John Kerry wakes up

Wow! I thought John Kerry was dead. But he lives and breathes! Here’s what he had so say about the Senate Commerce Committee’s decision not to endorse the principle of Net Neutrality.

Yesterday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesn’t get the job done.

It looks like that’s the fight we’re going to have.

The Commerce Committee voted on net neutrality and it failed on an 11-11 tie. This vote was a gift to cable and telephone companies, and a slap in the face of every Internet user and consumer. It will not stand.

I voted against this lousy bill for two reasons: because net neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society, and both were pushed aside by the Republicans.

Everyone says they don’t want the new world we’re living in to be marked by the digital divide — the term is so cliched it’s turned to mush — but yesterday was a test of who is willing to ask corporate America to do anything to fix it, and the Commerce Committee failed miserably. Why are United States Senators afraid to say that companies should be expected to foster growth by building out their broadband networks to increase access?

Free and open access to the internet is something all Americans should enjoy, regardless of what financial means they’re born into or where they live. It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate is going let a handful of companies hold internet access hostage by legalizing the cherry-picking of cable service providers and new entrants. That is a dynamic that would leave some communities with inferior service, higher cable rates, and even the loss of service. Not to mention inadequate internet service — in the age of the information.

This bill was passed in committee over our objections. Now we need to fight to either fix it or kill it in the full Senate. Senator Wyden has already drawn a line in the sand — putting a “hold” on the bill, which prevents it from going forward for now. But there will be a day of reckoning on this legislation soon, make no mistake about it, and we need you to get engaged — pressure your Senators, follow the issue, demand net neutrality and build-out.

Great stuff! But it’s like Al Gore Mk II. Why do these guys not realise that if they were passionate about causes then they might win elections

[Link]

Toll booths on the Net

From Good Morning Silicon Valley

Believers in the Internet as a free flowing, end-to-end service were talking about the end of it all today, after a Net neutrality amendment to telecom legislation was voted down in a Senate committee yesterday on an 11-11 tie. We’ve been over this ground before (see “That’s a mighty fine looking stream of data you’ve got there … shame if anything happened to it.”), so this time we’ll let ZDNet’s Mitch Ratcliffe say it: “The Senate Commerce Committee, splitting 11 to 11 and therefore rejecting compromise language, set the stage for a carrier-controlled Internet. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed by the President, you can kiss the Net you know ‘goodbye.’ Farewell, open networks and open standards. Soon every packet will be subject to inspection and surcharges based on what it carries and who sent it or where it is going. The compromise language would have guaranteed that all traffic sent over carrier backbones would be treated equally, regardless of its source or destination. Carriers will be free to target especially profitable traffic for surcharges.” Those who frame this as a fight to keep the government’s sticky fingers out of the “natural” workings of the market were pleased. “For those of you who think this is a bad thing — recall the FCC’s actions after the Super Bowl ‘wardrobe malfunction.’ If you think the U.S. government is going to lay down neutrality rules and then keep a hands off attitude beyond that, you probably also think you’ll find a pony under every large pile of manure,” writes James Robertson. Both sides agree, however, that there is fighting that remains to be done, with Net neutralists taking heart from managing the tie in committee and momentum for a Senate floor fight growing.

China now blocks main Google site

I missed this BBC NEWS report (dated June 7), and only picked it up when reading Owen’s Blog

Chinese authorities have blocked most domestic users from the main Google.com search engine, a media watchdog said.

Internet users in major Chinese cities faced difficulties accessing Google’s international site in the past week, Reporters Without Borders said.

But Google.cn, the controversial Chinese language version launched in January, has not been affected.

The site blocks politically sensitive material to comply with government censorship rules.

“It was only to be expected that Google.com would be gradually sidelined after the censored version was launched in January,” Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.

“Google has just definitively joined the club of Western companies that comply with online censorship in China,” the organisation said…

It was only a matter of time, of course. But it makes the Google boys look even more naive than I had thought.

Bloggers and the Democratic Party

Interesting piece about the effect bloggers are having on the Democrats…

Joe Lieberman has a fight on his hands. Until very recently, the three-term Democratic senator and former presidential candidate was cruising to re-election in Connecticut, his home state. But the 64-year-old grandee now finds himself in sudden danger of falling victim to a new political life form: the internet candidate.

Ned Lamont, a cable television entrepreneur, has come from nowhere to pose a serious threat, with the help of internet fundraising and anti-war bloggers outraged at Mr Lieberman’s gung-ho support for the Iraq invasion.

Devoutest Congressman doesn’t know the Ten Commandments

Wonderful post on Boing Boing…

In this video, Stephen Colbert nails Georgia Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a Congressman who’s co-sponsored a bill to require the display of the Ten Commandments in the House of Reps and the Senate. After bantering with Westmoreland for a couple minutes, Colbert says, “What are the Ten Commandments?”

Stephen Colbert: What are the Ten Commandments?

Lynn Westmoreland: What are all of them?

SC: Yes.

LW: You want me to name them all?

SC: Yes.

LW: Uhhh.

LW: Ummmm. Don’t murder. Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Ummmmm.

LW: I can’t name them all.

You just have to see the video. The bantering before the exchange I’ve quoted is, in a way, even better — especially when you know what’s coming. Truly, you couldn’t make this stuff up. Thanks to Cory for posting it.

Later… I’ve been reading the comments on the YouTube page…

One says ” I’m from the UK and don’t know this person, but is he REALLY in CONGRESS?? This has got to be a hoax, surely?” To which someone else replies, “Oh no my friend, rest assured, his congressmanfulship is all too real. Welcome to the american political system.”

That ‘democracy’ George Bush is so keen to export

Interesting column by Martin Kettle…

On April 30 the Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage wrote an article whose contents become more astonishing the more one reads them. Over the past five years, Savage reported, President George Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws that have been enacted by the United States Congress since he took office. At the heart of Bush’s strategy is the claim that the president has the power to set aside any statute that conflicts with his own interpretation of the constitution.

Remarkably, this systematic reach for power has occurred not in secret but in public. Go to the White House website and the evidence is there in black and white. It takes the form of dozens of documents in which Bush asserts that his power as the nation’s commander in chief entitles him to overrule or ignore bills sent to him by Congress for his signature. Behind this claim is a doctrine of the “unitary executive”, which argues that the president’s oath of office endows him with an independent authority to decide what a law means.

Periodically, congressional leaders come down from Capitol Hill to applaud as the president, seated at his desk, signs a bill that becomes the law of the land. They are corny occasions. But they are a photo-op reminder that American law-making involves compromises that reflect a balance between the legislature and the presidency. The signing ceremony symbolises that the balance has been upheld and renewed.

After the legislators leave, however, Bush puts his signature to another document. Known as a signing statement, this document is a presidential pronouncement setting out the terms in which he intends to interpret the new law. These signing statements often conflict with the new statutes. In some cases they even contradict their clear meaning. Increasing numbers of scholars and critics now believe they amount to a systematic power grab within a system that rests on checks and balances of which generations of Americans have been rightly proud – and of which others are justly envious…

An Duce*, RIP

My countrymen are disgracing themselves again. Charlie Haughey, the former Fianna Fail leader and Taoiseach (Prime Minister) has died, in his bed, of cancer, at the ripe old age of 80. As one of the most corrupt politicians in the short history of the Irish state (which means he came top of a high-quality field), he ought to have died in gaol. But that’s not what rattles me; it’s the unctuous drivel that prominent Irishmen and women are spouting today. Listening to them, you’d think that it was some weird combination of Spinoza and Nelson Mandela who had passed away. Listen, for example, to what the country’s leading sky pilots have been saying:

The Primate of All-Ireland, Dr Seán Brady, said Mr Haughey was an able and talented politician who did much to promote the interests of Ireland and her people.

Dr Brady said Mr Haughey was a reforming politician who had considerable success in introducing measures to take care of the less well-off and disadvantaged in our society.

He said Mr Haughey will also be remembered for pioneering public utility allowance schemes and free transport for the elderly.

The Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin, said Mr Haughey was a man who engaged the people of Ireland over the last 40 years on the public stage.

Archbishop Martin said that these days following the death of the former Taoiseach were not ones for writing history books. He said a full and balanced analysis of Mr Haughey’s impact on Irish life would take time and careful consideration….

John Hume, the Nobel laureate, said:

Peace and justice in the North of Ireland was always at the top of the agenda for Charles Haughey and when I started to talk to Gerry Adams, he strongly supported me. He worked very closely with me in preparation for the whole movement to get lasting peace and an end to violence with the Downing Street Declaration and he fully briefed his successor Albert Reynolds.

The former Fine Gael leader and Taoiseach, Garrett Fitzgerald said that Haughey was:

a man of formidable political skills. Despite their public political differences, their relationship was always marked by courtesy and absence of personal antagonism.

Eh?

It gets worse. Haughey is to be given a State Funeral on Friday, and the current Taoiseach and Fianna Fail leader, Bertie Ahern, is to give the oration at the graveside. I look forward to the solemn tones of the RTE commentators as the cortege passes various landmarks in Haughey’s rapacious career. The local branch of Allied Irish Banks, for example, which tried to call in Haughey’s six-figure overdraft and were told to get stuffed. (Deciding that it rather hoped to do further business in Ireland, the bank wrote off the debt.) Will there be a respectful pause when the procession reaches a branch of Dunne’s Stores, one of whose family directors (Ben) handed over colossal sums of money to Haughey in brown envelopes? And what of the numerous housing estates built on green belt land mysteriously rezoned for development after being purchased by Haughey and his mates? And will the cortege stop briefly at the polling station where Haughey’s election agent was caught voting twice (and later prosecuted for that offence)?

Compassionate souls will say that one shouldn’t speak ill of the dead, especially on the day of decease, and in general I agree. In which case, the right thing to have done today would have been to note Haughey’s passing, express condolences to his family and leave it at that. But for the State to honour so conspiciously a man who so comprehensively polluted Irish political life beggars belief. And it leads one to wonder what’s really going on.

Part of the problem with Haughey is that everybody knew he was bent — but nobody ever dared to say anything. It was only when Ben Dunne spilt the beans after being arrested for possession of drugs while on a junket to Florida that the whole can of worms was levered open. I remember once being on holiday in Dingle many years ago. Haughey had bought Inishvickillane — a beautiful, uninhabited island in the Blaskets off the Kerry coast — and was building a house on it. The problem with Inishvickillane is that it is largely inaccessible from the sea, so most of the building materials were airlifted in by helicopter. As I watched the aerial comings and goings I started to estimate the costs of the operation. At that time helicopter charter costs were something like £200 an hour. I looked up Charlie’s ministerial salary — it was, I think, about £60,000 a year. Eventually I said to a local onlooker: “How can Charlie afford this?” He looked at me, smiled slyly, and said “Aw sure, you know Charlie”.

And that, of course, was part of the problem. Everyone knew what Charlie was like. There was widespread tacit acceptance that the planning system — largely controlled by Fianna Fail — was comprehensively corrupt. Worse than that — there was a kind of cynical admiration of the brazenness of the Haughey clique — as Conor Cruise O’Brien discovered to his cost when he ran for election in the late 1960s.

O’Brien had held the Schweitzer Chair in the Humanities in New York University during most of the 1960s and was at that time a classic liberal intellectual. (He had, for example, been arrested during protests against the Vietnam war.) But he eventually decided that his country needed him and returned home to run for the Dail (the Irish Parliament). He ran against Haughey as a Labour candidate in the latter’s North Dublin constituency. (Under Ireland’s proportional representation system, there are multi-member constituencies.) During the campaign, O’Brien discovered that some farmland that Haughey had purchased in the locality had, mysteriously, been re-zoned for housing development, increasing its value tenfold. O’Brien fulminated against this apparent abuse of power and obviously calculated that in so doing he would damage Haughey. But he was wrong. Haughey was returned with a considerably increased majority. It was if the electorate was saying “Sure, he’s corrupt, but good luck to him.”

So why the sudden attack of amnesia brough on by Haughey’s demise? Could it be that it’s just too embarrassing for the proud jockeys of the Celtic Tiger to admit that, in the not very distant past, their country was a rotten little borough off the mainland of Europe, run by a corrupt bunch of shysters who were the direct political ancestors of our own dear Euro-friendly Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern? Better to emphasise the positive aspects of Charlie — for example his ‘contribution’ to the peace process — than to dwell on these sordid realities. To me, it smacks of the famous attempt to find something good to say about Mussolini: that at least he made the trains run on time.

* Footnote: ‘An’ is the definite article in Irish.

That political bloggers’ convention

If there is an emerging consensus among much of the Democratic Party establishment, it is that blogs are an important, potentially crucial emerging power in American politics, as reflected by the turnout of Democratic leaders here this weekend. What is less clear is how mainstream politicians like Mr. Warner — or the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who was scheduled to address them Saturday night — will grapple with an audience that has defined itself in part by its dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians.

Indeed, there was evidence of a gulf in the way the two sides view their relationship. For the 1,000 or so bloggers at the YearlyKos Convention here, the mission is nothing short of trying to transform the way politics are done. For some of the political leaders who stopped off for a quick panel or reception, the visits seemed more along the lines of another constituent box to be checked on the campaign circuit, whose value does not extend beyond its checkbook or voter turnout operations.

Steve Soto, who writes The Left Coaster blog, said that the Democratic leaders running the campaigns to win the House and Senate “are still treating the blogs and some of the advice from them about message and focus as unwanted solicitations from crazy relatives.”

From the NYT report of the convention.

The Observer also has a report by Paul Harris on the convention.

Ruling Backs Internet-Phone Wiretapping

From this morning’s New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 9 (Bloomberg News) — Comcast, Vonage and other companies that provide telecommunications services over the Internet must allow wiretapping of phone calls by law enforcement officials, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

In a 2-to-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a Federal Communications Commission directive treating such companies the same as conventional phone companies for law enforcement purposes. Comcast and other cable companies offer Internet service over their networks, and Vonage is the biggest provider of Web-based phone service…

Yes, but what will they do about Skype, which is a P2P system?