Friday, December 31, 2010

Keith Olbermann: 'Fox News Is 100% Bullshit' --And I couldn't agree more!

I went to my parent's house a few weeks ago and found them in the living-room watching Fox News, actually watching the Glenn Beck show. I asked "You guy's watch Fox News", horrified to hear the answer...yes. I turned down the volume on the TV and asked if they watched any other network news programs. And too my disbelief, they said no. I've known my parents to be republicans for many years, and very moderate at that. More liberal on social issues and more conservative on financial issues. We haven't really sat down and talked politics for some time and I was curious to see where they stood on many of the issues. I got sick to my stomach the longer I talked to them. Some of the issues where they were once more moderate or even liberal on, were not important too them anymore, or they've taken a hard right stance. And when I pressed them about those issues, they started using words like "socialist", "intrusive", "elitist", "liberal", "big government". It was scary. Too watch two people I love very much, easily be swayed by stories that are not true, or are filled with 1/2 truths, or worst of all, not being told about real news stories because it doesn't fit into the Fox agenda. Fox News is 100% Bullshit. It's okay if you have a preference, maybe want to promote the wrong (other) side. But do it honestly, with integrity. You can say many things about Keith Olbermann, you may not like his views, or which side of the aisle he stands on. And he makes it no secret where he stands. But he does not lie, or make up stories, or tell half truth's to get people onto his side. He tells it as it is, as he see's it...not how he want's you to see it. That's the scary thing about Fox News, and why I told my parents to PLEASE get their news from many sources, and not to rely on just one, Fox News. This way, they're sure to get the whole story, not just the parts that Fox News wants them to have. It is important to get your news from many sources. It makes me feel more rounded.

Amplify’d from

Keith Olbermann is anything but hesitant when it comes to a battle with Fox News, and the MSNBC anchor took to Twitter Wednesday to share his views on the TV network he probably wouldn't even call a rival.

"Fox News is 100% bullshit," Olbermann tweeted several times Wednesday.

Olbermann also specifically directed comments at his 8PM competitor, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.

"I don't have as much hate or as many lies in me as O'Reilly," he tweeted.

One Twitter user, William R. Dickson, tweeted back at Olbermann with the following, which he retweeted to his 169,000-plus followers:

"Surely not 100%. Surely it is a rich blend of manure from a wide variety of farm animals."


Wednesday, December 29, 2010

What is Net Neutrality? It's very simple, it should be neutral. Nothing more, nothing less!

The internet should be just like a utility, like electric or gas. For me it's not a luxury, it's a a microwave. I didn't know I needed one until I had one. I remember my parent's being the same way. It's an information highway, it opens up the whole world. It's opened up this channel for me to write my woes's & gripes. Whether or not anybody else ever reads them, it's an awesome out-let for me. It's my escape, it's my door into another world. I think this door should be open for everybody to experience. But sadly, it is a luxury for a lot of people, or they seem to think it's a luxury because they haven't experienced my parents. They think it's too expensive and don't see the value in it. But I know, just like the microwave, once they have it and experienced it for what it is, they wouldn't want to be without it. Not only does it open up the world, but it open's up your living room to your own family. Most are in awe the first time you video chat. It would be nice to see my mom more often. Sometimes it get a bad rap, It's not just for games or porn. It does have some evil in it, but I think the good out-weighs all the negatives. So it needs to stay neutral. If Comcast or any provider needs to upgrade their systems because of the increase in traffic, then they should charge us more. I said us, the consumer. I don't think they should be getting into the business of charging Netflix or Hulu or what ever content provider we choose to watch, listen too, or read because then whatever content provider has the most money, is going to get preferential treatment into my home. That should be my business, and only my business. The electric company doesn't worry about which light bulbs I use. If I use more electricity, they charge me more money. The same should hold true with Comcast, Qwest or which ever provider we use.   Give me a fast, reliable connection into my home, and let me decide how to use it. I'm for TOTAL net neutrality.
Amplify’d from

What is Net Neutrality?

As its name indicates, net neutrality is about creating a neutral internet. The basic principle driving net neutrality is that the internet should be a free and open platform, almost like any other utility we use in our home (like electricity). Users should be able to use their bandwidth however they want (as long as it's legal), and internet service providers should not be able to provide priority service to any corner of the internet. Every web site (whether it's Google, Netflix, Amazon, or should all be treated the same when it comes to giving users the bandwidth to reach the internet-connected services they prefer. Your electric company has no say over how you use your electricity—they only get to charge you for providing the electricity. Net neutrality aims to do something similar with your internet pipes.

What are the Arguments For Net Neutrality?

Proponents of net neutrality don't want to give the ISPs too much power because it could easily be abused. Imagine that Verizon or AT&T don't like the idea of Google Voice, because it allows you to send text messages for free using your data connection. Your cellphone carrier could block access to Google Voice from your smartphone so you're forced to pay for a texting plan from them. Or, they see that a lot of people are using Facebook on their smartphone, so even if they have the bandwidth to carry that traffic, they decide to charge you extra to access Facebook, just because they know it's in high demand and that they can make a profit.
Similarly, Comcast recently got in a tiff with Netflix over its streaming video offerings, essentially telling Netflix's partners that they'd need to pay if they wanted their content delivered on their network. Comcast argued that streaming Netflix is a huge traffic burden, and if they're going to provide that service they'll need to update their infrastructure. Netflix's argument was that Comcast provides the internet, and it's Comcasts users that have requested that extra bandwidth for the services they want.

What are the Arguments Against Net Neutrality?

Anti-net neutrality activists argue that internet service providers have a right to distribute their network differently among services, and that in fact, it's the ISPs that are innovating. They argue that giving preferential treatment to different services isn't a bad thing; in fact, sometimes it's necessary. In the recent Comcast/Netflix debate, they point out that if Netflix is sucking up all their bandwidth, they should be the ones to pay for the necessary updates that Comcast's systems will require because of it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wall Street's Ten Biggest Lies for 2010. We can't forget and we can't let congress go soft on them anymore!

Like the article states, its the ten biggest...the biggest lies. Not including all the little one's, or the "I don't recall" ones. I remember during the hearings, after the financial meltdown, watching their smugness on the stand was sickening. It reminds me of the smugness that some (most) of our Senator's and Congressmen have. The "we know what's best for you" attitude. I truly feel congress is to cozy with Wall Street, and won't do what really needs to be done to fix this mess. Two of the biggest stand-outs in this article for me where the jobless benefits and our teachers. We are losing teachers...and can you see why...GREED! Greed on Wall Street and greed in Congress. When 25 hedge fund managers are worth 658,000 teachers, that show's you who congress, or hell...any of us feels is the more important one. Our educators are incredibly important, and with what they make starting out, they can barley raise a family. A hedge fund manager could raise everybody's families... seriously. We would never need to worry about that though, they're too greedy. But ask congress if a hedge fund manager was greedy, they would say no, its the unemployed who are greedy. They don't want or need to work because we keep giving them money not to work. And I know some in congress think all they do is drink and party because they give the unemployed SO damn much money they can afford to drink and party. I've been unemployed. I barley had enough money to support my self (not a family), just my self. I had no money left over to party. When your on unemployment, you want to work because you really can't live on what they pay in unemployment benefits. It show's you just how Out-Of-Touch, Congress and Wall Street really are. We can't forget!
Amplify’d from
5. "25 hedge fund managers are worth 658,000 teachers."

Nearly everyone on Wall Street sincerely believes that they are "worth" the enormous sums they "earn." You see, their pay is determined by the market, and markets don't lie. They reflect the high value our skilled elites bring to the economy. So we shouldn't be shocked that the top 25 hedge fund managers together "earn" $25 billion a year, even at a moment when more than 29 million Americans can't find full-time work. The outrageous economic logic of Wall Street compensation has those 25 moguls taking home as much as 658,000 entry level teachers (they earn about $38,000 per year). How can that be justified? It can't. These obscene "earnings" are the product of 30 years of financial deregulation, as well as the tax cuts and tax loopholes that our government has just extended. The hedge fund honchos get most of their money by siphoning off wealth from the rest of us, not by creating new value. I dare Wall Street to prove otherwise.
7. "Lengthened availability of jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5 percentage points."

You see, the unemployed cause their own unemployment, at least if you believe this assessment from a March 17th research note from JP Morgan Chase. (Next, Wall Street will call for a return of the Poor Houses.) The theory is simple -- you give people money not to work and they won't look for jobs. Still, it takes chutzpah for JP Morgan Chase, the beneficiary of billions of dollars in taxpayer largess, to criticize the unemployed for not finding jobs that aren't there, precisely because JP Morgan Chase helped to destroy them! Dear JP Morgan research staff: Five to six workers are now competing for every available job. If that's too complicated for you quants to grasp, maybe you should try a game of musical chairs in the trading room.
10. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here." Okay, okay, Claude Raines said that in Casablanca, not on Wall Street. But Wall Street and its defenders say exactly the same thing about their opaque derivatives games. Louise Story's excellent piece in The New York Times shows how a handful of banks have cornered the market clearinghouses for derivatives - entities that are supposed to make derivatives less risky. The big banks are limiting competition, according to Story, because they "want to preserve their profit margins, and they are the ones who helped write the membership rules." Meanwhile, Wall Street is quietly pushing to exempt its most profitable derivatives from even these rigged exchanges. So don't be "shocked, shocked" when Wall Street crashes again and we're asked to foot the bill. And that's when, not if.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Visa, MasterCard and PayPal announced in the past few weeks that they would not process any transaction intended

This is troubling information...after seeing everything the big bank's have done and got away with. Do they have any rules or regulations they have to follow except the one's they make up, and are to damn complicated for most people to understand. I don't remember hearing anything about the bank's or credit card companies having issue's or concerns with the information WikiLeaks was putting out there before their names popped-up. Please, point me to the stories if I'm wrong. The information Wikileaks has been privy too and releasing to the public has been troubling and damning because it's been documented and honest. Now for the banks and credit card company's to cut off payment's intended for Wikileaks just after Assange said he would release information documenting corruption in the financial industry, probably has these guys wetting their pant's. Or maybe not, they seem to get away with everything...right? We all know they're corrupt, that ain't no secret. They were going belly up not even a couple years ago and look at the bonus's they have paid out this year. How does that happen? The government know's they're corrupt, but they don't do anything because they line their coffers and keep their war chests bulging. But they'll try to convince us's the same game. If Wikileaks really has some damning news, I hope it's something we can use to fix the widening gap between the rich and the poor, between Wall Street and Main Street.

Amplify’d from

Visa, MasterCard and PayPal announced in the past few weeks that they would not process any transaction intended for WikiLeaks. Earlier this month, Bank of America decided to join the group, arguing that WikiLeaks may be doing things that are “inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.”

But a bank’s ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy.

Our concern is not specifically about payments to WikiLeaks. This isn’t the first time a bank shunned a business on similar risk-management grounds. Banks in Colorado, for instance, have refused to open bank accounts for legal dispensaries of medical marijuana.

Still, there are troubling questions. The decisions to bar the organization came after its founder, Julian Assange, said that next year it will release data revealing corruption in the financial industry. In 2009, Mr. Assange said that WikiLeaks had the hard drive of a Bank of America executive.


Saturday, December 25, 2010

Sarah Palin Jabs Michelle Obama's Anti-Obesity Campaign With S'mores

Sara Palin, another political drone in the biggest since! A game player...a sore-loosing game player. She is playing games with our political system and has NO respect for it! If she really did, do you think she would have quit 1/2 through her first term as Governor? Doing what was best for Alaska was ya....shit you were, she was doing what was best for Sara Palin. Look at the money she's been making since her escape from the Governor's Mansion. She will say and twist anything to make the other side look bad. If it's not HER way or GOD's way or the RIGHTS way, it's got to be wrong, or bad, or socialistic. You don't belong in politics if you can't be bothered to even listen to other ideas, debate other idea's, understand other idea's. When you start to tell kids to NOT listen to good advise because it's coming from the the other-side, the government, It's time for you to step aside. This country needs people who can work together, difference's and all. For the sake of our children...our well nourished, fit children.
Amplify’d from
Sarah Palin took a shot at Michelle Obama during Sunday's episode of her reality TV show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska," jabbing the first lady's anti-obesity campaign for attempting to deprive Americans of dessert.
Michelle Obama has been a key proponent of an initiative to improve children's health by encouraging better diets and sufficient exercise. In May she announced her "Let's Move" program, which promoted dessert alternatives, among other dietary suggestions.
One in 3 American children is overweight or obese, putting them at higher risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and other illnesses. Obesity is even more prevalent among black and Hispanic children. Some public health experts say today's children are on track to live shorter lives than their parents.
But Palin has maintained that Obama's effort to combat child obesity -- which was recently aided by the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act -- is one that seeks to take away "God-given rights to make our own decisions." Some have since slammed that comment as Palin's demanding that Americans cling to their "God-Given right to be fat."

Enhanced by Zemanta

2012 Republican presidential hopefuls getting a jump on the Tea Party courtship

This is one of the major flaws within our political system. We have people who will say not what they mean, but what they think you want them to mean. It seems our political leaders, or our wanna be political leaders lose faith in themselves and their message, or do they even have a message? Do they speak from their gut, their heart...or is it all one big campaign speech right from the get-go? It appears that way to me. Maybe it has something to do with the length of the campaigns? What is it...a minimum of 2 years that we put up with the same stories they think we wanna here? Maybe in that 2 years they totally lose themselves and we end up with some political drone. Are there any politicians out there that haven't lost themselves, that haven't been turned into some political zombie.....I think so, a handful maybe? Dennis Kucinich totally pops into my head as someone whom has always stayed on message and true to himself. I know I need to completely reevaluate how I consider who I would like to vote for, and not get sucked up into the political vacuum of nothingness.
Amplify’d from

2012 Republican presidential hopefuls getting a jump on the Tea Party courtship

Three potential Republican contenders for the 2012 presidential
nomination would have higher hurdles to clear to win the Tea Party
vote in the primary, leaders of the movement say.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich each are met with a
degree of suspicion by Tea Partiers, and all three have taken early
steps to address those voters’ concerns.

And Republicans — particularly those whose relationship with the
grassroots activists isn't the coziest — are mindful of the Tea
Party’s potential impact, and seem to be operating with an eye toward
that base.
Gingrich's personal history and occasional alliances with high-profile
Democrats also have prompted concern among some conservatives; during
the past two years, he partnered with the Rev. Al Sharpton on an
education initiative and with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on
climate change.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 24, 2010

FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Released in Full. Are the wireless carriers going to have to play by the rules?

If the last rule is going to have any teeth, the penalties need to take a bite out of their profits. If the penalties are anything like the penalties that have been levied against the wireless services providers in the past, then they'll be smiling all the way to the bank.
Amplify’d from
As you may have heard, this week the FCC approved net neutrality rules that sought to strike compromise between Internet companies, broadband providers and consumers. The nitty-gritty starts on page 27 of the document, but here's the gist:
No Discrimination: Wired broadband providers may not speed up or slow down individual types of lawful traffic, with exceptions for reasonable network management. No such rules apply to wireless broadband.
As the Washington Post's Cecilia Kang notes, one of the major sticking points is that last rule, which would govern deals between an Internet company and a broadband provider for faster delivery (also known as "paid prioritization"). Although the rules allow for paid prioritization, these deals would "raise significant cause for concern" according to the FCC, and would be subject to increased scrutiny.
How will the FCC's rules be enforced? Using the same process as its cable access complaint rules, the FCC will allow users to submit formal complaints, which are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In most cases the burden of proof will be on users, but based on the evidence, the FCC can also make Internet providers prove they weren't breaking the rules. The FCC believes it can "issue citations and impose forfeiture penalties for violations of our rules." See page 82 of the document for more on enforcement.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, December 23, 2010

FCC Chair Seeks Comcast-NBC Merger Conditions. Who's Comcast bill is going up?

It just doesn't sit right with me. I have a hard time with the idea of Comcast, the largest cable/internet provider buying NBC's vast media empire. Are they buying NBC to offer us more choices at a better price, or are we going to be stuck paying more for programming we don't want to watch? Why don't they focus on offering us programming packages that fit our needs, instead of buying content we might not want?
Amplify’d from
WASHINGTON — The head of the Federal Communications Commission is proposing regulatory conditions to ensure that cable TV giant Comcast Corp. cannot stifle competition in the video market once it takes control of NBC Universal.
Genachowski wants to ensure that Comcast won't be able to use its control over NBC's vast media empire to withhold content from emerging online competitors such as Netflix Inc., Inc. and Apple Inc. – locking consumers into costly monthly cable bills to get access to a wide range of popular programming.
Comcast is seeking government approval to buy a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co. for $13.8 billion in cash and assets.
The combination would give the nation's largest cable TV company control over the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, popular cable channels including CNBC, Bravo and Oxygen and the Universal Pictures movie studio. It would also give Comcast a roughly 30 percent stake in, which has become a popular online platform for broadcast programming from NBC, ABC and Fox.
One condition missing from Genachowski's proposal is a requirement that Comcast divest NBC's stake in Hulu. One influential lawmaker, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., has urged regulators to force Comcast to do that, given that the service could represent a competitive threat to Comcast's core cable business. Kohl chairs the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that oversees antitrust policy and consumer rights.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Republicans Declare War on FCC Net Neutrality Rules

When it come's to service, price & speed, you would think that the United States would be at the top of the heap? We're not. Other countries out preform us in so may area's when it comes to broadband, especially wireless broadband. All of our wireless providers are starting to brag-up their new 4G service's, and how much faster they are. Who the hell cares when your "unlimited service' caps you out at 5GB a month. Blow through your limit in a week with your new 4G service so your provider can charge you for going over your limit. Oh..but wait, if you choose to use other services beside's Google or Facebook, who can afford to pay the carriers new fee's, maybe you won't blow through your cap because everybody else will be throttled back because they didn't pay up. You know what, we do sit on top of a just happens to be a big steaming heap!
Amplify’d from
The Federal Communications Commission may have a fight on its hands early next year as a result of the regulatory board's approval of new network neutrality rules. Republican lawmakers are not happy about the FCC's new rules. The decision has inspired incoming committee chairs in the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives, senior Republican senators and others to declare war against what they see as further government intrusion into private life.
The second rule says that broadband providers cannot block "lawful content, apps, services, and the connection of devices to the network." Wireless broadband carriers, meanwhile, may block services they deem appropriate as long as the carrier doesn't offer a competing service.
The new rules also discourage, but don't disallow, paid prioritization, a euphemism for a scheme where broadband providers could shake down Web services such as Google and Facebook to pay for the right to have their traffic delivered faster to your home than other online services.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Fake Neutrality Rules!

FCC Approves Compromise for “Fake” Net Neutrality Rules

This doesn't need to be difficult, but law makers have a way of turning something that should be fairly straight forward into a tangled mess. Take managed services for example; what would it take for broadband provider to turn your account into a managed or specialized service? Say you have a popular blog or website that generates a lot of traffic. Or you consume a ton of bandwidth because you stream movies, does this become a specialized service. It's so vague, I think everything could become a specialized service. I don't think broadband providers should be content providers, the content is going to become specialized and we're going to pay a whole lot more. It doesn't need to be difficult, net neutrality should be just that.....neutral.
Amplifyd from
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, in a historic vote Tuesday, approved network neutrality rules prohibiting broadband providers from blocking customer access to legal Web content, but many consumer groups decried the new regulations as weak and full of loopholes.
The rules create a handful of exceptions for mobile broadband. The FCC will not prohibit mobile carriers from unreasonable discrimination, with commissioners instead saying they will watch the industry for evidence of problems. The rules will prohibit mobile providers from blocking voice and other applications that compete with their services, but will not prohibit them from blocking other applications.
The new rules also exempt specialized, or managed, services offered by broadband providers from the rules. The FCC will monitor specialized services for signs that they are hurting the public Internet, FCC staff members said.

Enhanced by Zemanta