We're All Marxists Now

Imagine a world without the Internet...


I'm scaring myself and it's not even Halloween yet! Of course, nobody is talking about closing down the Internet, but what does seriously disturb me is Glenn Beck whining against net neutrality.

On his show yesterday, the lachrymose Fox pundit equated net neutrality with a Marxist takeover of the Internet. Yep. The Marxists are coming and they will stifle creativity, hurt competition, and control Internet content. As usual, Beck has it precisely backwards. Net neutrality is about maintaining a free and open marketplace:

The principle of net neutrality is about keeping the hands of several powerful network operators – AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast – off the Internet, preventing them from taking steps to change the basic open nature of the Net that has led to its success. Net neutrality keeps the Internet as a free and open marketplace, so that a small number of telephone and cable monopolies can’t choke off competition and innovation.

Net neutrality was a founding principle of the Internet, and was the law of the land until 2005. The courts and the regulators changed the rules in 2005 when they eliminated the nondiscrimination requirements that had applied for decades to phone service and, up to that point, to most residential Internet access. Implementing net neutrality is a return to the basic principles that make the Internet work for consumers and innovators.

Maybe Beck doesn't understand the word "neutrality." Maybe Beck doesn't understand the Internet. I know he doesn't understand freedom. But most likely Beck completely understands that he is working for those astroturf groups who will profit from a choked off Internet.

The odd thing about this issue is that it cannot be summed up as "big business versus the little guy." The opponents of net neutrality are mostly telecommunications companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner.

But the supporters include many big tech companies as well as small businesses and not-for-profit organizations. Hell, even the Christian Coalition of America is a supporter. But now, according to Beck, they all share the common bond of Marxism.

And why? Here are the FCC rules everybody is fussing about:

• Consumers are entitled to access any legal Internet content
• Consumers are entitled to use any Internet applications or services
• Consumers are entitled to connect to any devices that won't harm the network
• The same rules apply to cable/DSL and wireless Internet
• Internet providers can't block or slow competitors' online services

Wow! They took that right out of the Communist Manifesto!

WTF!

When I read the news, I said "oh shit!" Senator Robert Ford (D-SC) is hoping to outlaw lewd language and is pushing for a bill which would make it a felony, punishable by up to a $5,000 fine or 5 years in prison, to use profane language in any public place. The bill would also make it a felony to make material of a "profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature" available to the public.

So here we have another politician out to destroy the First Amendment... he shouldn't even be allowed near our nation's capital. But I'm not going to rant about freedom of speech or even about the record number of people we already have in prison which is costing state governments nearly $50 billion a year and the federal government $5 billion more. Nope, I'm not going to talk about that.

I'm just going to mention how absurd it must be to bring a profanity case before the court. How many dozens of times do the lawyers, witnesses, jury and judge have to speak or hear the "bad word" during the course of the trial? And when it's all over, do all participants have to go to jail? I think it would only be fair...

These illogical laws are as good as anything the Communists ever legislated. Here is a classic Russian joke:

A judge walks out of his chambers laughing his head off. A colleague approaches him and asks why he is laughing. "I just heard the funniest joke in the world!" "Well, go ahead, tell me!" says the other judge. "I can't - I just gave a guy ten years for it!"

Pretty soon we can make that joke our own!

Grounded for Life

Today I learned about an important court victory: a federal appeals court ruled that would-be passengers can ask a judge and jury to decide whether their inclusion on the government's secret no-fly list violates their rights. So, who would object to this ruling?

The "no fly list," also known as the "terrorist watch list," is a secret list maintained by the FAA of people who are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in the United States. The list has swelled to over 1 million names. In the past it has famously included some very unlikely suspects like Nelson Mandela and Edward Kennedy. The list has brainlessly included air marshals hired to protect us. The list has also been used as a political weapon.

So, shouldn't ordinary people (like those who are NOT a Kennedy) be able to challenge their inclusion on the list? Who would be against this recent court ruling? The answer is my father.

For those who don't know me personally, I'm embarrassed to admit that my father is a neocon. I know there is nothing I can do about it. He hasn't always been this way. I think he became more extreme after retirement when he had more time to watch FOX News.

Anyway, his nonsensical argument goes something like this: "I love these people who come to our country and think they can challenge our Constitution. There should be some kind of reciprocal rule. They should only have the rights of their own country when they come here. Then Sharia can apply here and they can be beheaded."

Anyway, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's very close to what he said. And when he said "love" he didn't really mean "love." I'm pretty sure the word he was looking for was "hate," but that's typical for Mr. Cranky Pants.

But doesn't his argument leave you with your jaw on the floor? The factual errors are bad enough -- the would-be passenger challenged the no-fly list not our Constitution -- but the saddest mistake in my father's argument is not understanding fundamental human rights -- the ones we call inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are natural rights. They are not granted. They are not conditional. They apply to all humans.

Likewise, justice isn't exclusively for American citizens. If our laws really work, then they work for everybody. If the woman challenging the list is innocent, then she is innocent no matter what her country of origin. And why would any thinking person even dream of legitimizing another country's primitive laws?

I don't know. It's frustrating. I'm a person concerned with our loss of liberties and our government's unchecked power. My father is an authoritarian septuagenarian raised on WW II propaganda and fear of Communism.

Turns out there are some aspects of Communism he really really likes.