Again tonight, anti-semite hipsters ruined my night at Hazelwood bar on Market Street in Ballard, Seattle. A couple, mid-thirties, looking average, came up to me to engage me in conversation. She starting asking my name, where I was from, where my parents were from, etc. The she said, exasperated, “You know, what is your cultural heritage? Your religion?”  I did know. She was looking for me to say I was Jewish. I did not say. Then she just blurted out, “Are you Jewish? Because I don’t care for Jews. They make me cry” Then her boyfriend joined in, saying he was working on marketing some eyeglasses for Jews, called Synagoggles. What did I think about that name?

Funny thing is, this is not the first time this has happened at Hazelwood. And previously, it was a seemingly ordinary woman who did the same thing, going off on Jews and particularly Jewish men. Apparently, someone did her wrong.

Don’t go to Hazelwood. Avoid the place. Ignore it , and maybe it will go away. Just don’t spend any money at the place. I won’t be.

Advertisements

Jeane Kohl-Welles and Mary Lou Dickerson are interested in replacing whoever replaces Ron Sims on the County Council.  First the  good news, we finally got  rid of Ron Sims. The barely educated Sims has been ruining the county for years. Now, we’re sending him to Washington where he can do some ruining there. Don’t expect to hear anything more from this guy, ever.

The bad news is that every incompetent politician and underemployed social activist in the county is trying to get on the Council for one of those high-paying, no-work jobs. Neither Kohl-Welles or Dickerson and have an intelligent idea to share between them. Kohl-Welles primary legislative task is correcting the pronouns in the RCW. Dickerson’s claim to fame was passing legislation (soon ruled unconstitutional) to restrict the sale of violent video games. Kohl-Welles also shares the distinction of being a strong advocate for taxpayer subsidized sports stadiums, sculpture parks, and other assorted playgrounds of the investor class.

We can all do ourselves a favor by getting behind better candidates to fill these positions. I’m thinking about John Burbank, Alice Woldt, or Peter Steinbrueck. In any case, there are loads of people that are better qualified than these two to fill any empty slots that open on the County Council.

Larry Lessig’s latest article in Newsweek is very disappointing, a pre-dot-bomb retread that backs down from all his recent progressive thinking. It’s so dated, one wonders if it was written in the last ten years, or if someone just found this article now and decided to print it. Regardless, here is my review:

“When was this written? 1995? 1998? Are you sure this was written by Larry Lessig, not George Gilder? If this is what it purports to be, then it helps explain why Larry is a very good teacher, but he should never be let closer to a telecom network than the handset.

First of all, Verizon did not ‘build it after all…’ and neither did AT&T or Qwest, or anyone else. You built it, and so did I. All these networks were built out of regulated rate-of-return funds sourced from the local telephone networks, or from USF funds, or other similar sources. Sometimes they were a direct donation from the federal or state government. Bruce Kushnik’s and Om Malik’s books offer a good recitation of the recent history here, but a good deal of the infrastructure was built decades ago and is still in use. In fact, state and federal regulator can’t get the incumbents to give up use of these old, customer paid-for networks and infrastructure because it is so lucrative for the incumbents. The latest scheme: state and federal video franchising legislation lets incumbents, in many cases, build new high-speed fiber networks (think U-Verse, FIOS, etc.) and charge off the costs to the local telephone rate-of-return regulated monopoly.

Next, Larry incorrectly addresses the poor quality of regulation and the culture of corruption as the structure of regulation itself. This is Larry’s continuing intellectual sin. I thought he had left it behind in the last few years, but apparently it came back like a nasty rash, this time harder to cure. Strong scrubbing with disinfectant might help.

The structural problem with regulation in the United States is the people doing it! Other countries that have imitated our institutions, but peopled them with smart and honest regulators, have not sustained the same problems with agency capture, political gamesmanship, and know-nothing decisions. For example, does anyone ask why the members or chair of the SEC, FCC, FTC, or other agencies are chosen on a partisan political basis? WTF? I’m shocked, shocked, that politics is going on here! (“Capitan Reynaud, are you Democrat or Republican?”) And this same structural disease is repeated throughout our state and local institutions. Obama received 365 electoral votes: that does mean we get four FCC seats and they get one? When there are only 25 Republicans in the Senate, are we still going to require that they receive an equal share of appointments in the government?

The most disappointing part of Larry’s article, and the least supportable legally or economically, is pulling out the old tar baby of government regulation and giving it a few boots in the name of innovation. As Larry and many others have noted, the Internet, computers, transistors, most drugs, interstate highways, airports, and just about every other major innovation or modern infrastructure project is the child of regulation. Regulation, strong regulation from humorless experts, is what gave the world the GSM system, digital radio DRM/DB (except in the US: did you know your radio won’t work outside the US in a couple of years?), 100 MB Internet for $20/month, fuel efficient cars, safe airplanes, retro-viral drugs to help fight AIDs, Medicare and Medicaid, and so on.

Larry’s opinions carry a lot of weight. But, he has done incalculable damage with this piece in Newsweek. It will be hauled out again and again by the bitlords and modern Gilded Age Robber Barons to justify their rapacity and greed.

Finally, let me say that I whole-heartedly endorse the idea of getting rid of the FCC. However, the new agency would be much larger, better funded, with a much broader reach and depth. It would combine the FCC and the NTIA, and would also subsume our participation in the ITU and UN (currently spread around Commerce, State, and the Pentagon). It would include the parts of the USPTO regulating recording devices and digital media. It would include a large research arm ala the NIH to sponsor research and conduct research directly. It would have its own administrative law courts to regulate competition and intellectual property law within its ambit. In other words, it would be Ofcom. It would be a cabinet level office, and the agency would be professionalized ala Justice and Defense. Martin and Powell politicized the FCC, but that is not structural, its personal. The new agency would have a large enforcement arm with offices in the major states, aimed primarily at consumer protection (not incumbent protection), and it would issue far reaching regulations of national effect on all aspects of this sector. ”

Michael Weisman, JD, LLM

>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/176809
>
>
> Reboot the FCC
>
>
> We’ll stifle the Skypes and YouTubes of the future if we don’t
> demolish the regulators that oversee our digital pipelines.
>
>
> By Lawrence Lessig | Newsweek Web Exclusive
>
> Dec 23, 2008
>
>
> Economic growth requires innovation. Trouble is, Washington is
> practically designed to resist it. Built into the DNA of the most
> important agencies created to protect innovation, is an almost
> irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead.
>
> The FCC is a perfect example. Born in the 1930s, at a time when the
> utmost importance was put on stability, the agency has become the
> focal point for almost every important innovation in technology. It is
> the presumptive protector of the Internet, and the continued regulator
> of radio, TV and satellite communications. In the next decades, it
> could well become the default regulator for every new communications
> technology, including, and especially, fantastic new ways to use
> wireless technologies, which today carry television, radio, internet,
> and cellular phone signals through the air, and which may soon provide
> high-speed internet access on-the-go, something that Google cofounder
> Larry Page calls “wifi on steroids.”
>
> If history is our guide, these new technologies are at risk, and with
> them, everything they make possible. With so much in its reach, the
> FCC has become the target of enormous campaigns for influence. Its
> commissioners are meant to be “expert” and “independent,” but they’ve
> never really been expert, and are now openly embracing the political
> role they play. Commissioners issue press releases touting their own
> personal policies. And lobbyists spend years getting close to members
> of this junior varsity Congress. Think about the storm around former
> FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s decision to relax media ownership rules,
> giving a green light to the concentration of newspapers and television
> stations into fewer and fewer hands. This is policy by committee,
> influenced by money and power, and with no one, not even the
> President, responsible for its failures.
>
> The solution here is not tinkering. You can’t fix DNA. You have to
> bury it. President Obama should get Congress to shut down the FCC and
> similar vestigial regulators, which put stability and special
> interests above the public good. In their place, Congress should
> create something we could call the Innovation Environment Protection
> Agency (iEPA), charged with a simple founding mission: “minimal
> intervention to maximize innovation.” The iEPA’s core purpose would be
> to protect innovation from its two historical enemies˜excessive
> government favors, and excessive private monopoly power.
>
> Since the birth of the Republic, the U.S. government has been in the
> business of handing out “exclusive rights” (a.k.a., monopolies) in
> order to “promote progress” or enable new markets of communication.
> Patents and copyrights accomplish the first goal; giving away slices
> of the airwaves serves the second. No one doubts that these monopolies
> are sometimes necessary to stimulate innovation. Hollywood could not
> survive without a copyright system; privately funded drug development
> won’t happen without patents. But if history has taught us anything,
> it is that special interests˜the Disneys and Pfizers of the world˜have
> become very good at clambering for more and more monopoly rights.
> Copyrights last almost a century now, and patents regulate “anything
> under the sun that is made by man,” as the Supreme Court has put it.
> This is the story of endless bloat, with each round of new monopolies
> met with a gluttonous demand for more.
>
> The problem is that the government has never given a thought to when
> these monopolies help, and when they’re merely handouts to companies
> with high-powered lobbyists. The iEPA’s first task would thus be to
> reverse the unrestrained growth of these monopolies. For example, much
> of the wireless spectrum has been auctioned off to telecom monopolies,
> on the assumption that only by granting a monopoly could companies be
> encouraged to undertake the expensive task of building a network of
> cell towers or broadcasting stations. The iEPA would test this
> assumption, and essentially ask the question: do these monopolies do
> more harm than good? With a strong agency head, and a staff absolutely
> barred from industry ties, the iEPA could avoid the culture of
> favoritism that’s come to define the FCC. And if it became credible in
> its monopoly-checking role, the agency could eventually apply this
> expertise to the area of patents and copyrights, guiding Congress’s
> policymaking in these special-interest hornet nests.
>
> The iEPA’s second task should be to assure that the nation’s basic
> communications infrastructure spectrum˜ the wires, cables and cellular
> towers that serve as the highways of the information economy˜remain
> open to new innovation, no matter who owns them. For example, “network
> neutrality” rules, when done right, aim simply to keep companies like
> Comcast and Verizon from skewing the rules in favor of or against
> certain types of content and services that run over their networks.
> The investors behind the next Skype or Amazon need to be sure that
> their hard work won’t be thwarted by an arbitrary decision on the part
> of one of the gatekeepers of the Net. Such regulation need not, in my
> view, go as far as some Democrats have demanded. It need not put
> extreme limits on what the Verizons of the world can do with their
> network˜they did, after all, build it in the first place˜but no doubt
> a minimal set of rules is necessary to make sure that the Net
> continues to be a crucial platform for economic growth.
>
> Beyond these two tasks, what’s most needed from the iEPA is benign
> neglect. Certainly, it should keep competition information flowing
> smoothly and limit destructive regulation at the state level, and it
> might encourage the government to spend more on public communications
> infrastructure, for example in the rural areas which private companies
> often ignore. But beyond these limited tasks, whole phone-books worth
> of regulation could simply be erased. And with it, we would remove
> many of the levers that lobbyists use to win favors to protect today’s
> monopolists.
>
> America’s economic future depends upon restarting an engine of
> innovation and technological growth. A first step is to remove the
> government from the mix as much as possible. This is the biggest
> problem with communication innovation around the world, as too many
> nations who should know better continue to preference legacy
> communication monopolies. It is a growing problem in our own country
> as well, as corporate America has come to believe that investments in
> influencing Washington pay more than investments in building a better
> mousetrap. That will only change when regulation is crafted as
> narrowly as possible. Only then can regulators serve the public good,
> instead of private protection. We need to kill a philosophy of
> regulation born with the 20th century, if we’re to make possible a
> world of innovation in the 21st.
>
>
> Lessig is a professor at Stanford Law School and the author of five
> books, including most recently “Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive
> in the Hybrid Economy.”
>
>

The Media and Democracy Coalition has issued a policy manifesto addressing the Restoration Government’s Broadband stimulus package, announced by President-Elect Barack Obama.  In the declaration. MADCo specifically attacks the Connected Nation model:

Business As Usual Will Not Suffice
Until now, U.S. policy has been to largely rely on the private market, particularly incumbent large telephone and cable companies, to determine who has access, what they pay for it, and the speed of U.S. broadband infrastructure. This approach has failed, and business as usual will not suffice.  Exclusively relying on the market or private industry will not bring broadband to high-cost areas currently un-served or underserved. We did not bring electricity and phone service to rural America or assure the affordability of service to all by relying on the market alone.  We simply cannot rely upon one solution, a handful of companies, or a single model or technology to solve this problem.  Nor can we count on seeing tangible results if U.S. policy aimlessly doles out tax breaks or public subsidies without accountability.  The stimulus package must not degenerate into corporate welfare, as has too often been the sad fate of subsidies to the private sector.”

It’s good to know our friends in Washington DC are watching our back.  Here in the other Washington, CN sock puppet State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles has threatened preemptory legislation that would require Washington State to use the CN model of large public tax breaks, indirect and direct payments to private companies, no spending accountability, false and misleading deployment statistics, poor quality services, and prohibiting municipally-owned information utilities.  Kohl-Welles is one of the largest recipients of political contributions from the telecom and cable bitlords. Keep following this story.

This week I unsubscribed from ‘No Agenda,’ the lengthy podcasts from Adam Curry, John C. Dvorak, and Meevio.  It’s sad, because Adam has been asking for more people to subscribe, to get their numbers up.  But Adam, who is the real leader of the team, has become irrelevant and silly, as he has chosen to adopt Dvorak’s unpatriotic right-wing free market fundamentalist rants.  From their prediction that John McCain would win the election and Adam’s support of idiot anti-American Ron Paul, to Adam’s vaguely anti-Semitic allusions that Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the banking meltdown, an increasing amount of time on each ‘cast is taken up with wild conspiracy theories, long-ago rejected economic nonsense (the US has the most productive economy, etc.), Internet and technology mythology (that net neutrality will destroy the Internet… and that net neutrality legislation is not necessary because the market will correct everything!), and Dvorak’s outdated early tech-boom mumblings (government bad, corporations good, everything is free, we are all rich who deserve to be).  It turns out that ‘No Agenda’ actually has a very clear agenda: to slickly and slyly put right-wing anti-government propaganda before an audience.  

I’ll miss John’s very knowledgeable food and wine commentary.  He should do a podcast just on that.  But putting these two together has turned to vinegar.  Adam’s sycophantic approach, influenced by the right-wing know-nothing VCs on Meevio’s board, has become increasingly dis-joined from reality.  I really admire this guy, but life is too short.  BTW, a one hour forty-five minute podcast is about three times too long, especially for this kind of content. 

This last point is the most important for Meevio: the company has to be careful to avoid exactly the kind of content that Adam and John are spewing on ‘No Agenda’.  This is toxic waste.

 

Update 4-7-09:  Meevio is dead, morphing into something else, or whatever.  Key to the end, the jump the shark moment, was when John C. Dvorak stated that John McCain would unquestionably win the election, that Obama had no chance.  And Adam Curry and other staff at Meevio failed to carve him a new one.  Remember you heard it here first.  ‘Toxic John’ is so over.

I attended a holiday party today and heard Washington State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles expound on her intention to introduce new legislation concerning broadband deployment in Washington.  Kohl-Welles’ bill comes from Progressive States Network.  Progressive States Network is financed in part by the Communications Workers of America (CWA),  and telecom companies. The two are linked: CWA has historically worked to maintain the monopoly status of the telecom oligarchs, and most recently has operated fake grassroots front groups and sock puppet think tanks to help sink genuine progressive legislation that would bring competition to the telecom sector.  Although Kohl-Welles attributes her legislation to PSN, her bills do not reflect the values and policies described in the PSN platform.  

Kohl-Welles is heavily supported by the telecoms, notably Comcast, Verizon and Qwest, the three companies operating in Washington State.  In the last session of the state legislature, Kohl-Welles introduced and passed a telecom-drafted bill that rendered data collected regarding broadband deployment and penetration out-of-bounds to the public.  Asked about the bill, Kohl-Welles says that no legislation can be passed without the support of the telecom companies, so there is no point in even trying. See the link above for Art Brodsky’s play-by-play account of the same tactics when used in Maryland.

Kohl-Welles is a fan of the widely discredited Connect Kentucky and Connected Nation programs, crediting them with increasing broadband by 40%!  At the National Media Reform Conference in June 208, she made a fool of herself describing the miracles attributable to Connected Nation and its progeny.  Unfortunately for her, in the audience was Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge, one of the most important critics of Connected Nation (but not the only one.)  Brodsky outed Kohl-Welles, but she continues to peddle telecom propanganda, in return for their lucrative junkets around the US.  If you Google ‘Connected Nation’ you will find an entire genre of literature outing this group and their clever tactics.  

The Reconstruction government has announced plans to introduce federal legislation that would require truthful, accurate broadband statistical data. Expect to hear Kohl-Welles and others complain about the need for a state level opt-out, so that Connected Nation, CWA, and the telecom oligarchs don’t lose the battles they have already won.

Reading David Brooks column in the NY Times on Friday December 28, 2007, I was intrigued by his list of articles worth reading. Brooks is one of the few conservative columnists that occasionally lapses into sanity. I am reading one of his choices, “The Usual Suspect” in the New Republic, by Jeffrey Goldberg. The article deconstructs the new book by Mearsheimer and Walt, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.” The book claims that the Israel lobby, or US Jews, control American foreign policy and have lead the US to several wars over the last fifty years.

I’ll let Goldberg’s article speak for itself. What I’m interested in is how antisemitism is ‘in’ again, as it was for most of the 20th Century, until about the mid-60’s. During the War the US government refused to bomb concentration camps, refused to cut off arms and industrial exports to Nazi Germany until December 9, 1941, and refused to confirm reports of death camps and atrocities reported widely abroad and even in the NY Times. The OSS and the State Department refused to employ Jews in high level positions. The CIA and State Departments continued this tradition until well into the 1960’s.

I learned first hand how antisemitism is ‘in’ again when confronted by one of my best friends at a dinner party a few weeks ago. Didn’t I know, for instance, that the Jews generally and the Rothschild family in particular were responsible for 9/11? Well, I said, I must have missed that one, hoping he would drop the subject. I told him that this was just another one those old tropes built up out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I was informed that blaming it on the ‘old’ antisemitic tracts was a cop out, and that I had an obligation to argue with him that Jews were not responsible for 9/11. This approach, that one is required to engage with and argue with these ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theories, is one of the themes of modern conservative web sites. But I also realized that my friend had read this somewhere recently: it was a new way of describing old antisemitic views.

The irony of all this is that today Israel has no significant lobby in the US except among right-wing Christian conservatives who see Israel as important to their post-Apocalyptic left-behind fantasy theories, and few diehard Jewish Israel supporters like Joe Lieberman. The broad-based Israel lobby of liberal North American Jews is gone.

When I was a boy Israeli charities always had collections at the synagogue and at various Jewish events. At Halloween, children collected money for Israel in little blue boxes, instead of candy. No more. Most Jews in North America and Europe are disgusted with the right-wing Israeli government of Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netayahu and their racist and imperialist policies. This is not our Israel and we have no obligation to support it, and we don’t. In the years after Israeli independence, the country was largely supported by charitable donations from Jews abroad. That is not true today, and hasn’t been for years. My synagogue has not had a call for donations for Israeli charities that I can remember.

American Jews, to answer that tirade, do not buttonhole their Congressmen to support Israel. Of course, Americans expect the US to remain an ally and to the be the military supporter of last resort. But there is no significant Jewish lobby in support of the current Israeli government, at least not in a financial sense (which is what counts.)

I am more concerned about how the new antisemitism will be used, like the old one, to discriminate against, objectify, and exclude American Jews as my friends tried to do. We will have to go back to only socializing with other Jews? Since I live in Seattle, that is a pretty narrow demographic. Still, I’m not going to try and explain why Baron Philippe De Rothschild is not a threat to American (our waistlines maybe) security.