Miriam,
This is one of those subjects that I swing back and forth on,
depending how I'm feeling at the time. Draft or Volunteer. To my way
of thinking, the Violence and Greed running rampant in this nation's
Ruling Class makes it a mute question. Yes. In the best of all
worlds it would serve us, the American People's Government, well to
have our children serve a period of time working for the betterment of
the Nation. And included along with their paycheck would be free
schooling and other benefits similar to what we now provide our
military service persons.
But here we are, now training young women to kill...murder people they
know nothing about. Where I once advocated that women and, yes, even
disabled people could serve our nation in the military, I now am
totally opposed to it. Could you imagine Donald Trump deciding that
instead of refusing to allow transgender people to serve, he had them
all marched to the front lines? Along with the blind and mentally
delayed? "Hey," Trump might say, "Look at all the tax dollars we save
while they are doing their patriotic duty...I mean that's real
patriotism...really!...I mean, like going down like a
man...proud...really proud to serve."
Carl Jarvis
On 7/31/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Except that now that women want equal opportunity, this includes equal
opportunity to participate in the military in the same positions as men. So
now women can also brag about killing the enemy, whoever that happens to be
at the moment. And speaking of the military, I don't remember where I heard
this, perhaps on The Real News, but someone said that moving to a volunteer
military was one of the worst decisions our country has made. And that
reminded me that this is something that Sylvie and I disagreed on. She was
opposed to having a military draft because she thought it led to
militarizing our society. I think that even with its disadvantages, it was
the existence of the draft that created the anti-war movement in the 60's. I
think that every young person in the US, regardless of educational status or
professional aspirations, should be subject to a national service
requirement and that if the country is at war, then military service should
be required. I believe that the government would have a much more difficult
time, initiating wars, if everyone knew that their children would be
involved.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 10:49 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Steve Bannon Wants Facebook and Google
Regulated Like Utilities
Hi Miriam,
Thought this described where we're at today. Replace the unnamed evils and
miseries with Monster Billionaires and Pandoras Box will reflect where we
are.
Carl Jarvis
PS. In case anyone cares, it's interesting that women always get blamed for
the horrors of the World(see Eve in the Garden of Eden), but it's Men who
always seem to be marching off to war...or whatever they do today instead of
marching?
Pandora's box definition. In classical mythology, a box that Zeus gave to
Pandora, the first woman, with strict instructions that she not open it.
Pandora's curiosity soon got the better of her, and she opened the box. All
the evils and miseries of the world flew out to afflict mankind.
On 7/30/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is very confusing. Bannon is a trip. So is the new director of
communications. They keep switching positions. The only things that
remain stable are their wealth and their self interest.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 7:50 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Steve Bannon Wants Facebook and Google
Regulated Like Utilities
Articles like this one leave my head spinning.
Sometimes I feel like an Indian watching the first European ships
laying anchor and coming ashore full of promises and double talk.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/30/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
≡
(c) First Look Media. All rights reservedTerms of use
Steve Bannon Wants Facebook and Google Regulated Like Utilities
Ryan Grim
July 27 2017, 12:31 p.m.
Facebook Inc. and Google Inc. logos are displayed on computer
screens in this arranged photo in New York, U.S., on Monday Jan. 30,
2012. A Facebook IPO would provide funds to help the
social-networking service maintain its expansion and fend off
competition from Internet rivals such as Google Inc.
and Twitter Inc. Photographer: Peter Foley/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Facebook Inc. and Google Inc. logos are displayed on computer screens.
Photo: Peter Foley/Bloomberg News/Getty Images
Tech companies like Facebook and Google that have become essential
elements of 21st-century life should be regulated as utilities, top
White House adviser Steve Bannon has argued, according to three
people who’ve spoken to him about the issue.
Bannon’s push for treating essential tech platforms as utilities
pre-dates the Democratic “Better Deal” that was released this week.
“Better Deal,”
the branding for Democrats’ political objectives, included planks
aimed at breaking up monopolies in a variety of sectors, suggesting
that anti-monopoly politics is on the rise on both the right and left.
Bannon’s basic argument, as he has outlined it to people who’ve
spoken with him, is that Facebook and Google have become effectively
a necessity in contemporary life. Indeed, there may be something
about an online social network or a search engine that lends itself
to becoming a natural monopoly, much like a cable company, a water
and sewer system, or a railroad. The sources recounted the
conversations on the condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to give the accounts on record, and could face repercussions
for doing so.
(It’s not Bannon’s only counterintuitive proposal to float this week:
he has also told people close to him he wants to raise the top
marginal tax rate to 44 percent for people who earn more than $5
million per year.)
Regulating a company as a utility does not mean that the government
controls it, but rather that it is much more tightly regulated in
what it is able to do and prices it is able to charge. And it doesn’t
mean every element of the company would be regulated in that way. For
Google - which now calls itself Alphabet and has already conveniently
broken itself up into discrete elements - it may only be the search
function that would be regulated like a utility.
Under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission
moved forward on a plan to regulate internet service providers as
utilities, barring them from slowing down traffic to a site in order
to pressure it into paying higher fees. The Trump administration is
pushing to reverse that move, which complicates Bannon’s message.
Bannon’s argument is bolstered by an unlikely player: Facebook
founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. For years, Zuckerberg routinely
described Facebook as a “social utility.” Indeed, it was originally
part of the company’s slogan.
In an interview in 2007 with Time magazine, he was asked to elaborate
on what had become a central talking point.
Time: Why do you describe Facebook as a “social utility” rather than
a “social network”?
Zuckerberg: I think there’s confusion around what the point of social
networks is. A lot of different companies characterized as social
networks have different goals - some serve the function of business
networking, some are media portals. What we’re trying to do is just
make it really efficient for people to communicate, get information
and share information. We always try to emphasize the utility component.
The emphasis on the utility component has disappeared now that
Zuckerberg is surrounded by lawyers well versed in monopoly laws, but
the argument is as resonant today - in fact, more so - than it was a
decade ago.
Tech companies, meanwhile, have feuded publicly with the
administration, particularly over its decision to back out of the
Paris climate accord, a move driven by Bannon.
Silicon Valley’s liberal cultural politics puts it at odds
occasionally with more conservative, rural Trump voters. Facebook was
confronted by a backlash over its news curating during last year’s
presidential campaign.
With insiders claiming there was an anti-conservative bias, Facebook
pulled its live team off the project. Instead, the social media giant
turned its curation over to an algorithm that had little ability to
detect whether an article had been utterly fabricated, giving rise to
the explosive growth of “fake news” (before the moniker morphed into
a description of any news a reader objects to).
Silicon Valley caught on late to the Washington game. In 2011, Sen.
Pat Leahy, D-Vt., then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
complained that Google had waited too long to hire an armada of
lobbyists. “Sometimes a company should pay attention early on, not
just when matters happen,” he said. “But I can’t tell them, nor would
I, who they should hire or not.”
Google was playing catch up at the time, and hiring every committee
staffer who wasn’t nailed down. “I consider myself a public works
project right here,” Leahy said of the antitrust investigation he was
leading. “My colleagues call it the Leahy Full Employment Act.”
They have since caught up: In the first few months of the Trump
administration, tech firms set new lobbying spending records in
Washington.
