LnGrrrR's blog

A New Internet Bill Guaranteed to Fail

According to CNN, Republican Congressman are looking to force ISP's into keeping records for two years for all users.

This bill is horribly designed, on more than just one level.

First, it requires copious amounts of data storage. I don't think that Congressmen recognize how much data even a small network can generate. Data storage is becoming cheaper nowadays, but it's still a huge hurdle. What data should be saved? All packets? Login information? Website caches?

Two, storage equals money. You're going to add to the operating costs of not only big companies like AT&T, Verizon et all, but you're also going to reduce the ability (as if it wasn't non-existent now anyways) of a startup company.

Three, there's a great many people who use Wi-Fi who do not have it locked down with security. Will they be held liable to keep this data as well, or will it just be for those who use it commercially? The article is unclear, and it's very likely that the average person or small company will know how to store data correctly.

Fourth, the idea that I should have to give up my identity on the net is a poor one. The Internet grants anonymity, and with that, freedom. Will some people use that freedom to try to get around laws? Most certainly. But all this bill will do is force those who wish to break the law to do a slight amount of reading on how to mask your IP, how to steal Wi-Fi addresses from unsuspecting people, or find some other workaround.

If this bill goes into place, how long until the names and data get used for reasons other than their true purpose? A week or a month?

There are some good arguments for data retention by bigger companies (and they're already doing it, to some extent) but there is no need for the majority of people to store records for two years.

Questions (I feel) the Next Right has to address

Hello all,

I've enjoyed reading many of the articles here, especially from some of the posters, such as Daniel Ruwe and Mytheos Holt. However, I find there are some unexplained inconsistencies. These questions are up in the air for anyone who cares to answer them.

When and where should we limit freedom? Do you think that the US court system is set up as a fair way to try any person, or only American citizens? Why is it necessary to limit freedom in some cases (FISA, anti gay marriage/civil rights legislature) and not others (gun licenses, financial regulations)?

What programs should be cut first in order to reduce spending?

What is an acceptable size for our national defense funding? Where is the point where we would consider it too large?

What should be the military's primary focus in the years to come? Should they change over to a pseudo-police-keeping force, holding and clearing and winning hearts and minds, as is necessary in places like Iraq? Or should they maintain the classic idea of a war-fighting military (ie, bomb and get out of there)?

What should be done about illegal immigration? Should we take a hard anti-illegal immigration stance and promote laws that punish business for hiring undocumented workers, and try to round up illegal immigrants? Or should we try to provide a path to citizenship instead? In the same vein, should we allow more or less legal immigration than we do now?

Finally, should the Right reject elitism, embrace it, or perform some balancing act?

I appreciate any and all answers, and think it'd be great to get people talking about some specifics.

The fate of poor Snowzilla

A man's 16 ft tall snowman, dubbed "Snowzilla" has finally died. Who would do such a thing? A body of politics, of course.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/anchorage/story/630926.html

It's a sad day when a man can't build a snowman on his own property. And why is he denied this right? Due to his neighbors, who don't like the attention he receives and voted to label it a 'public nuisance' and 'safety hazard'.

It is rare where we see clear cut "tyranny of the majority" cases, but this would certainly be one.

On whose side are you? Do you think that the town should have the right to declare the snowman a public nuisance, or do you think he should be allowed to do what he pleases with his own property?

Democratic Taxation

 

With the economy in a mess, and a war going on over bailouts left and right, it got me to thinking: What's the best way to determine what the general public thinks our tax money should be spent on?

Every day, we hear arguments from all corners of the world on what taxpayers want to see money spent towards: defense, health care, education, etc etc. But no one has put forth a democratic idea yet to solve the problem.

I propose that each tax form contain one survey question, at the end. It would consist of a small box with various labels, such as Defense, Education, Energy, etc etc. You would prioritize how you would like your taxes to be spent by placing a 1 in the box you felt was most important, 2 in the 2nd most important box, and so on and so forth. Additionally, there would be space for one or two 'write-in' options.

What would be the benefits of such a system? First, everyone in America who pays taxes would be able to have a direct say on their priorities. It could also be used to track public opinion of issues, and a useful gauge to our representatives to see where funding should be directed. Then we could hold these politicians accountable if they go against the grain without explaining their positions.

What are the negatives? Besides the cost of people to collect and collate the data, the downsides are slim. (Apart from H&R Block convincing customers to write them in, of course.)

I think a proposal of this nature would not only make our country more democratic, but be a quick, efficient, and easy way for people to share their voice on where their money should be going. What do you think of the idea?

(Cross posted at DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/12/163418/02/863/672409)

 

What is lacking in the GOP: Clear and defined policies

As Obama fills out his Cabinet, those on the progressive left become more aggravated. It seems that more and more hires are from the Clinton administration, or of a 'centrist' mindset. Why hasn't Obama stocked his cabinet with more left-leaning appointees?

Most likely, this is because Obama is planning on governing from a center-left perspective, as he has said consistently throughout the campaign. The problem for the left is that, on key issues progressives hold, he is looking to install people that cut against the grain of what progressives want.

Republican could take advantage of divisions between moderate/conservative Democrats and liberal/progressives, but only if they develop CLEAR objectives and DEFINED policies to explain how to get there.

Looking at the Democrats, what clear policies do they have? The clearest as of this moment is Obama's plan for universal health care. His policy, specific during the campaign, has gotten a little fuzzy, but the goal is still clear.

Other clear policies that the Democrats have successfully been able to install are progressive taxation, and pro-choice, and withdrawal from Iraq.

However, the Democratic coalition is far less clear on other issues. What of FISA and the Patriot Act? What about coercive interrogation? Should they be hawkish against Iran/Afghanistan, or diplomatic? Are they for the bailout, or against it? In each case, conservative and progressive Democrats do not necessarily share the same views.

How can Republicans win these voters over? It is by laying out policies with clear and defined goals. Republicans themselves do not have many policies right now though: they have views on issues. There is a significant difference.

Ont he economic crisis, what specific actions do Republicans think should be taken instead of a bailout? What actions should be taken towards illegal immigration? What about abortion, and the consequences of outlawing it?

On moral/social issues, Republicans should be consistent with the idea of 'less government intervention'. This does not mean that Republicans need to support gay marriage. It does mean that the GOP should stop legislating bedroom affairs. It should mean that they tone down rhetoric about 'good Christian values'. (Why not refer to it as "American" values? In most cases, the two are the same, except the latter is much less likely to offend.) It should mean calling for a cease to the War on Drugs, which has been shown to be not worth the cost. It should mean policies that would examine expensive entitlement programs, and eliminate any that were not producing significant effects.

On national defense issues, the GOP needs to CLEARLY spell out why it would be essential to stay in Iraq. They need to do this with SOBER analysis, not fear mongering or threats. What is the justification for the billions we have spent in Iraq already? Where is the tangible progress, the metrics that we can measure by? How will we get there? No project will ever be finished without a timeline or goals attached to it.

Finally, the GOP should be committed to greater transparency. The past few years have been dreadful for the GOP, as the Bush Administration has been portrayed as secretive and full of loyalists. To counter that, Republicans should introduce bills that will allow greater interaction with the citizenry. For instance, create a user-friendly website that would track expenditures by category, including simple but effective graphics, that would allow citizens to vote for what they feel is the best course of action. Mandate that you will only bring in a percentage of so much pork for your representatives. Explain publicly your reasons for voting against a bill if it runs counter to your beliefs. 

Is this an all-inclusive list? By no means. These are just some (relatively) clear, defined policies that could go a long way towards improving the electability of Republicans. The most important point is to take a clear, strong position, then lay out specific actions/policies to show how you would accomplish your vision.

(Disclosure: There are certainly some Republicans doing this today. This post does not refer to every Republican; merely, the party as a whole. And before one argues that they do have clear, definable policies, if they do, they are not being promoted nearly well enough in general. Additionally, this is the view of THIS author, and of course, is subjective.)

Syndicate content