Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

What a Dope

Biden says he doesn’t support legalization of a “gateway drug.”

A Real Head-Scratcher

Impeachment! Who should we believe? The people that have evidence of wrongdoing, or the guys that say not to worry about it?

https://medium.com/lifelearn/learning-despite-school-d0879be9464f#.i224d4u95

With Net Neutrality Axed, Local Governments Are Racing To Save the Open Internet

Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon are free to slow down, block or prioritize internet traffic as they wish, without interference by the federal government. That’s the effect of an October ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding a 2017 ruling by the Federal Communications Commission that reversed rules requiring what is called “net neutrality” – treating all internet traffic equally, regardless of where it’s from or what kind of data it is.

Giving corporate telecom giants this power is wildly unpopular among the American people, who know that these companies have overcharged customers and interfered with users’ internet access in the past.

However, people who advocate for an open internet, free of corporate roadblocks, might find solace in another aspect of the court’s ruling: States and local governments may be able to mandate their own net neutrality rules.

The effort is underway

Governors in six states – Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont – have already signed executive orders enforcing net neutrality by prohibiting state agencies from doing business with internet service providers that limit customers’ online access. Four states have passed their own laws requiring internet companies to treat all online content equally: California, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. A New Hampshire bill is in the works.

More than 100 mayors representing both large urban centers such as San Francisco and small cities such as Edmond, Oklahoma, have pledged not to sign contracts with internet service providers that violate net neutrality.

These mayors are leveraging the lucrative contracts that their municipalities have with internet providers to wire public schools, libraries and local government buildings to pressure these companies into observing net neutrality throughout the city.

The emerging patchwork of local- and state-level net neutrality legislation could help ensure that millions of Americans have access to an open internet. However, people living outside of these enclaves will still be vulnerable to the whims of for-profit internet service providers. In our new book, “After Net Neutrality: A New Deal for the Digital Age,” we argue that the best way to protect the public interest is to remove internet service from the commercial market and treat broadband as a public utility.

[embedded content]

Corporations focus on profits

Broadband giants have spent millions of dollars lobbying against federal open internet regulations since 2006. Industry-backed efforts even included funding a network of far-right online trolls to spam the FCC’s website with anti-net neutrality propaganda. These companies continue to want the power to manipulate online traffic, such as charging users and content providers like Netflix to access each other – even though both are already paying for connections to the internet.

This history of manipulation highlights a recurring challenge to the ideal of net neutrality: Governments seek to reconcile the public’s interest in open, nondiscriminatory online communication with the profit interests of large internet service providers. The resulting policies only narrowly target corporations’ manipulative practices, while letting the companies continue to own and control the physical network itself.

Cities build their own

A different vision of how the internet could operate is already taking shape across the United States. In recent years, many cities and towns around the country have built their own broadband networks. These communities are often seeking to provide affordable high-speed internet service to neighborhoods that the for-profit network providers aren’t adequately serving.

One of the best-known efforts is in the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, which built its own high-speed fiber-optic internet network in 2009.

Chattanooga’s experiment has been an unequivocal success: According to a 2018 survey conducted by Consumer Reports, Chattanooga’s municipal broadband network is the top-rated internet provider in the entire U.S.

More than 500 other communities around the country operate publicly owned internet networks. In general, these networks are cheaper, faster and more transparent in their pricing than their private sector counterparts, despite lacking Comcast and Verizon’s gigantic economies of scale. Because the people operating municipal broadband networks serve communities rather than large shareholders on Wall Street, they have a vested interest in respecting net neutrality principles.

Thinking bigger

A number of much larger-scale public broadband initiatives have also been proposed to combat the power of the giant internet companies. In the 2018 election cycle, Democratic gubernatorial candidates from Vermont and Michigan proposed building publicly owned statewide internet networks.

Several Democratic presidential candidates have announced plans to build thousands of miles of publicly owned high-speed internet connections. They vary in the details, but all are responses to the concentration of corporate control over internet access – both in terms of who gets high-speed service in what locations at what price, and what content those connections carry.

Together, these initiatives reflect a growing understanding that Americans need a more expansive vision of an open internet to truly realize the democratic promise of an internet that reaches everyone.

High-quality, affordable, restriction-free internet access can come from publicly owned providers that answer directly to the people. In our view, and in the eyes of a growing number of Americans, the broadband industry uses its entrenched market power to serve itself, not the public.

This piece was first posted at The Conversation.

Amazon deforestation and number of fires show summer of 2019 not a 'normal' year

The perceived scale of the Amazon blazes received global attention this summer. However, international concerns raised at the time were countered by the Brazilian Government, which claimed the fire situation in August was 'normal' and 'below the historical average'. A new report finds that the number of active fires in August was actually three times higher than in 2018 and the highest number since 2010.

Nitrous oxide levels are on the rise

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas and one of the main stratospheric ozone depleting substances on the planet. According to new research, we are releasing more of it into the atmosphere than previously thought.

9 Stats That Show the Tax Code Favors the Ultra-Rich

Economic inequality in the United States is the highest it’s been in the last 50 years. In recent decades, the richest 1% of Americans have accumulated nearly 40% of the country’s wealth. The net worth of just three individuals—Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—dwarfs that of the entire bottom 50% of Americans. And it only seems to be getting worse.

How did we get here? In a new book The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, authors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman suggest the answer has much to do with changes to the tax code that have reduced the burden of taxation on America’s wealthiest groups and made it easier than ever for corporations to evade paying their dues. 

Policy proposals from 2020 hopefuls like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are seeking to change that. Warren’s “Ultra-Millionaire Tax” would impose a 2% tax rate on net worth in excess of $50 million, which becomes a 3% tax rate beyond $1 billion. In other words, any wealth between $50 million and $1 billion would be taxed at 2%, but the 1,000,000,001st dollar (as well as anything beyond that) would be taxed at 3%. Sanders’ “Tax on Extreme Wealth” plan goes even further by instituting a 1% tax rate on net worth above $32 million that rises steadily to 8% on all wealth over $10 billion.  Warren’s campaign claims her plan would bring in $2.75 trillion  in revenue. Sanders’ would likely raise even more, which he proposes to use as funding for his affordable housing plan, universal childcare, and some of Medicare for All. 

Here are nine statistics from The Triumph of Injustice that show how tax injustice has contributed to inequality in America and the urgent need for reform: 

52% — U.S. corporate tax rate in 1952
21% — U.S. corporate tax rate after Trump’s tax law
0% — Corporate tax rate in Bermuda
60% — Portion of profits U.S. multinationals collectively book in low-tax countries like Bermuda and Ireland
$25,000 — FDR’s proposed “maximum income” in 1942 (about $400,000 today), above which income would be taxed 100%
$1,500,000 — Average income of the top 1% of American earners today
37% — Current top marginal tax rate in America, 20% below the historical average
2018 — First year in history that America’s top 400 richest individuals paid less in taxes than the bottom 50% of earners
25% — Fraction of unpaid taxes owed by the ultra-rich, almost 15% more than for other income levels

The Gay Agenda – EXPOSED!

We're teaming up with @ACLU, @OTI, and @CenDemTech, @savingprivacy, @POGOBlog to launch Reform215, where you can call on Congress to end the invasive Call Detail Records program once and for all.
https://Reform215.org

You can’t patent an abstract idea. Let’s keep it that way. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/alice-doesnt-block-good-patents-it-protects-public-requiring-real-invention

1. Okay, here is a brief thread on Chile. As you know, there have been widespread protests in recent days, driven primarily by economic inequality (Chile is one of the most unequal countries in the world). Counter-intuitively, at the root of this inequality is the Chilean Constitution. The Constitution was drafted in 1980, as part of a transition from military to civil rule.

Arkansas Teachers Went On Strike. Here are the Corporate School Privatizers They’re Up Against.

Teachers of Little Rock, Arkansas went on strike Thursday over the state’s decision to strip their collective bargaining rights and curtail local control of the school district. It was the teachers’ first strike since 1987, and only their second strike ever. 

Early DNA lineages shed light on the diverse origins of the contemporary population

A new genetic study demonstrates that, at the end of the Iron Age, Finland was inhabited by separate and differing populations, all of them influencing the gene pool of modern Finns. The study is so far the most extensive investigation of the ancient DNA of people inhabiting the region of Finland.

Centrist Pundits Assume Voters Agree with Them. Polling Tells a Different Story.

The 2020 primary has, so far, been great for progressives. The campaigns of both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have robust policy shops, churning out bold, comprehensive plans on issues from education to climate change to healthcare to immigration.

And voters are responding. Warren has seen her poll numbers rise, and is currently first in Iowa polling averages and tied for first in New Hampshire. And, after a brief dip following his heart attack, Sanders rebounded in the polls too, buoyed by the momentum of endorsements from Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.

But not everyone is happy about the progressive ambition on display. And I’m not just talking about the Wall Streeters who regularly speak to the press about how much they don’t want a Warren or Sanders presidency.

No, I’m talking about those within the party as well. According to pundit Jonathan Chait, leading Democratic candidates are living in a “fantasy world” about how progressive the electorate is, setting themselves up for defeat. Former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, launching a new career as a left-bashing commentator, thinks Democrats will alienate the suburbs if they push “pie-in-the-sky policy ideas” or a “smorgasbord of new entitlements.” Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has joined in on trying to temper the ambition of the presidential field, arguing, “What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan.”

All three—along with countless other politicians and political observers—have been beating the drum that a progressive policy agenda is wildly out of step with the public.

Chait, for instance, laments that Democrats are abandoning an Obama-esque incrementalism. But there isn't much reason to believe that such incrementalism is an electoral winner given the shellacking Democrats faced amid cratering turnout in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. A political program needs to build a constituency to fight for it.

To be clear, not every voter will agree with you on every single issue. A candidate simply needs to convince voters that they are more trustworthy and more likely to fight on the voters’ behalf in the areas where they do agree.

Fortunately for progressives, the voters do agree on a lot.

Taxing the rich. Data for Progress recently polled the tax plans of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Sixty-five percent of voters chose either Sanders or Warren’s plan as their favorite. Even 50% of Republicans did.

A Green New Deal. The idea of a Green New Deal has become the hallmark of ambitious climate plans in 2020, recognizing the need for massive investment in decarbonizing infrastructure and good-paying green jobs. It’s a deal voters approve of: according to the Cook Political Report, 67% of swing voters say that a Green New Deal is a good idea.

Free College. Given the crushing impact of student debt on a generation of students and recent graduates, candidates like Sanders and Warren have been talking about eliminating tuition at public colleges and universities. In a New York Timespoll from this summer, three-fifths of voters, including 72% of independents, supported the idea.

Medicare for All. The idea of moving toward a healthcare system that isn’t reliant on private, for-profit insurers especially riles up the naysayers. Polling on healthcare reforms can vary a lot based on phrasing, so the best data on popular support is one that tests multiple framings at once. When the Progressive Change Institute tested support for Medicare for All, they found that as long as progressives offer counterarguments and don’t let Republican narratives dominate, Medicare for All commands majority support.

That’s why we’ve seen Democrats run on Medicare for All in purple districts and win. Katie Porter and Mike Levin, both supporters of Medicare for All, succeeded in the well-heeled suburbs of Orange County. And Medicare for All supporter Matt Cartwright, who represents Obama-Trump territory in northeastern Pennsylvania (think Scranton), won re-election by almost double digits over a well-funded Republican challenger.

Given how broadly popular such progressive ideas are, one would think that they would be a part of any concept of a political “center.” But they’re not.

That’s because the “center” pundits talk about isn’t actually the center of the electorate. It more often refers to the center of the elite class of major donors—upholding a corporate-friendly status quo.

“Centrist” Democrats in Congress are fighting to protect pharmaceutical monopolies, thus inflating the cost of prescription drugs. By contrast, three-quarters of voters in key swing districts, according to a recent poll, want to see such monopolies broken up.

“Centrist” Democrats have aided and abetted Donald Trump’s immigration policies, but polls show that voters overwhelmingly oppose family separation and a border wall. 

“Centrist” Democrats often flock to bills that roll back regulations on Wall Street, and yet cracking down on Wall Street is popular across the political spectrum.

“Centrist” Democrats push to increase military spending year after year, and yet only one-third of voters actually think that we are spending too little.

The fact that progressive policies are popular—and that policies branded “centrist” often aren’t—doesn’t mean that progressive candidates can rest on their laurels and be assured of victory. We’ve seen progressive ballot measures win in the same elections that more progressive candidates didn’t.

What it does mean is that you can run on progressive policies and values and win. And that you can change what we even mean by the “center” in the process.   

Pete Finds His Base

Mayor Pete wants to reach out...to Republicans.

#Methane #emissions from #coalmines could stoke #ClimateCrisis – study | #Environment | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/15/methane-emissions-from-coal-mines-could-stoke-climate-crisis-study

#Coal #FossilFuels #GreenhouseGases #ClimateChange #GlobalWarming