It's the net, but it's not neutral

Friends, colleagues and hapless victims, today's post may be a tad esoteric, but stay with me because I'll be addressing one or two universal truths while, at the same time, coming up with some pretty amazing leaps of logic and thought pattern.



There's this new thing, you see, called "net neutrality." Net Neutrality is the notion that I, or you, or that ham sandwich over there should be able, if not enabled, to send anything we want over the internet at any time. I'm not talking about the content of your content. That's not what this is about; it's not a First Amendment thing. If it were, I'd be wrapped in that like a turkish bathrobe. No, this is about the size of things you send over the internet.



For example, if you're like most folks, your use of the internet is limited to e-mail, sending and receiving a photo or two, downloading a video or two from YouTube; stuff like that. There are, however, the pointy headed guys who send around full size copies of "Heaven's Gate" and the like. Giant files. Truly huge-ass down and uploads. Fortunately, they don't live next door to me.



For you see, your internet service provider's system is a little like the highway: the less traffic there is, the faster you can go. So when I'm doing my e-mail and photos I'm not taking up too much room so I, and those like me, can go pretty fast. But if you have one or two guys sending and receiving giant, steaming piles of movie or music or whatever, well they really gum things up.



To combat the gumming up part, internet service providers usually have a bandwidth management plan that says that any one user can't send and receive more than "X" amount of data at any one time. The Net Neutrality guys say that the internet is public and therefore they should be able to do, send and receive anything of any size at any time. Well, the internet is public, but most internet service providers, the guys who provide the wires and servers and all the stuff that enables us to get onto and off the internet are usually private. Government doesn't own 'em; private individuals and companies do and we all pay for the privilege of using their gear to help us find the best porn.



The Net Neutrality crowd, thwarted as they have been from time to time in hogging all the speed on some systems have now gone to the federal government. They say that (here's some really good logic, by the way) a) because the internet is public; and b) they're the public; and 3)they use the internet; 4) the private owners of the systems that get us to the internet should be forced to let them do whatever they want. They're asking the government to force private owners to abandon their efforts to protect the vast majority of internet users and allow the unfettered hogging of space by a few, well, hogs. And this, to them, amounts to a First Amendment issue.



Well, of course, it really isn't a First or any other Amendment issue, but the thinking is that if you wrap yourself in the Constitution or any of the amendments thereto you'll have a better chance of getting the government to give you a break over the next guy. This has nothing to do with content (much like my blog). This has to do with private enterprise and the ability to police your private stuff.



Now that we're buried deep in the bowels of this posting I will tell you, in the interest of full disclosure, that my employer, Cox Communications, is an internet service provider and I fully agree with their position on net neutrality which is to oppose it. But I would oppose it whether I worked for them or not. Net neutrality says that I can do whatever I want with your stuff that I'm using and you can't do anything about it. That's plainly wrong in this blogger's opinion.



Suppose I rent cars for a living. Suppose they're really nice cars; Chevy's or something. I have a rule that says that anyone renting my cars is not allowed to take them off-roading; got to keep them on the streets and highways. Net neutrality, in the world of auto rental, would say that I can't have that rule. Anyone who rents my cars is allowed to do anything they want to and even I, the owner, am not allowed to prevent it. That, I think, is kind of nutty.



From an owners' point of view, I would like to be able to make rules for the use of my private property. From the point of view of a reasonable user of that private property I like the idea that my provider is able to make rules that ensure that everyone gets fair use of the property; that it's not overused by some clown in a way that makes my usage less than it should be.



So I'd say, hey Mr. Government Man, just say "no" to Net Neutrality. Keep the internet safe and fast for those of us who will never do more than scratch the surface of it.

Well, it's just my opinion...but it's pretty darn interesting

What makes me think that anyone in their right mind (and that could be the key to the question) would give a hoot about my opinion? And yet, here I sit blogging myself silly. It could just as easily have been called "opinionating."

I'm not full of facts. Oh, I know some things, but I couldn't tell you that I'm going to sway any one person to a point of view because of the astounding command I have of facts and figures. I only have my opinion, but through the magic of this blog server I can offer up every little nugget of sludge and drivel that I can think of on a host of topics. And you, my friend, have come along and are willingly reading this and thinking, "geez, what a jerk." Well, you my friend, are the putz because you're willingly reading it. Just think, by the end of this post, you could be stupider than when you started. All because you read my blog.

Unfortunately, I think this is what we've become: a nation of opinions based on little more than our gut feeling and upbringing (although I'm certain some things have my parents rolling in their respectie graves, God rest their souls when they're through spinning.)

"Well, that's just the way I feel."

"Well, I may not know much, but I know how I feel about ...."

"Hey, I'm no expert, but..."

So here I sit both pronouncing my opinion and, at the same time, decrying the fact that
I can so easily express it. Is this a great, ironic country or what?

The beauty of these bloggy things is that they're not a meritocracy. I am not compelled to stop blogging because nobody reads my posts. If this were a business, I'd be broke by now because so few people read my stuff; so few people really even know about it. But it's not a business. So I can just keep on flapping my fingers and if you happen to fall into my blog (and out of the gazillions of things that are on the internet to capture your attention, if you fell into this you really have my sympathy) you'll read some of it. You might even be intrigued for a moment or two.

And then, with any luck, you'll realize that I'm just as full of c--p as the next guy and go back to hunting for porn.

With friends like these...

Colleagues, there's the old bromide that you can't have too many friends. Could be true, but more to the point, I think we don't have enough enemies. God knows, I don't. At least I don't think I do. In fact, I'm not sure I have any except those which I've manufactured. Which brings us to the point of this missive: the need, nay, the necessity of enemies.

Back in the day, one could have enemies. Whether it was the British or the French or the Indians or the Blacks or the Whites or the Democrats or the Confederates, everyone had enemies. And they were mortal enemies, too. They'd just as soon kill you as look at you; you felt the same about them. And the important thing about them was that they defined who were your friends. How can you have friends if you don't have any enemies?

Today we have what we call "friends," but in too many cases, they're really just really good acquaintances. They're folks that we "know" by sight and whose names we remember (although we rarely remember both their last AND first names; we usually refer to them as "bud," or "pal," or "hombre" or any of a number of names that almost certainly telegraph that we don't have any idea who they are). Anyway, we think we like them and that they like us and in truth they and we probably do, but we don't know if they're our "friends" because we don't know who our enemies are. Sad fact: we may not have any.

Oh, I'd like to hate the Republicans or the liberals or the conservatives or the commies or the hillbillies or the hippies or the Methodists or the Scientologists, but I can only do so in the abstract. Like when I'm sitting here blogging, those bastards. Or when I read in the LA Times what boneheaded thing they've done or said. Why, if I had a gun...

But the reality is that if given the opportunity to stand in front of them and confront them, I'd like them; I'd like having dinner with them. I'd enjoy them as people.

Oh, I've know a few real jackasses in my years; folks that I would cross a busy LA street to avoid if I saw them coming, but they are few and far between. And despite the minor enmity that I feel for them I'd be hard pressed to say that I hate them or that they're truly mine enemy.

If we had enemies, we'd know who to hate at any given moment. It wouldn't matter what the did or said; we'd just hate 'em simply for taking up space on the planet.

These days, we're civilized. We're sold on the idea of free speech. That whole thing of, "I will disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is a wonderfully civilized sentiment. It takes the edge off what all the pinheads in the world do and it makes it not just hard, but virtually impossible to hate them.

That kind of sentiment puts us all on the same footing; it recognizes that we all have opinions and that we should respect the opinions of everyone and expect that they will respect ours. We don't have to agree with them, but we have to respect their right to have their opinion and their right to express and our right to disagree with it. It's very adult. Very civilized.

It never ceases to amaze me how lawyers can beat the crap out of each other in court and then walk down to the corner and have a beer at the end of the day. Wouldn't it be more satisfying to simply shoot your opponent on the steps of the courthouse for making you look like a horse's ass in front of your client? Aren't they enemies? Wouldn't it be easier to beat up on your opponent if you really hated his living guts?

Seems to me that if you don't hate his living guts you're probably just play-acting. You're probably just pretending. Why, you're probably committing malpractice on a grand scale every time you set foot in the courtroom!

Dang, I hate lawyers. But not really.

Dang.

The Tyranny of Availability

So, now I'm a blogger. I've joined the blogosphere. I've become blogerriphic. Politicians will fear me. Other bloggers will revere me for my witty and insightful...

Never mind.

I'm a blogger because it's pretty easy to do. Google, the monster search engine and affiliated companies, makes it painfully easy. They have templates to make your blog look like something. They have the means to allow me to change the font in which I blog and to change the color of the fonts and the background and the borders. And, they'll host it for me so that anyone putting just the right search words into just the right syntax into Google will find my blog. The only thing Google can't do is make this or any blog interesting. But easy? Oh, yes, they can make it easy. Which is the tyranny of it.

These blogs are vanity press to the nth degree. I and thousands like me can kill untold hours sitting at the computer writing and posting on my blog the most tedious, banal, mindless drivel imaginable.

Oh. And did I mention it's free?

So today everyone has a blog. A blog about bicycles and cycling; a blog about Rastafarianism. A blog about soccer; a blog about "scrap booking." There is, more than likely, a blog about anything and everything imaginable.

And, in all that detritus, there are probably some nuggets, but not as many as we need.

I'll bet if Google or any of the other blog engines charged $5.00 a month there would be about a zillion fewer blogs.

Better it make it $10.00 a month. I'd continue doing this blog if it was just $5.00.

Hey, I'm just sayin'...

The other day General Wesley Clark made a remark. He said that he didn't think being a fighter pilot and getting shot down qualified someone to be President. The hue and cry went up that he was besmirching the heroic service of candidate McCain (you see, he was a fighter pilot who not only got shot down, but spent six years in a North Vietnamese prison.) McCain's been proclaimed by folks all over the tube as an "American Hero."

It's true that McCain was a pilot; that he was shot down. Question is: does that make him a hero? He was doing his job, it went wrong, he went through hell before it was all over, but does that make him a hero?

Likewise, are the people who died (God rest their souls) in the 9-11 attack heroes? They were in a building that got attacked and they were killed. That sounds more like they were victims to me.

I think the word "hero" gets tossed around quite a bit these days because it evokes sentiments that politicians or pundits believe will motivate the masses. They can evoke sympathy (9-11 victims) or they can invoke patriotism (war prisoners). And it works, but why?

It works because we have so few real heroes in our midst these days, at least at the highly publi level. The paucity of something like heroism tends to make it more valuable. So, at a time when there are few real big-time heroes, labeling someone or some ones as heroic makes it especially poignant.

With this in mind, I think we need a few rules around who can be a hero.

In order to be a hero you must:

1. Selflessly save someone else's life. It would be a bonus if you lost yours while doing it. Not a requirement, but as I say, a bonus.
2. Selflessly help someone who really needs it. Pretty broad, I know, but if you find someone that really needs some help--no matter what it is--and you step up, you're a good candidate.
3. Selflessly keep your mouth shut about saving someone's life or helping someone out.

You are probably specifically not a hero if:

A. You join any uniformed service. There are great career opportunities in the uniformed services. Pays pretty low, but the health benefits are good and the retirement benefits are excellent, I'm told. And, you might get an opportunity to be a hero (see #1 and #2 above). But just joining up doesn't make you a hero. Some of the most unheroic SOB's I've known wore the uniform.
B. You take up a vocation that helps people. More good careers. Again, pays low, benefits are generally bad; retirement bennies are almost non-existent. But you might get to be a hero. The vocation doesn't automatically make you one, though. There are plenty of molesting priests and thieving non-profit executives.
C. You are injured in some way while doing whatever it is you do in A and/or B above. Unless, of course, you're injured while doing #1 or #2 above.

Keeping these simple rules in mind we can all probably think of someone who's a real, bona fide hero. But it's not who you'd think.

Is it just me or...never mind. It's just me.

Watching MSNBC today and heard that "they" are dismayed with candidate Obama because he's slewing hard toward the middle. Bob Herbert, in the NY Times, made some thinly veiled snide comment about Obama lurching toward the middle and enraging his constituency.

Is it just me or is the middle where most Americans are; where most voters are? And if we're all pretty much in the middle and Obama's "lurching" toward us, isn't that a good thing?

I've never been partisan. I'm a pretty practical, non-ideological guy. I like things that work the way they're supposed to and I like to get things done. These two notions would put me seemingly on the outside of the mainstream of American politics. That's too bad because I'm also a pretty political guy. And I believe that there are more of me than there of them. And I don't have a problem with anyone who wants go make things better generally and wants to get things done, and wants to give people hope (in lieu of scaring them to death) lurches generally in my direction.

On the other hand, if there are so many of us in the middle why does the mainstream media feel the need to skew one direction or the other?

It's entirely possible that I'm really full of crap.