We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Discouragingly, the FCC is intervening to regulate the Internet because it wants to, not because it needs to. Preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet is non-negotiable; it is a bedrock principle shared by all in the Internet economy. No government action is necessary to preserve it. Acting only on speculative concerns about network operators and contrary to a decade of industry practice, the FCC is moving forward aggressively without real evidence of systemic competitive harms to cure, markets to fix or consumers to help.
From the link: "It was not immediately clear whether the rule would help insurers hold down costs."
Yes, it is immediately clear that the rule will have no influence on holding down costs. If costs rise more slowly, premiums should also rise more slowly.
Tee hee hee -- people who buy insurance policies of any kind may miss the fact that this generally will involve them in the stock market. Most insurance companies invest the premiums to improve the rate of return and keep premiums a little lower or profits a little higher. When proglodytes "shaft the rich" by fouling up the economy and the markets, they hit little folks like you and me. Every. Dadgum. Bad-word. Time.
The dollars lost to the rich come from their excess, not that I have any right to their excess in the first place. THe dollars lost to me cramp my lifestyle some. The dollars lost to the poor contribute to their misery.
California is doing fine. "First, let's look at the default threat. California has never failed to make its bond payments on time and in full, not even during the Depression. And there is no chance we will smudge that pristine record." So because it hasn't happened before, it won't happen. Whistling past the graveyard, seems to me.
Re Women in Full: I respect a form of feminism that says, "Being male or female should still leave you free to try any career that suits you and to rise to the place you can achieve by your merits and your hopes." Come to think of it, that's just a human-rights agenda.
Some people, men and women alike, are highly competitive and want the corner office with all its perks. Some people, men and women alike, are so remarkably talented that they'll land at the top even if they're just doing their best instead of competing. And some people will prefer a lower-key life, allocating their personal resources between career and family and self. Why should sex play a role in that? And why should we deride people's choices based on their sex?
Weaver ... You are soo right about real women. We are too busy to care what feminists think. And we are women in full already. Being on the sidelines of life as an old lady, I watch and marvel at how some women since Gloria Steinem and Simone de Beauvoir have twisted and tainted the original ideals of the original feminists, who mostly wanted the voting franchise for women, so they could express their wishes and needs at the polling booths. That battle took us 100 years to get. And now some so-called "feminists" won't even go to the polls and vote.
This is all part of the "entitlement" syndrome that infects present day society.
We old folks fought for the voting franchise and the respect it bestows on women. Today's feminists better stop whining and give the vote and the women who came before them the respect they deserve.
"Acting only on speculative concerns about network operators and contrary to a decade of industry practice,"
silly little people. With sites like foxnews.com, atlas shrugs, and this one, is there any more proof needed that the internet is heavily biassed, unfair, and thus in need of content control so people won't get incorrect information?