Net Neutrality – Another Tool for Republicans Lies

Interesting insight into how Republicans see reality. A Republican spokesperson has come out against the net neutrality proposal claiming that the FCC decision is insulting and nothing more than a government takeover because it restricts unfair business practices that deprive consumers and providers equal and unfettered access to the Internet.

FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski’s recently released draft proposal on net neutrality states the proposal is intended to keep the Internet free of control and manipulation by any public or private group. In short, it will put regulations in place to protect consumers and innovators so the Internet remains a free and open means of communication. Genachowski says that, “The proposed framework will bar unreasonable discrimination of lawful Internet traffic.”

Here we have the GOP claiming the consumer will lose if the proposal passes and the FCC chairman saying it’s passage is in the best interest of the consumer.

These guys are all, regardless of party affiliation, suppose to be looking out for the best interest of all consumers so how can these two opposing views both be accurate?

Simply put, the draft proposes that consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and it prohibits blocking of connections, content or devices by any public or private entity. And that no central authority should have the right to pick which ideas or companies win or lose on the Internet, and it should be the role of the marketplace and free market to dictate consumer’s and innovators choices.

To me this sounds like a full on protection of internet access for all consumers.

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) sees it differently. She claims this proposal is insulting and claims that net neutrality is nothing more than government takeover of the Internet.

Excuse me Ms. Blackburn of Tennessee, but if my access to the internet will be protected from control by any group, please explain to me how this is insulting? Please lay out your views on how this proposal is a government takeover of the internet.

Also, how is it in your warped sense of reality that the Federal Communications Commission has no right to regulate communications?

Your claim that “tepid support of the FCC proposal by Internet Service Providers is in fact proof that no one wants Obama to control the Internet”, is flawed by simple common sense. Allow me to enlighten you madame R-TN, Internet Service Providers make money off of their control of Internet access, namely through the gluttonous concept of tiered pricing. This unabashed scheme to bilk as much money as possible from the very consumers who keep them in business is shameful, and I am trying to be as kind here as I possible can.

No other nation in the world so strangles the innovation and consumer access to the Internet by adhering to this Machiavellian means of control of Freedom of Speech. Internet access should be guaranteed for all people, much the same way in which libraries and news media is.

ISP’s dictate the speed at which the Internet can reach consumers by following the same business model as that used for cable television. The Internet is not cable television. To decide that only the rich can have the greatest access to information, news, entertainment and a forum to voice our opinion is to draw the same hard line of division that King Louis IV maintained which lead to the French Revolution.

This is representative of a growing Republican mantra, when a government agency tasked with protecting consumers makes and enforces regulations; Republicans scream ‘government takeover’ or another Obama power grab. Even though the attempt by government is to enforce protection of free speech, unfettered access and to prevent control and manipulation by any public or private group.

Witnessing their continued blatant corporate protectionist tactics at the cost of consumer protection, I think it’s obvious who Republicans are really looking out for.

Net Neutrality is not government takeover. Nor is it in any way near socialism. It is as much about equal rights for everyone as was the Womens Suffrage Act of 1920, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The bottom line here is that Republicans hate any regulations that do not favor the wealthy, banks, or corporations, and their deregulation mantra is predictable. It has been Democrats who advocate for consumers and put in place regulations that protect every American, including Republicans.

Blackburn’s lies that Genachowski’s proposals hinder access to the Internet are meant to garner support from voters who have no idea what the proposals mean for consumers.

Education is what is needed for the ultimate in consumer protection.

It is clear that Republicans will go so far as to prevent access to education if it will aid in furthering their lies about regulation as a means to frighten voters.

Please get the word out that Net Neutrality is a step towards better Internet access not an attempt to take it away from us.

SWAT action of Family Farm? Where Is the Media Coverage?

On December 1, 2008, a family-run food co-op in LaGrange Ohio, was the scene of a home invasion. These “home invaders” won’t match the images you may have of drug-crazed-addicts or some street gang bent on ripping-off the family of their possessions. No, this highly organized and heavily armed ‘gang’ was made up of police officers ordered to confiscate the livelihood and personal property of the family who runs Manna Storehouse by the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

I found this comment concerning the raid on a blog called The Complete Patient:
The family that runs the co-op tells me they were herded into the living room for 8 hours while the home and business was torn apart. They were not given reason, saying they were under investigation. All of their computers and phones, and customer information were taken, as well as $10,000 worth of beef. A ‘warrant’ which didn’t appear to be valid, showed the reason for investigation, was ‘beef’.

According to this second-hand information (neither police nor government officials deny or collaborate the story) our government, in full riot gear with semi-automatic weapons pointed at the heads of this family (children included) raided a family business who was providing grass-fed beef, lamb, pastured poultry and other Weston-Price-style foods.

There is no official story in the main stream media about this raid nor is there any official press release from Ohio Department of Agriculture, however, I did find one ‘sanitized’ report in a local paper, which is how many of the family’s neighbors heard of it. (Is the internet the last stand for true freedom of the press?). The lack of coverage, considering the level of force used in a raid of this sort, is disturbing at best. Normally, the news media is all over this type of raid. The family did say they are not talking to the press in order to protect themselves.

What little background information could be found regarding this situation still does not show that the SWAT action was warranted. It seems that the discovery of a bit of non-institutional beef in an Oberlin College food service freezer a year ago (November 2007) was tracked down by a county sanitation official to Manna Storehouse. Oberlin College’s student food coop is widely known for its strident ideological stance about eating organic foods. It seems that the Oberlin student food cooperative had joined the Manna Storehouse food cooperative in order to buy organic foods in bulk from the national organic food distributor United, which services buying clubs across the nation. The sanitation official, James Boddy, evidently contacted the Ohio Department of Agriculture. After the first contact by state ODA officials, Manna Storehouse reportedly wrote them a letter requesting assistance and guidelines for complying with the law. This letter was never answered. Rather, the ODA agent tried several times to infiltrate the coop. When his attempts failed, the SWAT team showed up!

As of December 9, the family has not been charged with any crime, nor have they been contacted by anyone concerning this raid. The speculation that the business was operating without a license is simply that, speculation. They have sent a plea for any information regarding the Ohio Department of Agriculture laws governing their enterprise and what they may have done to prompt such a raid.

Three important questions arising from this incident need to be addressed.
1: Did this SWAT action take place as reported, thus far by word of mouth, or is it a fabrication to garner sympathy for the plight of the ‘little guy’?
2: Is ODA guilty of participating in a nationwide attempt to discredit small-time local food groups in favor of corporate interests?
3: Where is the media coverage?

All three questions are disturbing.

Did this SWAT action take place?
Did SWAT swoop down and ‘terrorize’ this ‘innocent’ family as the commenter reported, or is this an exaggeration to garner sympathy for the plight of family-owned businesses who don’t want to be regulated by the government?

Whether the raid was conducted with weapons drawn or not, the raid did take place and this issue needs to be addressed. Since when does the enforcement of health and/or commerce policies warrant the use of SWAT? Why did the Health Department not simply conduct a health inspection? I am certain there are rules in place to cover this situation that are more in line with good public relations than involving law enforcement.

If the government did use such heavy-handed Gestapo-type tactics simply to confiscate this family’s business records and personal food items, then a complaint should be filed with their congressperson and violation of civil rights charges brought against ODA. Bringing such matters to light is the most obvious way of ensuring any wrongdoing by the government is exposed. However, if this family sensationalized their story simply to further their cause and attempt to manipulate public opinion, should we buy into it?

The use of a SWAT team indicates a belief that this family was “armed to the teeth” and therefore the use of such equipment was deemed necessary for the protection of team members. Absent any prior knowledge that they family was an outlaw gang, such use of law enforcement was not only irresponsible but a danger to the public.

Certainly, this alleged method belies the faith we have in our government officials to protect us from harm and they should therefore be made to pay.

At any rate, what psychological effect this raid will have on these children is anybody’s guess. And what did this experience teach them about their country, their leaders, their government, and their local law enforcement?

I realize the police are ordered from ‘on high’ to behave in the manner in which they do, but at some point the individual wearing the uniform has to take personal responsibility for his/her participation in these tyrannical methods. They must consult their moral conscience to face the fact that they can no longer shrug off their part in what they did to this family to “just doing my job”.

All of us who feel that our constitution, and the freedoms granted therein, is worth fighting for must, sooner or later, be moved to action against these atrocities, to voice our opinions and fight against this kind of tyranny.

Is there some diabolical master-plan to wipe out all corporate competition?
Why did the ODA feel it was necessary to raid a family owned and run business using law enforcement and the threat of violence instead of using a less oppressive method such as serving notice of an inspection for possible health or commerce violations?

Is the FDA and Department of Agriculture protecting us from the mean ole independent businesses promoting ‘bioterrorism’ or are they protecting a market for major corporations who only view consumers as open wallets for their own financial benefit? Keep in mind that these are the same corporations who reduce their product package size and claim to be helping the economy by not raising their prices.

The FDA has a history of conducting raids on business operations selling natural herbs and nutritional supplements with claims of promoting health. The 1990 raid on Highland Laboratories, a small vitamin company in rural Oregon; 1987 raid on Life Extension Foundation in Florida; 2007 raid of Fullife Natural Options; for a list of similar raids click here.

We are all aware of the downside of large corporations. Labor Unions have been fighting this beast on the side of the little guy for a very long time. Often times resorting to violence to get their voices heard over management for simple human rights such as a decent wage, safe working conditions, reasonable work day lengths, affordable health coverage, and other benefits that those without a union will never have. Corporations are in place to feed their financial bottom-line. And if they could cut costs like health insurance, safety procedures, and even salary, they would do it.

Wal-Mart is the poster child of ‘large corporation’ vs. the ‘little guy’ and has certainly done their part to wipe-out local businesses wherever they build their stores. Despite their initial claims to the community in which they choose to spread their empire, small businesses dry up. The resulting job gains for Wal-Mart never amount to the losses suffered from these closings. The vast majority of Wal-Mart employees are paid part time wages and work without sufficient benefits which forces taxpayers to subsidize them through food stamps and Medicaid. Money earned by Wal-Mart leaves the local economy and is pumped to its headquarters therefore local banks do not benefit from Wal-Marts’ presence. Wal-Mart buys its bulk of goods from China forcing American suppliers to cut approximately 17,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2006. In 2007, Wal-Mart brought $26.7 billion of Chinese goods into the United States and cost American workers more than 200,000 jobs.

It has taken laws to be passed to protect the interests of the worker and consumer, but now corporations have bought politicians through lobby groups and outright bribes to protect themselves against the worker and our economy is suffering for it.

Multinational corporations are taking control of seeds, animals, food, and all natural substances worldwide and the police are at their beck and call to enforce governments’ and corporations’ sway over the ‘little guy’.

The Community Alliance for Responsible Eco-farming (CARE), a private group of farmers and consumers in Pennsylvania, recently released a statement regarding the relationship between private citizens and constitutional government. Their position is basically that the government has a right to control and regulate what the government creates. If, for example, the government creates a corporation (essentially conferring “person” status to that entity) then it has every right, every duty even, to oversee it. But men are not artificial entities created by government. Men are natural, and when they act as private citizens, government must stay out of their way. In fact, government is supposed to protect citizens from the actions of any entity that might inhibit the free exercise of their natural rights. When government does otherwise it blurs the line between private and public, effectively deeming EVERYTHING public, and thus making constitutions irrelevant.

As for the ongoing attack on free enterprise, the general public does not know enough to know what is real and what is speculation because the press has yet to mount an investigation into what is happening.

Where is the media coverage?
Why is there no mainstream media coverage of how this and other family owned businesses across the country are being dealt with in such a Gestapo-like manner?

It isn’t just the local media that should be held to account, national media as well bear the blame. Blogs and word of mouth are doing what they can to get the word out but they are no real substitute for gaining national attention. We need a concerted effort along with main stream media to bring this situation into the main stream consciousness. This cannot continue to go on without public scrutiny.

The media did not cover the story of the tea man. What else are we not being told?

Summation:
We have a SWAT action on a family farm to confiscate all business-related property without revealing charges.
We have government officials imposing rules and regulations on individuals who want nothing to do with them.
We have a media that does not cover these actions.
We have a populace who looks the other way, some of which are members of law-enforcement, government and media.
These are the ingredients necessary to allow a corprafascist state to exist.
We all need to rise up against this trend before it is too late.
History is repeating itself.


Further Reading:
True history of FDA raids on healers, vitamin shops and supplement companies
Center for Micro Eco-Farming Movement
Whole Farm Coop, Local Harvest
Benefits of Healthy Whole Foods
Herbal Supplements Guide

Who is looking after us?

Government agencies still taking thinly veiled bribes from the industries they are tasked to regulate.

Are these people naïve or unethical? The Consumer Product Safety Commission chief and her predecessor, under the Bush administration, have taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children’s furniture industries and others they regulate. Is there payoff involved? Absolutely. Want proof? The U.S. has become inundated with recalls of children’s products because of high levels of lead paint, under the Bush administration.

Our children are being put at risk by unethical industries that ignore safety requirements in their pursuit to make profit. They use substandard materials and our children are getting sick because of it. Parents are getting sick of it too.

These individuals are government employees and fall under the same ethical guidelines as every other government official concerning gifts. The industries who are regulated by the CPSC is guilty of bribery and the agency is guilty of accepting bribes. There is no other way to say it.

This practice of paying for travel is commonly called “gift travel”. This practice has become embedded as part of the benefits package of heads of regulatory agencies. When we can no longer count on regulatory agencies to protect us where does that leave us?

Once again our government has proven that it does not care about the safety of our children or of us as a whole. As long as they get pampered at the expense of someone else they will always be faced with returning the ‘favor’. And they do return the favor. Want proof of that too? The CPSC flew to China and Hong Kong in 2004 at the expense of the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory based in Bethesda, Maryland. Their laboratories are in Asia. The CPSC claims there were no regulatory requests pending at the time, hinting that there was no payoff involved, but rest assured the AFSL got a tax write-off for the travel and they expect the CSPC to reciprocate by looking favorably on safety standards that will favor the AFSL.

More egregious instances involve going soft on industries who have, this past summer, flooded the market with Chinese-made toys with hazardous levels of lead. The CPSC has gone soft on industries by opting for “voluntary” standards and repeatedly not taking legal action against businesses that refuse to recall dangerous products. Are we, the consumers being protected by the Consumer Product Safety Commission? NO! Are businesses being favored by the Consumer Product Safety Commission? YES!

Are we being shown that “voluntary” adherence to safety regulations is not working? YES! What is the Consumer Product Safety Commission going to do about it? NOTHING! Because they have been bought and paid for.

This government is more concerned with making revenue from taxes generated by these industries doing business in the U.S. than they are about our safety. That much has been made abundantly clear. Does this agency need to take these trips to the factories to see the process of product manufacture? No, they don’t. These products are tested here in the U.S. by the CPSC or its affiliates. The FDA tests products before they are released to the market. Why is the process different for the CPSC?

If the government is truly concerned with our safety, these products should be tested before they ever reach the American consumer.

CPSC officials defend the industry-paid trips as a way for the agency to be in contact with manufacturing officials and hear their concerns despite a limited travel budget. These manufacturing officials need to fly to the CPSC offices to voice their concerns, not give the impression of impropriety through “gift travel”.

Commission spokeswoman Julie Vallese said the agency's counsel and its ethics officers conducted "a full conflict-of-interest analysis" of the trips and stand behind their decisions. This is in the best interest of the agency to employ counsel and its ethics officers who will “stand up” for the agency. Their voracity and honesty are in question.

"The mission of the agency and the benefits to consumer safety are two factors that are taken into consideration in approving gift travel," she said. Reports of the trips are submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, she added. It is plain to see that the ‘benefits to consumer safety’ have taken a back seat in light of all of the recent recalls this country has seen.

This “gift travel” bribery scheme is in clear violation of ethics codes. Why does an ethics code even have to be in writing? Why can’t we find someone ethical enough to sit at the heads of government offices? Why does the consumer, the taxpayer, the very people who pay through the nose to support these governmental agencies have to continuously be on the loosing end of everything?

Ann Brown, who served as chairman, under the Clinton administration, from 1994 to 2001, traveled only at the expense of the agency or of media organizations that sponsored appearances where she announced product recalls. "We hated to have an industry pay for our staff for anything," said Pam Gilbert, a lawyer who was executive director of the agency under Brown. What does this say about the Republican party vs. the Democratic party? I think it is very telling. Ethics have gone to hell since Bush took office. Ethics scandals have reached unprecedented levels under the republican controlled congress. I know there is no shortage of ethics violations for democrats, after all they are all politicians.

If the agency got by under the Clinton administration without taking bribes it can do it under the Bush and future administrations. The atmosphere under Bush made it easy for the agency to throw ethics out the window and take these unnecessary trips.

Accepting gifts opens the door to more suspicion. Chances are this is just the tip of the iceberg. Chances are there are more shady dealings going on behind closed doors. Since the agency has shown it is willing to accept this sort of bribery, we, the taxpayer, can’t help but become suspicious of any action this agency takes.