes the threat seriously because it is just not true.
    McG and SD will continue to claim it is true because they are not man-enough to admit it was a publicity stunt, and anyway it keeps selling McG’s books.
    Discovery channel keeps sending the program out because … its sensational and contraversial.

  173. Danger says:

    Brian
    Thanks for sharing that; it reminds me of the AGW fraud being promoted. Al Gore has a significant return riding on “Green policies” being enacted.

  174. Mr. W says:

    Re: Massachusetts

    The concept that people in Mass., at least the ones that do not have their lips firmly affixed to the public teat, are different from people in Alabama or Wyoming is preposterous.

    They suffered under the heavy yoke of the taxes and policies of the massachusetts machine the same way that we all suffer under the yoke of DC.

    The very instant that they see an opportunity to get out from under the burden that is the Democrat welfare state, they seem to be more than willing to take it. This may have an aura of suddenness about it, but I promise you that Teddy’s popularity in Mass. was just as much a fiction as Obama’s intellect is. They were both created out of whole cloth by the media arm of the Statist Party to service the machine’s goals.

    Support for bloated government is always paper thin. That is why Pelosi, Reid, and their ilk must constantly add more wards of the state (real and imaginary) and stuff the ballot boxes, because if people have a choice, they won’t choose the machine, as they say in Boston, EVAH!

  175. Danger says:

    I hope you are right Mr. W. The public teat is exactly what we all will be on soon if this healthcare thing is not aborted.

  176. Mr. W says:

    The Washington Post has an article today that unintentionally tells exactly which phase they are in regarding their torrid love affair with obama.

    The Post writers suddenly find themselves in that place where you have come out of the ether and are starting to notice that the person you thought was so dreamy has some pretty glaring flaws.

    The particular flaw they have noted is his rhetorical use of the phrase “let me be clear” which is always followed by bilge and obfuscation, but that is a given.

    The “let me be clear” complaint by the Post is not by itself noteworthy, in the pantheon of Obama flaws it’s a tame one, but it is notable for what it says about the Post.

    They have realized who Barry is. They realize they have made a grave error in judgement. Now they have to figure out how to get him out of the house.

  177. Danger says:

    Time for the Gym

    Keep firing People!

  178. Pablo says:

    The very instant that they see an opportunity to get out from under the burden that is the Democrat welfare state, they seem to be more than willing to take it.

    No, they don’t. But they could maybe learn.

  179. Mr. W says:

    Wow. ACORN really is worth 5 billion dollars.

  180. Mr. W says:

    Let us do the math.

    In the state of Massachusetts, if you add up all of the habitual democrats + imaginary ACORN voters + Dead voters + do-nothing Government employees + Union members, you get 2,063,891.

    Finally, Pablo, we have the answer to how many people it will take to push Scott Brown over the finish line!

  181. McGehee says:

    sdferr:

    (Just a question aside before I cease though, McGehee, I had thought that the Canary problem wasn’t one of explosive eruption, but was simply a fault that might collapse due to gravity, permitting the material to fall downhill, as opposed to sideways, and thereupon, into the sea en masse, displacing water and generating a wave?)

    Yeah, but that’s the thing. How? The material in question isn’t that close to the water.

    Brian:

    175. Comment by Brian on 1/16 @ 3:02 am

    It took me a re-reading of your comment to realize that by “McG” you must be referring to this McGuire person, but I didn’t see you name in your comment who SD was and one of the participants in this thread is “sdferr” — so I feel compelled to note that neither I nor sdferr are in any way connected to the people who have been promoting the La Palma mega-tsunami theory.

  182. JHo says:

    No one gave a damn about this race 3 weeks ago, sdferr. It was Coakley’s seat to lose, period. And now she’s doing it.

    If not but Bushrovian backlash, what exactly earns Coakley votes? Of course that could be framed as what earns the left votes, but we already know where that query doesn’t go.

  183. JD says:

    I am heading downtown for the Colts game. I will be the one in the blue.

  184. Pablo says:

    Just the D, JHo. Just the D.

  185. Mr. W says:

    Like some bloated ex-athlete that has been sitting in the State House for a couple of decades eating the residents out of house and home, the much touted Massachusettes (sic) Democrat Party machine has become fat and lazy. As the pols are discovering in Boston, if your high-powered political machine never gets tested, you may find that it is little more than a political doorstop when you really need it.

    The dead had better be plenty energized on the 19th.

  186. geoffb says:

    With both Bill Clinton and Obama campaigning for Coakley in MA you get to see exactly where Haiti rates in the progressive scheme of things, what they see as a national emergency, and who is their main enemy overall. Not that that is a surprise but they usually manage to hide it better.

  187. ian cormac says:

    Hey, CSI Miami, did a show about it, and Patrick Robinson wrote a novel on that premise, so how could they be wrong? (sarc)

  188. geoffb says:

    A question. With this, “Mathematically it is becoming impossible for Coakley to win”. The SEIU mobilization and conversations overheard.

    I stood quietly next to some much better dressed men from the Coakley Campaign who were apparently talking to Union guys from out of state. The gist was that the “Cavalry was coming” and they talked with the quiet confidence of gamblers who know which boxer is going to take a dive.

    If Coakley wins and it becomes obvious that fraud was involved and yet…

    there is no authority to hold Democrats accountable for their cheating.

    “Who’s going to prosecute them? The state attorney general? And if you appeal to the feds — yeah, I’m sure Eric Holder will get to the bottom of it.”

    Will Americans stand up for their liberty and right to have fair elections as well as the people of Iran have done? And will Obama come down on the same side again?

  189. sdferr says:

    geoffb, on the first question, I think the answer in this case has to be no for both parts. On the second question, you have to ask?

  190. bh says:

    Completely off topic but an interesting read.

  191. sdferr says:

    25th & Thompson is a quarter mile north of my old neighborhood (I lived on Stillman above Parrish) but as neighborhood’s as such go, a world away.

  192. bh says:

    From living in Chicago for so long, I know exactly what you mean, sdferr.

  193. sdferr says:

    I dunno Chicago but the Philly has some of the littlest neighborhoods I’ve ever experienced. Some are fairly large but some of them don’t amount to much more than two full blocks. Lord only knows what they were like back in the thirties.

  194. bh says:

    Chicago is the same. When I lived at the end of the Brown Line, in Albany Park, there were little one and two block neighborhoods all over.

    The South Side, much less so.

  195. geoffb says:

    I’ve lived in small towns all my life but every big city I’ve visited, NYC, Chicago, Detroit, even Toronto, seemed more a collection of villages all pressed against each other than a singular entity.

    On #192 I fear you may be correct but hope for better from everyone.

  196. geoffb says:

    This seems to say the South Side in divided up too.

  197. sdferr says:

    Dropped in on Joe’s link to Schilling’s blog and comments in re “Schilling is a Yankee fan”, where AOS s’moron says:

    God help us all if they get enough dead people to vote for this bint.

  198. bh says:

    That sounds about right to me, Geoff. I think it comes down to what fits into the human frame of reference. You can’t actually live in a city. It’s too big. But, you can live in Wrigleyville or Albany Park or Hyde Park. Same with those little neighborhoods. If you stop at the same place for coffee or tacos and always drop off your dry cleaning at the same place, you get to actually know people, can become a regular.

  199. bh says:

    Well, that’s probably right, sdferr. But, those neighborhoods are more divided up into cliques it seemed. Like Street Name A through Z, 1 to 100 of the Gangsta Disciples. And, as a white guy walking around there, I couldn’t read the graffiti as easily as I could read the different store signs on the north and west sides. So, I couldn’t see the boundaries as well.

  200. sdferr says:

    Which points to what’s wrong with politicians like Mahtha: they pretend to “live” in the whole city or state or nation and in the process, never get to know anyone, including themselves.

  201. bh says:

    I hadn’t thought of it like that before, sdferr. Good point.

  202. geoffb says:

    Off to have ribs with Mikey NTH. Laters.

  203. bh says:

    Have fun, Geoff.

  204. sdferr says:

    Saw Wayne Toups in the North Star Bar, great show. (They had a terrific sign outside back then, as I recollect, but I think they had to let it go for some reason or other, mebbe Lazarus Long or BJTexs knows?)

  205. bh says:

    Somewhat on topic to the off topic, I’m amazed no one has made a movie about this guy.

  206. Brian says:

    @184 McGehee,
    Sorry for any possible confusion.
    The McG I refer to is indeed Bill McGuire, the commercial brain behind the scare story. He still continues to lie despite evidence which invalidates his theory (which was fantasy presented as fact).
    SD is Simon Day. On paper he is a scientist but really he cannot be called that because he makes up stories without producing any supporting evidence. He also lies and lies and lies.