net neutrality
25 May 2008 - 2:44pm
Big Brother by any other name smells just as much
In a classic case of missing the point to strike a righteous pose, this:
Twice in two days now, I’ve come across news articles using the term “Big Brother” to refer to private sector information practices that affect privacy. Big Brother is not an appropriate shorthand here. In his book 1984, George Orwell gave the name “Big Brother” to the oppressive government that observed and controlled the lives of the book’s protagonists. The unique oppressive powers of this governmental entity were a central motif of the book.
Jim Harper, of the Technology Liberation Front, a pseudo-libertarian tech blog opposing Net Neutrality, points out that George Orwell's dystopic 1984 was about Communism, and therefore using the Big Brother phrase in the context of corporate invasions of privacy is inappropriate, thus rendering specious, apparently, such perspectives.
This misses the point, though, doesn't it? After all, what was the primary difference between the totalitarian control of Communism in the Soviet Union and the totalitarian control of Fascism in Nazi Germany? In the latter, corporations collaborated and cooperated with the government in exercising power over the people.
Perhaps it might be safe to assume that Mr. Harper would not appreciate life under Fascism, either, where claiming it was "Big Brother" would be technically incorrect, but pretty much describe otherwise the same result for the citizens.
The important distinction, I submit, is not between Communism and Fascism, but between authoritarian and totalitarian trends and values vs. privacy and choice and liberty and even the pursuit of happiness by the people.
Ironic how people proclaiming "liberation" keep excusing and rationalizing and apologizing for anti-competitive, government-protected corporate power.
Next we're going to hear how wonderful it would be to have government-financed but purely non-government corporate mercenary forces like Blackwater ruling the streets of America. After all, it wouldn't be "Big Brother," would it?
20 April 2008 - 11:02am
"This Week" roundtable: "Let them eat cake" (The nervous, defensive enablers of denial)
After spending nearly 25 minutes talking mostly issues with John McCain, George Stephanopoulos, Cokie Roberts, George Will and Sam Donaldson proclaimed themselves above criticism in pretty much ignoring issues when it comes to Democrats.
Watch them congratulate themselves on feeling generally superior to the Democratic presidential candidates. They're just "the messenger," don't you know?
Cokie was especially strange today, saying that Barack Obama was unappealing when he started challenging the inanity of the questions fired at him by Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. In my mind, that's when Obama started to find his footing.
George Will was predictable, offering grade-school-level economic analysis in grand proclamations about how a capital gains tax affects the economy. (We'll just pretend that nothing else affects the economy. We'll just pretend that everything happens as a result of capital gains taxes. There's a bridge in New York you might be interested in buying, too, by the way.)
ABC obviously made a power-play investment in moving the show right off the Washington Mall. The best part of the show was at the end, when the camera pans off of George's relieved (or smug) smirk and shows glimpses of the old Smithsonian and the Capitol. But there's no denying that the Beltway news as we know it is in for a comeuppance.
That is, unless the corporate media kill net neutrality and make the Internet more like TV.
16 September 2006 - 10:27am
Why the right-wing corporate media is good for you (and for America) ... again!
You know the mainstream media doesn't tell you everything it knows. That's obvious. Some of the reasons why are obvious, too: limited space in newspapers, limited time on news programs, limited resources of news departments, limited number of reporters.... Some things are bound to slip through the cracks.
Like the things back then.
But you have to wonder if those reasons are sufficient for the utter lack of substantive coverage of these following stories.
Top 25 Censored news stories of 2007
- Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
- Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
- Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
- Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US
- High-Tech Genocide in Congo
- Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy
- US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
- Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
- The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
- Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
- Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
- Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
- New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
- Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
- Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
- Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
- Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
- Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
- Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
- Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem
- Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
- $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
- US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe
- Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
- US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region
What this amounts to is a list of 25 stories that alternative media will have to pick up. Come on, bloggers, pick one and write about it. Because the New York Times won't write about it. And Fox News won't talk about it.
store
Buy stuff here.














