Washington state capitol grounds are filled with thousands of protesters demonstrating against spending cuts and corporate tax breaks. Seattle teacher’s union vice president Jonathan Knapp estimates 8,000 demonstrators, and the the Washington State Patrol estimates 7,000 people:
The rally is the largest of four days of boisterous demonstrations in Olympia over spending cuts lawmakers are considering to help close a looming $5 billion budget deficit.
Goldy’s there and sends in this amusing photo (to his employer). Here is another photo, and another from Goldy.
Not there? You can still make your voice heard. Take a few moments to contact your state Senator and Representatives.
Seriously…with $4.4 billion more being excised from a budget that has been cut to the bone and picked over, this is going to be painful. So speak up!
When you’re having to work basically multiple jobs to stay employed, it’s hard to find the time to compete against entrenched representatives in government whose full time job it is to achieve the agendas of corporations.
How many times over the last few months/years have elected officials voted, one way or another, to subvert net neutrality, or end PBS funding, let alone screw students and the poor, or surveil, torture, or kill anyone the government pleases?
Hats off to the demonstrators in any case.
Speaking as a conservative:
That’s an impressive turnout. Nicely done.
YellowPup,
Does net neutrality mean that only liberal and progressive views are permitted? That’s what it seems like to me. Are Conservative and Libertarian views allowed?
What a crack up…I mean, who are they demonstrating against?
Last I checked, democrats have been in charge of this state’s speding for decades…
I wonder if there will be recall petitions for our Gov?
Nice to see the professional left in action!!
@3: No, it basically means that cable companies and other ISPs can’t impose special rates that provide competitive advantage to their own content services, business partners, or preferred content providers. And it also means that they can’t create special classes of users that get preferred service levels, or different service depending on which device they use to access the net.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Neutrality
The purpose of Net Neutrality is to keep the power of huge ISPs (and government) in check to protect individuals and small businesses/organizations in the marketplace.
There is nothing liberal about Net Neutrality, unless you consider content neutrality and a truly free market liberal.
@3-4: You should realize how you’ve been duped into demonizing Democrats and liberals by the forces that really are wrecking the country. The financial and corporate interests have no real ideology and no party affiliations, they use whoever is in power to get what they want.
It’s the policy/priorities, that’s why there are protests in Olympia and across the country.
YeloowPup,
If customers of ISPs want special access and services and are willing to pay for them, then why not let them have it? If you go to a restaurant and have a good steak, it’ll cost more than a hot dog. Why not let people pay extra for extra capabilities and services? Aren’t there a lot of ISPs out there so access in not denied to the samll guy?
As far as the financial world is concerned, I agree that the Northeastern financial interests have far, far too much power. But they actually make campaign contributions to both parties. Could it be it’s time for the average citizen to abandon the two-party system?
@4
The folks demonstrating in Oly are doing the right thing. A large section of Democratic voters are “plug your nose and vote voters.” They have little in common with the folks in Oly. If they continue to plug their noses and vote after this then they truly are fools and deserve to be laughed at.
We had a good day collecting signatures for I-1149 at the event. Just wish I had arrived about 9:30 and it would have been better.
# 7: The problem is that there are a limited number of ISP providers available to most consumers, and that number is getting smaller. Unless you are willing to live with dial-up speeds (1990’s technology), you are generally limited to buying your interent service through either your phone company or your cable provider.
Since your phone company and cable provider already have lines strung, easments & access access granted, and monopoly (charters) within your geographic area, and already have access to your name, address, and telephone numbers, they raise a very high bar against anyone else competing with them. The entry cost of entering into the market is just too high.
And, of course, the way things are going the number of phone companies and cable companies will probably continue to decline through mergers and acquisitions. Within the next five years you might see maybe three or four phone companies and cable companies nationwide.
And access to the internet through cell phones and other mobile devices hasn’t increased competition that much, as the recent proposed merger of T-Mobile and AT&T would create only three cell phone companies in the U.S., and the first and second companies would be so small they would probably knock off the third-place company within a couple of years.
So in effect, the interent service providers from these handful of companies would pretty much do what they do to every other service in which they have a charter or virtual monopoly: provide a shitty “basic” service for a high cost, and then charge an even higher cost for a slightly higher service level. Of course, it would be cheaper if they just provided the same service to everyone, but they will intentionally make their basic service as bad as they can get away with just to try to get you to upgrade.
Of course, that’s just background, and it’s nothing new in dealing with big companies. Anybody who’s had to deal with their mobile phone company, cable provider, or telephone company has had that experience.
But what if one of the ways the company seeks to maximize it’s revenues in other ways? What most people fear is that the company would tell web-site owners that their content will not display – at all – on the ISP site unless they pay a ransom to the company in terms of monthly fees. People seeking access to the site will just get a “File not Found”, or equivilent message. This could also be used to block content which the ISP provider doesn’t want publicized (complaints against the company, competing company’s websites, political campaigns against the company’s wide-spread business interests). If you don’t think this is technically feasible, think again – it’s already being done in China.
And then you have the prospect that these ISP providers could have a political agenda which they seek to promote. Given the network of news ownership being promoted by Murdoch and Fox News, this isn’t an outlandish idea at all. All that would have to happen is for someone with a huge amount of money – like the Koch brothers – to buy enough stock in the ISP provider to have a controlling interest. Or they could have a merger the conglomerate, spin off it’s other corporate subsidiaries, and get the ISP provider for free. Then they could appoint a politically connected and driven manager (such as Roger Ailes) who will make sure the information sent out by the ISP provider is consistently “on message”, and excluding or minimizing any contrary message.
In Lincoln’s era, free speech was rather widely exercises, with foreign observers marvelling at how frequently crowds would gather to hear someone standing on a stump, chair, or fence-rail to delivery a speach on religious, economic, or political matters. But after that the newspapers, radio, and TV networks became the gateway through which opinions were filtered. The internet has broken open that dam, but those fighting against network neutrality are seeking to close the gap again, this time with Comcast and Qwest (or whatever they are called this week) becoming the new filter through which all content must pass.
@7: What you say sounds good in theory, that companies should be able to create advanced services for those willing to pay. This should make the Internet marketplace more competitive and profitable. Unfortunately, if you allow ISPs to provide varying levels of service and rates, you allow them to impose penalties strategically on competitors and users they don’t like, you grant advantages to some content over others. The example that comes to mind is what Comcast has been trying to do to Netflix:
http://www.infoworld.com/t/tec.....-loses-339
How much public money was used to build the Internet? Who are we allowing to control public access to information?
To your other point:
Elsewhere I’ve compared national politics to the choice between apocalypse and a lingering death. On social issues and core values, there is an important difference between the parties, but it’s not clear how much that matters in the long run, when it comes to how actual policy is shaped and who wins in the current economy.
I guess, to the original post, it’s mass protest movements that are all that’s left to expose the game for what it is, anything that could sway public opinion against all the FUD and poo tossed around by the powerful against individuals like ourselves. Anything that could introduce some element of accountability. Historically, this has been a losing battle. We’ll see.
Btw I was remiss in not thanking all the volunteers who showed up to help collect signatures for I-1149. A big THANK YOU! to all those fine people.
Well it looks like 242 members of the House of Representatives think that getting every little thing they want is so important that they’re willing to shut down the government, hurting 10’s of thousands of people in the process to get it.
Notes to the 242:
1. We have a House, a Senate, and a President, and they all get a say in the budget.
2. Even after the shut down you’re still not going to get everything you want.
7000 protesters? Riiiiiggggghhhht. This morning
the news team panned the crowd of 20 and 19
of them needed a shower, bad! The great unwashed, en masse! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Hey dipshits, there aint no MORE MONEY! The great
DOLE is OVER!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Time to cutoff the ponytail and get a fucking job LOSERS! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I’m from the guvmint
and I’m here to help! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This is so entertaining I cant believe it!
14 –
5. mark spews:
McCain will win 40 states. It will come down
to an individual in the booth asking themselves
“Do I want a jigaboo for president?” Nahhh.
05/11/2008 AT 6:01 PM
@ 14, @15
Jesus, Mark. I don’t believe you have the nerve to show your online face around here.
And I’m not talking about your prediction about the number of states McCain would take.
Yeah, big batch of nerves to give you idiots
a laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Fuck me to tears!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA