How I'm Going to Vote

I, like many other Americans, am disappointed in the choices I’ve been given this election. Yes, one thing I’m miffed about is that my boy Bernie didn’t make it to the big leagues, but this isn’t a blog post about that. Nor is it really about Clinton or Trump individually either. I’m thinking about the way things were, are, and should be, and I find myself longing for anything but the present. I hope it doesn’t get any worse than this. What is “this” you wonder, and how did it get this bad? I’m glad you asked.

First, we’re going to rewind about 240 years. Things sucked back then, but there were a few good things going on: the environment wasn’t as destroyed, imperialism hadn’t devastated nearly all native peoples yet, and Jar-Jar Binks didn’t even exist. The best thing that happened at that time, in my opinion, was the founding of the Constitution of the United States. If you feel confused about a Bernie backer appealing to Constitutionalism, please hold your horses. The Constitution is a beautiful document, not because of the checks-and-balances law and order it set up initially, based on ideals at that time, but because the law and order it set up had a built-in check-and-balance system for inevitable and perpetual shifting National goals. That system is the amendable aspect of the Constitution: if we don’t like something, we have the power to change it.

How lovely it must have been, immediately after having lived through the tragedy of non-representative government, to experience that problem’s solution. How much lovelier to dream about the future for one’s children and grandchildren, with the comfort that as the country progressed, so too would the laws, leading ever further towards a perfectly representative government, with laws enacted to protect every person’s rights to a tee. This was a time of prompt and effective policy implementation; a time of hope, change, and optimism.

But somehow, we’re not like that anymore. And it’s not because we’ve already solved all our problems, either. Something changed in the past 2.4 centuries to stifle our Democracy. Many chalk it up to political apathy, which cannot be ignored. Voter turnout percentages hover in the 50s and 60s for presidential races, with 2014’s midterm at a whopping 36. Is it possible that 250 years after Americans went to war and died for the right to vote for a representative government, that the idea doesn’t pique our interest anymore? Do we blame the non-voters for their apathy, without calling into question the ways our system of government has changed to inspire such lack of emotion? Not on this blog.

The people’s apathy cannot be explained by a general decline in our demand for a better future because as far forward as progress has raced, Utopia has remained squarely out of reach. Look to the rallies surrounding this election cycle’s candidates, and realize that these most vocal proponents are the half of the eligible-to-vote who believe change can be affected through their candidate’s election. The inverse, that the other half who don’t vote, don’t care about change, is not necessarily proved by this. In fact, there are millions of non-voters who were activated by one of two major candidates this year: Sanders and Trump. These people wanted change but knew that establishment politicians would or could not deliver the change they wanted. Enter the so-called “fringe candidates.”

Bernie and the Donald promised similar results, through opposite methods. Smallhands McAsshole Lips went the route of divisiveness, blame, fear, bullying, and violence. Grandpa McDrooly Face opted for inclusivity, exoneration, courage, respect, and peace. Both, however, promised to quicken the end of establishment politics, rallying their bases on the premise that our government no longer represents their interests. The fact that this message resonated with so many, and both these figures’ continued influence in our politics, are testament to the truth behind that motivation. By the way, in a Country founded on the notion of a governmental structure that is the antithesis of the one it broke free of, “fringe” has accumulated a troublingly negative connotation amongst certain groups. More on that later.

So, many of the public felt refreshed to see  a couple of major contenders for Presidential candidacy even mention the fact that our government more and more represents the politically powerful and wealthy, and less and less the People. But what was the response to this notion? The resonation of this message was stifled by the media, such as CNN, whose parent company Time Warner has donated over $800,000.00 to Clinton’s campaign. Let’s not discount CBS and Viacom (MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, BET, and more), whose parent company National Amusements Inc put in over $500,000.00. It is important to trust actions over words, especially when these mega-contributions are shrugged off as one-sided. You can bet your bazooka bubblegum they expect something in return.

“But wait!” you claim, “Murdoch endorsed Trump so your premise is wrong!” We can disregard Rupert Murdoch’s endorsement of Trump, however, because even though the owner of 21^st Century Fox threw in with him, it is clear that the payback would not be in the form of a more representative government. Just like the other media donors, Murdoch expects that a Trump Presidency would yield his companies some benefit. In my opinion, that benefit is obvious, but I’ll share it anyways because it gets close to the root of the issue.

A study from the National Institute of Education covered 2,854 subjects to measure the relationship, if any, between conservatism and cognitive ability. They found that both at the individual and national level, the more conservative the ideals, the lower the intellect. They also found correlations between these two factors and socio-economic status. According to a Pew survey, Fox News is the only major news outlet whose viewers are more conservative than liberal. Thus, according to that NIE study, the audience is, frankly, and on average, dumber. That means that if, perhaps, Fox News wanted to maintain and grow its audience, certain strategies to achieve this goal that wouldn’t work on the smarter-than-the-average-news viewer, might be extremely effective. Perhaps, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (news to me, as of writing this post. I thought CBS, ABC, NBC, and others still had this regulation in place on them. Looks like it’s been a free-for-all this whole time.), Fox News might spew out lies that their dumb audience won’t question, which energize them in alignment with Fox’ interests. Perhaps one of those interests is to keep their audience dumb enough to remain loyal. Perhaps they’d benefit from a misogynistic bigoted conspiracy theorist (you know, someone like their viewers) in the White House to stoke the flames of ignorance they’ve kindled, rewarding intolerance with validation. Perhaps.

(end Daily Show Audition)

The media is but one group of many who siphon money into our politics for an expected return. Lobbying in the U.S. (not including campaign contributions) was nearly $29 billion from 1998-2010, with Finance, Insurance & Real Estate at the top of the client list, followed by Health, Misc. Business, and Communications/Electronics. Energy & Natural Resources rounds out the top 5. We can infer that they all expect something in return, and I’m willing to bet that these for-profit industries do not necessarily always have things like “people,” or “the environment,” or “ethics” as top priorities.

Money has mucked up our politics. Sure, corporations cannot buy elections directly, but whether you like it or not, the proper leverage of corporate interest coupled with paid-for biased media coverage can yield votes. That is what has been happening, and it’s a self-perpetuating phenomenon: it is only getting worse.

This is the biggest problem in our Country right now. Our government is no longer beholden to its public. The direction in which our policy has been permitted to go is not representative of the will of the People. Business concerned with its bottom line, and also not beholden to the public, has gained control of our Democracy, and there is little in place to keep it from destroying all that we hold dear, such as clean air, or peace. This is the over-arching parent problem which, if solved, will by default solve all of the rest of our problems (or at least cause the rest of our problems to be addressed in a way that the American People are interested in them being addressed, rather than how the powers that be feel like we should handle them). The People must be appropriately represented again, as it was in the early days of this country.

This is what I wish I was voting for:

• ·         Dismantling of establishment politics by implementing congressional and judicial term limits
• ·         Removal of money in our politics by reversing Citizens United, among other reforms
• ·         Regulation of news sources to keep them honest and unbiased
• ·         Increased investment in education, infrastructure, clean energy, and other quality-of-life/GDP-boosting sectors
• ·         Redistribution of tax to lessen the steepness of the income inequality curve
• ·         Redistribution of subsidy to benefit poor people more than wealthy corporations
• ·         A total re-do of the redistricting process to end gerrymandering, including a revamped electoral college

However, it seems that none of these ideas are really showing up on my ballot. If I vote for Hillary Clinton, her policies might push us closer to these solutions, but what is that worth? That would be like wanting The Declaration of Independence but getting The Request for Permission to Suggest Ideas Concerning Our Governance to British Parliament. Half-measures get us nowhere against a behemoth such as money usurping the People’s power in politics. It’s a monster like the Hydra: we must sever all its heads at once, or they will come back more numerous than before. I’ve decided already that I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for Donald Trump, even in keeping with the theory of accelerationism. Is my decision made for me as I vote for President? Thankfully, no.

I’m going to write in Bernie Sanders.

Although many say a vote for Bernie Sanders might as well be a vote for Donald Trump, I no longer find credence in that argument as it pertains to my particular vote. Indiana has a high likelihood of going red. However,the polls two weeks out from the election indicate a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton, with or without Indiana behind her. The way the electoral college is set up now, it really does seem that my vote will not matter, but indulge me as I shed responsibility for my actions.

If Trump wins Indiana by one vote, and that victory carries him to win the nomination, you cannot blame me. The cause of such a victory is squarely in the votes for Trump. Blame those voters first, but then have pity as you realize that they’ve mostly been duped by the Fox News dumbing-down process I’ve written about above. So really, blame Fox News, but don’t stop there. Blame the government which permits Fox News and other media outlets to disseminate falsehoods that affect our elections. Blame the government for continually shifting the power we had over it to corporate interests, thus leading to the non-voters’ political apathy. And who’s to blame for such a government? Those long-dead ancestors of ours who took the first step away from the path of truly representative government in favor of a selectively representative version. Blame the greed of the industrialists, monopolists, lobbyists, and crooked politicians of the post-civil war era who set the precedent that capitalist might makes right. But what can we do to those who are already dead? We can spit on their graves. What better method of fully deserved disrespect than to dismantle the tools of their descendants: our oppressors. In essence, if Trump wins because I didn’t vote for Hillary, it is a product of over a century of political corruption, which has led to the state of our election this year. Implying that I must vote one way or another is contrary to the very essence of Democracy.

Clinton is going to win the election. If people who think like me reluctantly vote for Clinton, our criticism of her isn’t voiced. If we vote for Trump, she’ll lump us in with the basket of deplorables and pay us no mind. If we don’t vote at all, we’ll seem apathetic and play into the hands of those corporations with power over our government. By writing in Bernie Sanders, am I throwing my vote away? I think not. Indeed, given current statistics, one vote, or even a million, in favor of Trump or Clinton wouldn’t really matter, so in that regard, a vote for Bernie is on that same level.

The difference is what my vote will stand for. Sanders has recently envisioned his future place in the political realm as a liberal thorn in President Clinton’s side, and I am proud to be a part of that barb. Future President Clinton might recognize my vote, among many others, I’m sure, as votes she could have earned if she weren’t so right-leaning. This might have the effect of pushing us closer to the goals I’ve outlined above. My vote for Bernie tells whoever’s paying attention that I’d rather risk (ever so slightly, but still risk) a Trump presidency, with all its atrocities, than show support for Clinton, because she is not enough aligned with my interests or the interests of the People in general, as I see them. This is the message in every vote for Bernie Sanders on November 8^th, and the closer the margin between Clinton and Trump, the louder that message becomes.

It’s time that our politicians understood that a lot of us are on to them. Progress for the People has been limited in exchange for progress for corporations, and we’re not all as complacent as Fox News wishes we were. No matter how twisted things have become, we still have the power to affect change through our votes. The time is ripe for a political revolution, and I plan to continue my small portion of the fight to bring my vision about more swiftly. I trust that you, dear reader, will do the same, by learning who and what is on your ballot, then voting on November 8^th.

Money in Politics, or, The Main Issue

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." – Thomas Jefferson

Nearly everything about elections in the United States is wrong. I don’t necessarily mean that I think the outcome is wrong, or that any particular party in power is wrong, or that the people who have been elected into office are wrong, though all of these certainly apply in many cases. I assert that the entire framework in which elections currently occur is wrong. Our Federal Republic form of government, as framed by The Constitution, is designed to have the will of the people manifest itself in the actions of their elected officials, with checks and balances to ensure the source of power remains with the public. I submit that this is no longer what is happening in our country; our electoral process is broken. The effects of this dysfunction have a global reach, and a serious overhaul is needed to prevent the power we give to our leaders from being used to corrupt ends.

Let me start by describing the correct way for a Democratic process to work. The best Democracy I can imagine would be an ever-evolving system with a permanent core tenant of power deriving from the people. As long as there is appropriate, fair, and equal representation with the best interest of the citizens, the nation, and the world at heart, the system would pass my test. Thomas Jefferson, I think, had the same idea:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

The current United States governmental system does not fit this description. Representation in the House of Representatives is skewed by gerrymandered districts and the nuances of population by State. Restricted and denied access to voting runs rampant in many States, mostly disenfranchising those with less money. It is clear to me from these points alone that the once-fair system has been tampered with and no longer works to represent every citizen equally, but we haven’t even really started yet.

Unfortunately, there’s a different, arguably contributing problem that makes the previously mentioned issues of voter inequality seem fair. That problem is, of course, the exorbitant amount of money in politics. Lobbying is an asset to our governmental system, and it’s supposed to work like this: a group of people with a similar goal hire someone to try and convince lawmakers to side with them. What has happened to this seemingly innocent program is it has been transformed from a way to have people’s opinions heard and counted in Congress, to a way to have companies’ interests heard and counted in Congress, usually through high-dollar-contributions to campaigns. Let’s step through this process with an example, right after this Jefferson quote:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

ConglomoCorp is a fake company that sells wooden backscratchers. It has 100 employees, and has $100 million every year in revenues. At the top, there is one CEO, who keeps $34.6 million a year, and at the bottom, there are 40 laborers, who split $4.2 million a year. As it turns out, the Laborers want to start a Union to make sure their rights are protected. They pool all their annual earnings ($4.2 million) and back a candidate who agrees that if elected, she will represent their interests in Congress. Catching wind that such a policy would actually force him to pay higher salaries and provide better benefits to his employees, the CEO backs the opposing candidate, but he only spends $10 million of his $34.6 million annual cut.  With more resources, that candidate manages to persuade the majority of voters (even those who don’t benefit, or are even harmed by the proposed legislation) and he wins. In this scenario, the interests of the few haves become better protected than the many have-nots.

Once in office, it is time to repay favors, to be sure, and follow through on promises made during the campaign. However, with no term limits for members of Congress, there is always the next election. This means that same deal can be made again and again on new issues. Public opinion is persuaded this way and that with sensationalized ads, quotes taken out of context, staged “debates” which are clearly unfair and biased, and most frustratingly, flat-out lies. The result of this system is that the interests of the mega-rich have substantially more representation per capita than the rest of us. One of those interests is for them to remain mega-rich, so they pay for policy that is good for their own profits. The side-effects of this cycle of events are detrimental.

Let’s revisit ConglomoCorp for a moment. Now they’ve expanded their business and have 1,000 lumber mills where trees are turned into backscratchers. These mills all contribute to Climate Change by reducing the amount of carbon-absorbing vegetation, and also increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. In fact, there are many thousands of businesses doing the same thing, as a byproduct of the business they conduct. When scientists point this out, they use their overwhelming spending power to persuade the public that the jury’s still out, that it isn’t happening, or that it’s actually happening in reverse, using every non-scientific method of persuasion in discrediting attempts. Eventually, they win enough support, both in Congress and with the public, that their practices are allowed to continue, unabated.

Problems with our government are many-layered, and it can be difficult to connect the dots.  I’ll try to step through these problems that I’ve laid out, in a succinct way.  Our government is doing things wrong.  They are allowed to do so because they have the support of the majority of their constituents. This majority is mostly bought and paid for by the mega-rich when resources are used to sway public opinion with methods that are misleading at best, but can also be downright evil. It seems to me that power in this country still technically stems from its people, but the ways in which that power flows are being manipulated by money without morality.

So what needs to change? How can we go back to a system that is fair, balanced, and (most importantly) truthful? One way to go about this would be through education. If everybody were able to see through the conniving of the mega-rich, their tactics to empower themselves and disenfranchise others, they would be less successful at swaying public opinion to their side. Education is empowering in that an educated voter can determine what candidates actually have their best interest at heart. The next time you notice anything that is keeping America stupid, keep this in mind: the dumber we are, the more power we inadvertently give to people who take power away from us. T-Jeff, hit us again:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."

The trouble with that, though, is that supplying citizens with better education costs time, money, political capital, and also depends on certain other social injustices getting better first. Not to mention that all of these prerequisites are naturally opposed by those who benefit from, and prefer our ignorance of, this broken system.

So maybe education is more of a long-term goal. What could we do right now? I believe our founding fathers have the solution: fair and equal representation for all citizens. In order to get back to what they intended, we cannot allow for unequal representation, and that inequality is fueled by the money in politics. I’m talking about the actual real money, in the form of campaign contributions, and also of the sly pseudo-money, such as certain legislation that will definitely benefit a company, or disproportionate airtime for topics, issues, and people involved in politics in any way. See John Oliver’s Climate Change debate for a hilariously depressing lesson in how dystopian political news has become.

Money in politics, as used to sway public opinion and buy legislation, inherently represents the rich more than the poor. I believe that political campaigns should all be run on an exactly level playing field. A set amount of every elected official’s budget should be allocated towards their campaign. That amount should be small, and that amount should be all. No other contributions, from their own pocketbook or from that of any other person, group, or entity should be allowed. ALL news sources, as defined by public opinion (and not by the FCC) should be held accountable for following some form of regulation such as the Fairness Doctrine, through which they must present issues in an honest, equitable, and balanced way. Note: I intend to delve deeper into this topic eventually. For now, just know that national news networks identify as “entertainment” which allows them to be as biased as they please. With these main pathways of money in politics blocked off, the main sources for persuading public opinion unfairly will be gone, or at least seriously hindered. What remains is the public, their actual opinions, the facts, and fair and equal representation.

It may be that this opinion of mine is unpopular, perhaps even unheard of or unconsidered. It may also be that this idea of removing the power of money from politics would be wildly supported by the population, but those who currently have power (from that system) have somehow persuaded the majority not to support it. Maybe people are complacent, and assume that this system has worked pretty well for over 200 years. There is nearly nothing worse than going against the founding fathers, right? I mean, just look at this other Tommy J. quote: "[G]overnments… should not be changed[.]"

Sorry, that was a trap. Now look at those words in context:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes... But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security" - Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776

Right there! It is our duty to change the government if it gets too shitty (Note: lol “dooty, change, and shitty”). It’s in the goddamn Declaration of Independence! I have seen the processes through which these would-be tyrants gain and maintain their power. I’ve seen them use that power to gain more power. It is exactly “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object” (political power), and you betcha, the overall design is to reduce the power of the people such that it is less than that of the rich. Get ‘em, Teej!

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor"

Socioeconomic disparity is only one of the myriad problems facing our country. I think the larger problem is that the system that was set up to fix the problems has been tainted. Unfortunately for the mega-rich and their cohorts on the inside, the cat’s out of the bag. They continue the game, shooting money through their channels to quiet, discredit, and distract from the issue. However, for the first time in a long time, I see a ray of hope for the end of this cycle.

Recently, the topic of campaign funding for Presidential hopefuls has fought its way to public awareness. There’s a list of top contributors to each campaign, and everyone’s but Sanders’ is filled with loathsome ConglomoCorp-esque donors. I’m not saying he’s necessarily the best candidate for the job, but I am quite pleased that his style of politics gets covered. Now, the reason this information surfaced may have been someone’s political agenda to discredit Clinton and the Republicans, and/or to garner more support for Sanders. In a cutthroat competition like the presidential race, I wouldn’t put it past any of ‘em. However, I like to believe that the reason this topic is being talked about is because the people, the actual, real-life people, and not the majority in a poll whose opinion was pounded into their brains by people who wanted that opinion to be there…the people in this country are generally smart enough to see that this kind of money in politics could be a bad thing. The people are well-enough informed about the wrongdoings of our government in the past, it has betrayed our trust many times before, so it is well within reason to believe that the entire system could be rigged against us.

I only think very mediumly about these types of things, so I don’t have much evidence to say that the system really is this fucked up. However, I think there’s enough to posit that it could be this fucked up. And if a bad thing either could happen, or is already happening, isn’t that enough to work towards its termination? I tend to think so, and thus, I’ve written this for you to read and decide for yourself. Remember that anything anyone says, myself included, should be taken with a grain of salt, because the true motive behind the words could be different from the motive you perceive, or even different from the motive the speaker thinks is their own. Take me out, Thomas.

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day"

Peace or Environmental Protection – Why Not Both?

Earth Day, a quick Wikipedia search reveals, was first suggested as a day to honor the Earth and the concept of peace. These days, it seems, the latter half of the original intent is left out of our observation. Perhaps the Cold War and the potential for nuclear obliteration of our only planet was the motivation for this, and these days our annihilation and certain doom seem more distant, both in possibility and in time. Today, both original goals remain to seem nearly unattainable. Indeed, when cash is king, and has the ability to overpower, step around, and influence the governing bodies meant to keep it in check, how is one to begin combating opponents like Big Oil? And how could we ever find ways to end all our wars?  I suggest that the path to achieving both of these original goals of Earth Day are largely one and the same.

It should be obvious to you by now, dear reader, that I consider the far future, suppose what it ought to look like, and decide what must change today in order to get there. It is my hope that someone has already convinced you that climate change is both real and human-caused. It is also my hope that you've been clued in to the insane amount of lobbyists’ money flowing into our government, opening your eyes to its corruption. If not, go get convinced here, here, and/or here, and come back.

Given your prerequisite knowledge on the subject, you, like I, know that one of two things must happen in order to protect the environment. Ideally, the free market would dictate, that fossil fuels and pollution and the like are now out-of-style, and consumers’ demand for clean energy and responsible practices would socially and economically force companies and governments to operate in sustainable ways. The problem with this is that it’ll never happen. Not everybody is as considerate as you and I are of the state of our planet long after we’re dead. They will put a higher priority on their own comfort than on what’s best for life on Earth as a whole. The majority of scientists agree that manmade greenhouse gasses are causing climate change, but a tiny minority has taken action to reduce their contribution to the problem.

Therefore, the solution we need is to have enacted, enforced laws surrounding the subjects of waste, pollution, natural resource management, energy production, energy consumption, and all other realms of human’s impact on the environment, forcing those who have profited for so long off of destroying our planet to reinvent themselves in a sustainable way. Having the government step in and change the supply is the more realistic solution, because it does not rely on every person making the appropriate choices to protect the environment. Instead, it only requires that the public agrees with the laws which get put in place. That doesn't mean it’ll be easy, and it doesn't mean Big Oil will be going down without a fight. However, as the point of no return might come at any moment, this is the change we need to make to protect the environment, and in so doing, we will take a large step towards ending our wars.

I know what you’re thinking: how could a bunch of solar panels and local farms ever possibly end our wars? Let’s think about the causes of war first, and then I’ll fill you in. Evolution (that phenomenon with a tendency to promote life making more life) favors competition. Back in the day, healthy competition ensured that we, as a species, evolved to be smarter, better, faster, and stronger, by rewarding winners with more resources after conflict. I’m counting “honor” and “respect” and the like as resources as well, which nicely captures all ideological wars’ supposed (see paragraph 7) motivation. We have not escaped the driving force of evolution. Here we are, a world divided into 196 countries, divided further by religion, skin color, and socioeconomic status, and we still fight for resources, both tangible and intangible, which we perceive as helpful for our specific people’s survival.

To see this connection between renewable energy and the end to war, I implore you to think deep into the future. Can you envision it? I’m imagining a world in which our energy sources sustainably provide more energy than we are able to use. With more energy than we can use, we will live in a society wherein the cost of everything is a fraction of what it is today, if not essentially zero. In such a world, there would be no need to fight one another for more resources. This would be a society in such abundance that nobody should want for anything. There’s nothing to fight for, when everyone has enough.

Ah, but, you say, there isn’t enough energy and sustainability in the world to put an end to ideological conflict! I say there is. It is my belief that ideological conflicts, though they seem to arise from one side disrespecting the other, or a decreed incompatibility between two sides, all have a root cause engrained in their mantras, which is the exact same as other conflicts: resources. The implicit point of these ideologies is to spread themselves amongst as many people as possible, and/or to remove any competing ideologies. Convincing people to follow a certain ideology, and having them benefit from increasing the ratio of followers to non-followers is a self-perpetuating mechanism through which the ideology is able to prosper via its devotees. The ideology’s prosperity is directly proportional to the prosperity of its supporters, which is based on their access to resources, which is potentially increased through competition with outsiders. There are certainly people who have fought for their ideology’s sake, thinking nothing of resources. However, just because they didn’t know they were fighting for resources, doesn’t mean they weren’t fighting for resources. The intangible resources “honor” and “respect” that they attempted to protect or gain by fighting against people outside of their own ideology, are no more than the image of a carrot in front of a hamster’s wheel, which powers the projector as it spins.

If everyone were to see that self-perpetuating mechanism for what it is, in a world with great abundance, that specific direction from ideology will become a moot point. Not by adhering to Capitalism or Judaism or any other ideology will people prosper, but simply by being lucky enough to be born into a post-scarcity economy. With abundance enough to fill every belly, we will also be able to fill every mind, and I am certain that given enough time, there will eventually be a generation of humans wherein everyone is aware of the man behind the curtain, and nobody is fooled into participating in a conflict for ideological reasons.

So there you have it. Invest today in renewable energy, ensure that we take care of the only planet we have, and eventually, we will live in a post-scarcity economy, which will lead to a post-conflict society. Utopian? Sure. Unobtainable? Seems that way. So should we even try? You bet your ass. And every ass of every shitting thing with an ass to shit out of. And every living thing without an ass. As well as every living thing to have ever lived or shat, and every living thing that is yet to live. Life as we know it currently depends on the Earth to survive, and until life achieves a stronger foothold elsewhere, it is our long-term evolutionary duty to ensure that life is able to continue.

And continue.

And continue.

Why I Am Charlie: on the value of free speech, and the impediments to empathy

The terror attack on Charlie Hebdo has a root cause in common with many other shitty events over the past year. Some people, in their attempt to understand the attack, decide that Charlie Hebdo was wrong to publish demeaning depictions of Mohammed, thereby assigning some blame to them. They further argue that not only was it wrong to make fun of Islam’s prophet, it is wrong in general for Charlie Hebdo to publish offensive content, pointing to other Hebdo covers and calling them racist. Firstly, those images dubbed “racist” certainly seem so on the surface and out of context. However, digging deeper and finding the elusive French satirical double meaning reveals that the image is not condoning racism, but lampooning it. It is the Colbert Report scenario, in which some people might actually take it seriously, but the intent is to show just how ridiculous the idea is through exaggeration and zeal. On the Mohammed images, the purpose is to highlight the disparity between France and Islam on the topic of free speech. In France, the right to free speech trumps rules of all religions, including the rules of Islam. To those who blame Charlie Hebdo for being offensive, I hope that you are swayed by what I have to say, as we embark on another journey to make the world a better place by searching for right and wrong in the context of current events.

The right to free speech must include the right to offend. We must be permitted to question authority, to question religion, to question our own governments, the establishment, our peers, friends, and enemies. When we stop questioning, we stagnate while those in power accumulate more of it. We need to be able to think and speak critically of our world, as a litmus test for how we’re doing as the only sentient species on the planet. The freedom of speech, inclusive of the right to offend, is not exempt from this questioning, but is upheld each time the question is asked. Is there more goodness in the Universe today than yesterday, because of human activity, or are we a pox on our world, an embarrassing excuse for an intelligent species who cannot even realize the value of life? Without a vector for relentless criticism of our world, its people, and their actions, we have no way to answer this question, let alone do something to change the world if we dislike the answer.

If we give in to censorship, to sensitivity of others’ religion (or other beliefs) at all costs, we are giving up one of the largest steps forward humanity has ever accomplished. We would be conceding that people cannot be trusted to react peacefully when others disagree with them, a requisite for successful Democracy. If you believe in Democracy, in the idea that the power of a nation should stem ultimately from its People, you are buying into the idea that people can and should be trusted with such a responsibility. If our government were based on the presumption that people cannot have an intelligent debate on a subject and agree to disagree, then we would be catering to the most offendable groups, walking on eggshells in hopes that we don’t upset them. This is not the way of an advanced intelligent civilization. This is a medieval and anti-democratic course of thought. The problem isn’t that people are too offensive, it’s that people are too offendable.  Radical Islam is to blame for the Charlie Hebdo attack, period. Nobody outside of a religion should be subjugated to its rules, and everyone within a religion should at least tolerate, coexist with, or agree to disagree with those outside.

I am Charlie, not only because I believe that Charlie Hebdo’s satirical criticism exposes certain truths about the world we currently live in, shedding light on issues that need to be addressed, but also because I believe that humanity can and should evolve to the point where we turn to conversation before violence, a value for which Charlie Hebdo has become a symbol.

This type of evolution, where we attempt to understand one another before we react to one another, is an evolution of a greater empathetic ability. This attack and other tragic events in recent history (ISIS, Ebola, Boko Haram, Mike Brown, and Eric Garner), and the conversations they have inspired, have revealed something to me that I very desperately wish weren’t true: human beings have not yet fully evolved this ability to empathize with one another. I believe nearly all humans are capable of sympathizing to a certain extent (as a reminder, sympathy is where you’ve actually had the same experience and gone through the same feelings), but the events and debates over the last year (and all throughout history, really) show little to no signs of empathy.

And that’s a crying shame. I’ve gone through many hypotheticals, aiming to discover how to make the world to be a better place. What needs to change in order to slow (and eventually stop) the unjust ruining and ending of lives? The bottom line, always, is that people must change. People must see the value of others’ lives. People must understand the circumstances of others’ lives. And people must strive first to understand others, before reacting to them. This goes for the villains and the victims both. If our response to the Mike Brown killing was to get revenge by killing Darren Wilson, very little would change, and the world would not get better. If our response was to applaud Wilson unquestioningly, very little would change, and the world would not get better. We need to try to understand both individuals, their backgrounds, and their reasoning for their actions, regardless of which side you support. Failing to appreciate the importance of understanding all sides of a story, even if one of those sides is your enemy’s, is a failure of a basic test of empathetic ability and by extension, a backpedaling of human progress. Without empathizing with one another, we cannot fully comprehend the value of each other’s lives, and we will be hindered in learning from the incident what needs to be changed to make the world a better place.

I may be setting the bar a little too high here, but I’ve got standards that must be met before I’ll call something empathy. First, the empathizer must not have had a similar experience (because that would be sympathy). Second, the empathizer must truly understand, to the best of their ability, the experience. And finally, the purpose of the empathy must be to directly assist the other person, or those with whom they could sympathize, and not one’s self or those with whom one could sympathize. Basically, you must have nothing to gain but understanding through empathy. With these guidelines in mind, let’s explore empathy in the context of this year’s terrible events.

ISIS: The Islamic State is a militarized radical faction of the second-largest religious group in the world. Their actions can be compared to countless cases throughout history when people killed in the name of their religion. It is abundantly clear that the ideals of ISIS are without empathy. The thing which prevents them from empathizing with their victims is blind belief. If we ask why ISIS kills, we can say that they kill because they believe their killings to be just. If we ask why they think so, we can say that they are convinced by higher powers (either superiors within ISIS, or their interpretation of the Koran).

Now let’s try to empathize with ISIS. This is psychologically difficult to do, and some would argue that even attempting would equate to capitulation. However, if we allow our detest for ISIS to prevent us from attempting to understand them, then are we really that different? I like to think that I’m better than that, so I’ll move on. I can only imagine the world in which ISIS members grew up. In a place like Iraq or Syria, the promise of eternal reward must have special appeal, and I do not fault them for their faith. As much as I hate the individuals in ISIS for their actions, I have to try to understand that their actions are a result not only of their own natural tendencies for violence, but also of the environment in which they live. I can understand that someone who grows up with next-to-nothing and little hope for success in life, could turn to religion for solace. I can understand the importance of being extremely convicted in that religion. And I can understand that when the chance to use violence is promoted by their interpretation of that religion, that one might be convinced that these violent actions were just. If this broad generalization counts as empathy, we can finally assign a value to ISIS with a fuller picture, and identify a narrower target for making the world suck less. ISIS is still awful and should not be allowed to continue its violent acts. Empathy does not preclude a warranted violent response, and I fully support the militaristic efforts to combat ISIS overseas. However, violence is not the only solution to the problem. The only reason such a group can exist is through the absence of empathy, and as such, instilling empathy into current and would-be ISIS members would also solve the problem, with the added benefit of such an issue never being able to come up again, as long as empathy holds.

Ebola and Boko Haram: The U.S. reaction to the Ebola outbreak is an example of sympathy reigning over empathy. Before there were any Ebola patients in the country, the general sense that I got was along the lines of “Africa is so far away” and “oh, that’s awful, but what can we do?” Fast forward a couple months, with people contracting Ebola in the States, and the shift was apparent: “I hope wearing these trash bags and duct tape on the plane saves my life” and “QUARANTINE EVERYONE FLYING IN FROM AFRICA!” What changed was the perceived likelihood that Ebola could actually affect ourselves or people we know. Why is it that we care so much about people we know, and so little about people we don’t know? It is because we do not assign a value to unknown people’s lives, which is due to our lack the empathy to do so. If we cared as much about the Africans in danger of contracting Ebola as we did for our own loved ones, you can bet the world would be a better place.

The same goes for Boko Haram, a scourge on the Earth which has been terrorizing Africa since 2002. Like ISIS, they are a radical militarized faction of Islam, and exist only due to the inability of its members to empathize with anyone outside their specific interpretation of the Koran. Like Ebola, this problem is concentrated in Africa, and the US populous seems not to care. Maybe they figure the world is a shitty place, and we’re lucky to live in a less-shitty part of it. I say let’s not leave it up to luck. Let’s take action to make the whole world less shitty.

Mike Brown and Eric Garner: Let’s first empathize with the deceased. Mike Brown grew up black in a poor part of the city, where (whether you’d like to admit it or not) his chances for success in life were lower than if he were born rich and white. Eric Garner was similarly disadvantaged due to his race. Their upbringings were affected at every turn by the racism inherent in the systems of our society, and also by the racism of certain people. With less opportunity and more strife than they deserved, I can understand that robbing that store (if he did) or pushing that clerk, or selling loosies might have seemed to them ways to forcibly and/or illegally take what is rightfully owed them. I can understand that if they entered their encounters with the police with the mindset that nothing good could come of it, that assaulting the officer (if he did), or resisting arrest might have seemed like a way to be able to walk away from the situation better off than if they did nothing. Do I think they should’ve robbed, pushed, and assaulted, or sold loosies and resisted arrest? No, but I do understand what might have motivated them to do so, and I don’t think we should allow systemic and unabated racism to continue to motivate prejudice’s victims to act unjustly. Racism is a form of non-empathy, which again seems to be a root cause of so much hurt in the world.

Now I’ll attempt to empathize with the police officers who shot and killed Mike Brown and used a disallowed chokehold on Eric Garner, leading to his death. I can understand that these cops grew up in the same world as those they slayed, only the reason in their eyes for someone to turn to crime might not be systemic racism, but a personal choice. I can understand that if they have been affected by racist thoughts (spoiler alert: they have), that the discretionary force they used during these encounters might have been augmented by their feelings. Do I think these cops should have used as much force as they did? From what I believe to have occurred during the incidents, absolutely not, but I do understand what might have motivated them to do so, and I don’t think that we should allow unabated racism to continue to block the empathic ability in police officers that might have prevented these deaths. We should also not allow systemic racism to protect them from the appropriate consequences of unjustly taking these lives.

I don’t mean that people should be let off the hook because they are products of their environment. I only mean that disregarding the influence of their environment is a form of non-empathy which prevents us from understanding the person, hinders us from identifying the underlying sources of the problem, and allows the problem to continue. If we don’t realize that being dealt a bad hand in life can contribute to one’s propensity to do wrong, we are turning a blind eye to one of the root problems in our society, and will never be able to fix it. It is through empathic attempts to understand why people do terrible things that we have the chance to change the situation, and prevent further atrocities.

In every situation, tragedy could have been avoided, and progress could have been promoted, if there were more empathy. Even now, as we discuss our opinions on these issues, the empathy deficit slows our progress towards understanding and ultimately fixing them. These events are terrible, and the loss of life and goodness attributed to each is unacceptable, but what is also unacceptable to me is the way that empathy is shunned in the face of these issues. Let’s suppose we move forward un-empathetically. We continue to frown upon radical Islam, and fight it militaristically, but even if we killed every member of ISIS and al-Qaeda, what’s to stop the next jihadist group from doubling their death count? We turn a blind eye to Ebola and Boko Haram, but if we don’t do something about these troubles in Africa, who will? We blame Mike Brown and Eric Garner for their own deaths, but what’s to stop police officers from using their power to further their own agenda, by killing those they despise?

We need empathy, now more than ever. Sympathy can only take us so far as to help the people with whom we can easily relate. With the task of making the entire world a better place, we have no other choice but to try and understand and reconcile the differences between starkly different people. It is the golden rule: to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We cannot allow ourselves to put on the same blinders that ISIS and Boko Haram don to convince themselves that their cause is just. We must continue to criticize, and be able to be criticized, in order to allow humankind’s progress to continue. Censoring free speech is not the answer. Conditioning ourselves to react civilly to free speech is a start, but evolving true empathy for our fellow humans is the key. With the understanding we gain through that empathy, we will be able to identify the root causes of these shitty parts of life on this planet, and we will be able to make the world a better place, together.

And if you don’t agree with me, then you’re an unevolved, pathetic, scum-sucking, idiotic, greedy, evil part-of-the-problem asshole, and the best thing you could do to make the world a better place, would be to kill yourself (consider that your first test in free speech conditioning)

Why Net Neutrality and Libertarians Don't Mix

I read Nick Gillespie's thoughts on Net Neutrality (and more) today, here

And I respond to him thusly:

 An interesting article.  I enjoyed reading your take on it, and discovering the viewpoints on that side of the issue.  I fundamentally disagree with many points you've made, however.  I'd like to respond to some of your points here:

10MB/s being the top-rated FCC speed: netindex.com shows how our speeds compare to other developed countries.  We're in 31st place, last I checked.  And we're the second-biggest user of the internet.  These upward trends have been slow.

On addressing a problem that doesn't exist yet: My ideology allows for the prevention of these problems, while sticking pretty closely to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  It seems like your motto is closer to "if you can't tell that it's broke, don't fix it."  I'd prefer to avoid the potential trouble rather than wait and see if it happens.

On your stance that what net neutrality proponents fear won't become a reality (that vast and completely hypothetical leap) : Capitalism without proper regulation begets monopolies.  It's math.  That's why we want this type of regulation.

On your allusions to the past: What you reference is true.  The FCC has lost in court.  Netflix and Comcast have set a precedent.  My ideology allows me to assess these happenings as "good" or "bad."  It seems like yours does not allow you to make these types of judgement on past events.  If a law was passed, if a business transaction occurred, if a court ruled, then it MUST be the best thing.  I wish you were more open to questioning the past.

On the FCC being terrible: I ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!! I don't want the FCC to have more regulatory power that could further ruin the internet.  However, I believe true Net Neutrality regulation is needed to keep ISPs in check, and disallow practices that can exacerbate the progress along the inevitable path to monopoly.

I am personal witness to the effects of the absence of such regulation.  Comcast provided me particularly choppy service when I was using Microsoft Lync (business Skype, basically) for work.  Incidentally, Comcast offers phone services which are in direct competition with this type of internet usage.  So I got a device that encrypted my data.  Since then, Comcast doesn't know I'm making internet phone calls, and the connection has been flawless.

What I want to see (and I believe the rest of the Net Neutrality proponents can agree to this) is regulation that mandates ISPs to not give priority to certain services.  We don't want ISPs to be able to use their oligopoly power to strongarm users into buying more of their services or hold content hostage unless content providers pay them a fee.

It is clear that your libertarian outlook shapes your thoughts on this issue.  The fundamental difference between you and me is that I don't trust corporations the way you don't trust government.  In this case, however, the evidence for your stance is weak and ill-founded.  Net Neutrality is a real issue with real consequences which are already being felt, and it's about time we did something about it.

Why Net Neutrality Is The Best Option (and what you can do to help its cause)

               Here’s a story.  There once was a lobbyist named Tom Wheeler.  He worked hard to make sure the cable and wireless industry’s interests were well-heard by policymakers.  Heck, he even used to be President of the National Cable Television Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.  His work contributed greatly to the profits of cable and wireless companies alike.  With such a background in helping to tailor policy in favor of these mostly conglomerated oligopolists (and allowing them to become more conglomerated and market-controlling), he was chosen to become Chairman of the FCC.  Although the folly of such an appointment is apparent at first glance, it has only been recently that the general public has been uproarious.  This is due to the issue known as Net Neutrality, and is the topic of this post.

               Net Neutrality, for the underinformed, basically is the idea that the Internet is a medium through which all content should be equally available.  That is to say that the speed at which your computer would be able to access this blog post should be the same speed at which your computer can access all other parts of the internet, good and bad.  There should be no preference for any type of data access over any other type.  This has been the standard since the birth of the Internet.  The reason Net Neutrality has been in the news recently is because FCC Chairman Wheeler plans to allow Internet Service Providers (read: the cable and wireless companies he used to lobby for) to charge fees to content companies for preferential treatment through their pipes, drastically changing the landscape of the Internet we’ve come to know.  He wants to allow an internet fast lane service, with fees payable to Internet Service Providers.

               The debate at hand is multifaceted: should the FCC protect Net Neutrality against corporate interests, or allow the free market to dictate Internet speeds for various content?  Is it governmental overreach, or a moral imperative that the FCC step in and regulate the activities of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and in what way should they regulate?  As has become the norm in US politics, this debate is lopsided.  Giant corporations back their interests with loads of money which drowns out both their smaller competitors’ and the general public’s opinions and interests.  For the sake of this post, when I refer to “ISPs,” I mean those constituents of the US oligopoly, mostly Comcast, Road Runner, SBC, Verizon, and Cox, whose combined share of the market totals 63.37%, and whose interests are threatened by Net Neutrality.  Further destroying the level playing field, the Chairman of the FCC has built his career being on one side of the argument.  This is once again a seemingly hopeless battle, and I am once again compelled to share my beliefs in hopes of raising awareness and tipping the scale in the proper direction.

               Let’s start by examining the reasons some people believe Net Bias (the antithesis of Net Neutrality, represented here by the decision to allow a paid fast lane for certain content) is a good idea.  The most compelling argument, I think, is that certain heavy-bandwidth content is expensive for ISPs to offer.  They must spend money to improve their infrastructure to allow for more and more users to come online and have speedy access to things like ever-clearer streaming HD video, online gaming, and video chatting.  Why should my grandma, who only uses her internet connection to send and receive e-mails, have to pay as much as a constantly-streaming movie buff, if her impact on the system is so minimal?  If the ISP can charge Netflix a fee for the bandwidth they hog (30% by some measures), that money can go toward infrastructure improvements needed to keep up with the demand.

               Economically, this system only half makes sense.  It makes sense that there is a certain cost of providing bandwidth, and, as is seen in ISPs’ tiered services, if users want access to faster internet speeds, they have to pay a higher price.  Here is where logic stops.  If heavier users are already paying prices proportional to their (maximum) usage, there should be no sudden need now for another market factor to supply the money necessary for infrastructure improvements.  If an ISP has not factored into their internet pricing scales the cost of infrastructure improvement for projected demand growth, an ISP with better foresight should have a market advantage.  The extra cost should not fall to content providers or consumers.

Let’s imagine a similar situation with a 100% wind energy electric company.  Each windmill costs a certain amount to place in service and maintain, has a certain lifespan, and is estimated to produce a certain amount of electric energy.  In their business model, they expect demand for their electricity to grow at a certain rate.  With these variables in place, they can charge an appropriate dollar amount for their service to ensure a profit margin large enough to support the continued growth of their infrastructure to meet market demands.  I find it very difficult to believe ISPs did not think about the issues surrounding demand and infrastructure when pricing out their service, and even if they all didn’t, I have no pity for their bad business practices.  If ISPs are really struggling (and let’s be honest, they aren’t), the fast lane idea is a bail-out program that costs end users more money.  I believe that this argument is a farce meant to allow higher profits for the companies at the expense of users and content providers alike.

               It is also difficult for me to believe that United States ISPs are doing their very best to keep the infrastructure up at a pace with market demand.  Let’s look outside the US for some perspective.  The Ookla Net Index measures the month’s mean Internet speeds worldwide.  There is a running list of the top-speed countries, and the United States is on it…in 31^st place!  The United States has the second-largest internet-using population in the world, accounting for over 10% of total internet users, and our speeds are slower than Spain’s, whose users account for only 1.3% of the total.  There is a force that has slowed the improvement of our internet infrastructure, and I say that it is the oligopoly’s interests lying in the opposite direction of progress.  The United States’ oligopoly is the slum lord of the internet, maintaining as little as possible, improving next-to nothing, and its existence is supported only by market demand combined with a stark lack of competition and regulation.

               Another argument against Net Neutrality is that supporting a free and open internet interferes with the free market, that the government has no right to regulate the internal policies of ISPs.  Let’s introduce a broader concept with a question: why do we even have any regulation, and are there any effective examples?  Answers: The FDA regulates the food and drugs deemed fit for human consumption, the point of which is to ensure the health and safety of the populace.  The EPA regulates the pollution of our land, water, and air, the point of which is to ensure the health of the populace and environment.  The FTC (supposedly) regulates business, the point of which is to protect consumers against anticompetitive practices such as coercive monopoly.

Now then, is the internet a service that needs regulating?  What is at risk if it is not regulated?  Answers: Some activity on the internet is illegal or threatening to the privacy and safety of consumers.  With Net Neutrality, ISPs have to give equal access to hackers exploiting security holes like Heartbleed (btw, change your passwords, folks), people downloading Breaking Bad illegally, and kids enjoying the website for Dora the Explorer.  I know that even with a Net Bias policy in place with an emphasis on mitigating against such activity, there would still be ways to exploit security holes, download media illegally, and otherwise use the Internet in malicious ways, which would not be traceable by the ISPs.  Even if the ISPs have the power to slow down activity they know to be “bad” internet activity, they would not be effective in stopping these activities.

Whether you believe the FCC should enforce rules like Net Neutrality or Net Bias (either the anti-crime version or the preferred content version, or a combo of both), there is a catch.  Any argument that the FCC should be more involved in regulating ISPs goes pari passu with the January 14, 2014 DC Circuit Court determination that the FCC has no authority to enforce Net Neutrality rules because ISPs are not “common carriers,” like telephone companies.  ISPs are classified under a different section of code, Title I of the Communications Act of 1934.  A common carrier designation would mean, as eloquently described by Google, that “Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.”

Without regulation, ISPs have the power to decide what can and cannot be done on the internet, and what is fast, easy, high quality content, and what is slow, frustrating, pixelated infuriation.  In my opinion, and in yours, if I’m convincing enough, ISPs are close enough to a coercive monopoly (being an oligopoly already) that there should already have been much more regulation from the FTC to prevent their power from growing to this point.  I agree that the government should not punish companies for being successful, but only as long as that success is merit-based, driven by innovation, hard work, great customer service, and the like.  The ISPs’ success stems from their oligopoly status.  Now that they have all their power, it is also my opinion that they should not be able to profit just from the fact that they’ve accumulated all the power, and Net Neutrality regulation would protect against that kind of profiting.

The weakest argument, and one that I won’t spend too much time on because of its vulnerability, is that a precedent against Net Neutrality has already been set.  Comcast slowed down Netflix, holding their access to normal bandwidth at ransom until Netflix agreed to pay fees.  Comcast artificially slowed down the Netflix stream, and has been doing so with other types of data in direct competition with their services as well, unless those content providers pay a fee.  These accusations may be refuted by Comcast, but the facts and logic dictate that their version of the story (that the quality of Netflix streaming reduced suddenly and significantly due to increased demand) is impossible.  So, now that Comcast has gotten away with this activity, they argue that it is the way the world should be.  To be clear, corrupt actions are no less corrupt if there is no punishment.  The idea of setting a precedent is inherently problematic in a society whose governmental system is one of revision and amendment.  Proclaiming that a precedent has been set in this situation should be as effective as proclaiming that the precedent has been set for the legitimacy of slavery.

 Now let’s dive into more arguments against Net Bias and the path which the FCC is on.  The focus here is on a self-serving system which has the power to suppress any opposition.  This situation is very similar to a monopoly, but much more robust.  Let’s explore.

First, let’s think about the interests of every citizen.  The United States is, after all, supposed to be democratic.  Some people work directly for ISPs or at jobs in which the success of ISPs is proportional to their own success.  On the other side of the equation, the rest of us (the consumers) do not profit from ISPs success.  We pay for the services they provide, and benefit from receiving the cheapest and best service available.  The exact opposite is true for the ISPs: they benefit from providing the most expensive and worst (least costly to provide, but reliable enough to keep customers and beat their competition) service possible.  In this system, without regulation, there could be a happy equilibrium at which compromises are made on both sides, and the market naturally dictates the growth and improvement of the Internet.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in the real world.  ISPs have conglomerated, centralizing their power and mustering lobbyists backed by millions if not billions of dollars.  Free market rules which would dictate fair prices and natural growth do not apply, because this market is not free.  There are aspects of the market that tip the scale in favor of the ISPs.  In this (real) case, we need regulation to ensure the consumers’ interests are protected against these more powerful adversaries.  Without this regulation, ISPs will be able to continue to provide sub-standard quality of service for an above-fair price.  Furthermore, with the paid fast lane in place, ISPs will be able to profit at least thrice: once for the consumers connecting to content (our monthly internet bill), again for the content providers’ competitive access to consumers (the fast lane fee), and a third time with the advantages that come from being on both the ISP side and the content provider side of the market (their affiliated content companies incur less cost for fast lane treatment).  More profit in the hands of the ISPs means a tighter grip on the market, and further deviation from a system which is fair.

One force that could throw a wrench in the ISPs’ plan would be the arrival of a better, smarter, cheaper competitor raising the quality of service bar.  However, this eventuality could be prevented through the economics of the oligopoly which is allowed by policy.  There is no better way to influence policy than to have a member of your own team making the policy.  This is exactly what is possible when a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries is allowed to take a leadership position at a regulatory agency.  The dissonance of a regulator governing his former colleagues is a recipe for bad policy, yet the FCC is not the only entity which has had vested interests towards the top.  Such situations do not lend themselves to fair progress through the innovations of new companies.  They do lend themselves to increased profit for the oligopolies, such as the ISPs.

It is abundantly clear to me that money talks in American politics, and these ISPs have lots of it; more than enough to outbid any grassroots-funded campaign set against them.  It is clear to me that the state of the Internet in the US is drastically worse than what it should be.  It is clear that without Net Neutrality regulation, companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and more will be able to put systems into place that provide themselves substantially more profit for substantially less merit-based improvements.  What can we do now to fix this problem?

At its root, the problem is this: money can buy you policy, which can make you more money, which can buy you more policy, and so on.  If money was not as powerful a speaker as public opinion (and, more importantly, scientific fact), the role of lobbyists would change.  They would not be money mules, delivering cash from corporations to policymakers, but fair representatives of people’s opinions.  Perhaps lobbyists would not be needed at all.  With equal and abundant access to resources like the internet, everyone has a chance to voice their opinions to their policymakers.

And that means you, dear reader.  The FCC has opened their proceeding number 14-28 for public comment on this matter.  Before we tackle the problems of income inequality and enhanced access to the legislature of those people and companies with the most money, we must attempt to revitalize respect for that ideal of Democracy: That the opinions of all the people matter, not just those of the wealthy.  To do so is an uphill climb, and we may not win this battle, but if you add your comments to the discussion, as I am here in this blog post, you will at least be able to say that you did not sit idly by while an oligopoly of ISPs attempted to further ruin the Internet for their own profit, and at your own expense.

Note: Please feel free to use my language in your comments to the FCC or to your Congress people.  I'd prefer if you'd write something like "I agree with what this guy wrote" at the top, but I don't have the authority to enforce what you do on the Internet.

Dear Climate Change Deniers and Failed Policymakers

               I am discovering the purpose of these posts as I write them.  The topics upon which I muse have a common theme.  They are issues which have led to increased worldsuck.  In most cases (and today’s topic falls squarely into this category), I feel an overwhelming sense of helplessness to make any significant difference, but it is because of the daunting nature of the task that I become determined to try.  That’s what these posts are.  They’re attempts at making the world a better place.  I figure if people read what I write, maybe these ideals I hold will spread to others.  Maybe I’ll change a reader’s mind about something, or maybe a reader will be able to change someone else’s mind after taking in my opinions.  I feel like the world can be changed, but the change depends on, ultimately, the will of the people (with a heavy influence from the portion of people with the most money and power first, but that’s another post).  The part I hope to play in the grand scheme of things is to contribute towards the public opinion shift necessary for these changes to occur, and today, I hope to help reverse climate change.

               The first step in shifting public opinion on climate change in a way that will save the world, is to convince the public that climate change is real and world-threatening.  This battle has been waged for years, and that upsets me.  As you may be aware, I have little tolerance for scientific illiteracy in this day and age.  That means that when reports like the latest update from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) come out, and folks flat out deny the results, I become infuriated.

               Climate change deniers have a set of “evidence” supporting their position.  The quotes are there because included in this arsenal are some unscientific items.  They can find scientists who hold a position in line with their own, and by hosting a debate between a supporter and a denier, make it seem like the reality of climate change is a debate.  According to NASA, 97% of climate scientists are in agreement that it is real and human-caused.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to the minority in disagreement.  I am saying that the whole story is truer than 3% of it.  It is misleading to project an air of disagreement within the scientific community when there is virtually none.

               Another tool climate change deniers use is misinterpretation of data.  If you’ve ever been witness to a comment on a cold day such as “global warming my ass” and didn’t wish they were eligible for the Darwin Awards, it’s time for school.  Climate change (formerly known as global warming) is, in fact, a global phenomenon.  A cold snap in the place where you live has an influence on the mean annual global temperature, but does not dictate whether or not the annual global temperature has increased or decreased.  In fact, this winter’s (2013-14) extremely cold temperatures in the northern hemisphere could be a result of climate change.  Remember the phrase “polar vortex?”  A polar vortex is “a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near either of a planet’s geographical poles.”  If it is very cold, the vortex is strengthened, and if it is not that cold, the vortex weakens.  This weather phenomenon was unusually weak, due to warmer-than-usual conditions in the northern hemisphere this winter, which allowed the cold air to escape its usual bounds and freeze Texas (barely).  Climate change is a process that occurs on a global scale over time, and those few cold weeks this winter absolutely do not disprove it.  They may in fact be evidence for climate change.

               My final point to de-bunk climate change myths is perspective.  Reader, I urge you to always question the source of information.  Scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community are the most infallible sources of information available by definition.  As long as there is adequate competent research, the scientific method will always lead us towards the truth.  On the other hand, there are persuasive words and misleading or cherry-picked evidence not in line with the scientific consensus.  When we ask why a set of arguments denying climate change exists, I conclude that it is in some people’s best (short-term) interests.  It is currently more lucrative in the short term to deny climate change and continue greenhouse gas emissions than it is to invest in solutions, and herein lies the rub.

               Cheap access to energy through fossil fuels has done great things for civilization while taking a toll on our environment.  This exchange has been going on since the middle of the 19^th century, has decreased in some places, and is just starting in others (looking at you, China).  So far, the money we’ve saved and made by our progress through greenhouse gas emissions greatly outweighs any cost we’ve had to pay for wreaking havoc on the global climate.  There will come a point in time, however, when our debts will become due.  According to the IPCC’s latest report, the longer we wait to implement solutions, the higher the cost will be.  Furthermore, the future surface temperature of our planet will be largely determined by cumulative CO_2, meaning that climate change will continue even if CO₂ emissions are stopped.  We have gone so far that even if we stop our greenhouse gas emissions completely, we will not be able to stop climate change without further action.

               Here’s some more context from this latest IPCC report, in case you missed the recent headlines.  The warming of atmosphere and oceans is unequivocal.  There is a clear human influence on the climate.  It is extremely likely that humans are the main source of greenhouse gas increase since 1950.  It is virtually certain that ocean temperatures have risen, and there is high confidence that this increase accounts for 90% of the energy accumulation from 1971 to 2010.  There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19^th century is more than the trend from the past 2000 years.  Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have increased to levels unprecedented on Earth in 800,000 years.  The difference in radiant energy (sunlight) received by Earth and that released back into space, relative to 1750, is now positive (more energy is coming in than is being let out), and an increase in CO₂ is the most significant driver.  The report predicts that by the end of this century, temperatures are likely to increase by 1.5^o C in most scenarios, and 2.0^o C in many scenarios.  The global water cycle will change, resulting in an increase in disparity between wet and dry regions (increased drought, desertification, and floods).  Oceans will continue to warm, and the heat will permeate to deeper depths.  It is very likely that there will be decreases to surface ice and snow cover responsible for much of the Albedo effect, reflecting solar energy.  Global mean sea levels will rise at rates greater than those over the past four decades.  These data and predictions are based on rigorously scrutinized scientific evidence and consensus, and we would best be served if we all treated them with the respect they deserve.

               As in all my blog posts, I hope my lens on this issue will be adopted (or at least considered) by others.  The scientific approach is the best approach we have, and as a result of taking this approach, it has become apparent that our activities are threatening, have been threatening, the wellbeing of life on our planet.  The preceding is an attempt to sway public opinion on the legitimacy of climate change science (a task I wish was not necessary).  What follows is my take on implementation strategies for a solution.

               Our solution to climate change must by two-tiered.  We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero as well as place into operation systems which actively absorb existing greenhouse gasses.  We already know how to start these processes.  Renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and arguably nuclear) are the key to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and photosynthesizing plants, coupled with some industrial solutions are probably the most effective catalysts for global CO₂ absorption.  Although we know how to slow and eventually reverse climate change, the current short-term economics of the issue are acting as a road block to progress.  In the ideal instance, due to the finite nature of fossil fuels, green energy would become the best, cheapest, and most abundant form of energy, and the market would naturally shift us away from greenhouse gas-emitting fuels before it’s too late.  However, as stated above and in the IPCC report, even reducing our emissions to zero will not be enough.  Trends indicate that drastic changes to our environment will continue much faster than any foreseeable economic drivers for green energy can keep up with.  Therefore, policymakers must put into place penalties and/or incentive programs to promote climate change solutions in order to counteract the unfortunate disparity between the environmental and market demands for climate change mitigation and reversal.  There will continue to be much debate over the ways policy should intervene for climate change solutions.  I would like to throw my two cents in with a proposal that might have the potential to please all parties while accomplishing climate goals.

               I work in the affordable housing industry, and am firsthand witness to a public/private partnership structure that works.  As an affordable housing developer, our company gets government financing in the form of tax credits, builds apartments, and then leases them at lower-than-market-rate rents to tenants with incomes of a certain level or lower.  In this process, the tax credits we are awarded are bought by an equity provider, usually a bank.  FDIC insured banks are required through the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to offer credit in all local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation, in order to get permission for mergers, open new branches, and other regulated activities.  If a bank does not meet its CRA needs, the bank will not have access to some of these business-building methods.  Investing in Low-Income Housing Tax Credits is one of the easiest ways banks meet their CRA requirements.  The beauty of the industry is that big banks, housing advocates, for- and not-for-profits alike come together, and everyone leaves happy.  Banks get a good investment, developers make a profit, and housing advocates’ goals are achieved.  A similar system could work towards ending climate change.

               Just like in the affordable housing world, the first ingredient to this policy must be a penalty for the people or entities whose actions or inactions further climate change.  They are the polluters, and the pollution mainly comes from: energy supply (26%), industry (19%), forestry (17%), agriculture (14%), transport (13%), and residential and commercial buildings (8%).  Implementing a penalty fine will mean that products from each of these activities will become more expensive if they continue to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions; the companies will pass the extra cost along.  In an attempt to lower demand for greenhouse gas emitting goods and services, the buck should stop as close as logistically possible to the activity where greenhouse gasses are produced.  For each area, respectively, the penalty would apply to: fossil fuel combusting energy companies, polluting industrial companies, deforesters, livestock farmers without methane capture systems, and emissions-based fuel providers (coal, gas, and oil companies).  Based on the severity of the penalty, which should be calculated in depth, the demand for greenhouse gas emitting goods and services will decrease to the point where green alternatives have an economic advantage.

               With that penalty system in place, incentive is ripe for avoiding it, and therefore furthering the mission against climate change.  Take the aspect of the affordable housing industry that produces affordable housing, and replace that activity with green energy supply, green industry, reforestation, green agriculture, green transportation, and green residential and commercial buildings.  People should be able to be awarded some sort of credit (maybe a tax credit, maybe a carbon credit, maybe some other system) for these and other green endeavors that may be used to offset the penalties for greenhouse gas production.  As has been mentioned, going to zero emissions is not enough.  Though emission-neutral activities would avoid the penalty, they would also not be eligible for the credit.  They will, however, benefit via the higher economic demand for that type of good/service.  The credit should be proportional to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions absorbed from the climate.

It might be that the company doing the green work has no penalizable activities of their own, so they can sell the credit to a party who would be subject to the penalty.  The economics of this exchange can be set such that the same amount of greenhouse gases (either produced or captured) is worth more in penalties than it is in credits.  For example, burning enough coal for electricity production to release a ton of CO₂ into the atmosphere could be penalized at, say, $1,500.  The credits for planting enough trees to absorb a ton of CO₂ from the atmosphere could amount to $1,000.  The company facing the penalty would therefore have to invest in 1.5 tons of CO₂ absorption to counter their 1.0 ton of emission (please note that these numbers are made up and probably don’t make sense.  It’s just an example).  The difference must be significant enough so that if a company does not invest in the credits, their penalty can pay to offset more emissions than they’ve produced.  In this way, the overall effect of the penalty/credit system is positive for the climate.

A sudden shock to the economies involved in this proposal could be difficult to manage.  Therefore, the penalties should be implemented gradually and predictably, with 100% transparency in the process.  If industries know what will happen within their economies beforehand, they can better prepare for the changes to come.  This is me playing fair.

The arguments against such a system are limitless, but they are all founded on 19^th and 20^th century values, which place Capitalism and the Free Market on pedestals, with little to no regard for the environment.  People might say that artificially altering the economic landscape is no different from the government choosing the winners and the losers, implying that this is an activity that must be avoided.  My counterargument points skeptics to the Clean Air Act, wherein those out of compliance with the law of the land are penalized with a fine.  Without this action, the free market was driving a trend towards more and more pollution, because it was costly to be environmentally responsible (mostly driven by the lack of demand for clean technologies, I’m sure).  The government is picking winners (those in compliance with the Act) and losers (those who are not), and the system has worked to incentivize polluters to stay in compliance, and to keep the air clean for all who breathe it.

People might say that my system of penalties and credits would end up doing more harm than good.  The companies that would be penalized under my proposal fuel the economy, and we must not interfere with their business.  Furthermore, those companies subject to fines will likely pass the cost along to consumers, and that can’t be allowed.  To these skeptics, I direct your attention to the IPCC’s latest report.  The cost of mitigation and reversal of climate change is high today, but it will only become higher the longer we wait to implement changes.  This proposal intervenes both on behalf of life on our planet, and on behalf of the responsible parties, asking them to begin paying now to avoid a higher price later.  As for the consumers bearing the brunt of these fines, if the policy is structured well, and the implementation gradual and transparent, there will be more opportunity for competitive green companies to bridge the gap and provide cheaper goods and services.

I’m no expert.  I’m only well-informed.  This proposal is only one of probably thousands out there, and has a low statistical chance of being the best option.  However, as is my goal in all of these writings, I just wanted to contribute what I have to offer.  In my proposal, economies are changed, and the potential for price increases is real.  Nobody has had to pay the price of climate change yet, and I presume that there will be plenty of opposition once our bills become due.  Is it fair to have everyday people at risk to bear interim cost increases for our emission-heavy lifestyles?  I say yes.  We have built our modern world with the advent of fossil fuel combustion.  The way we live our lives is detrimental to the environment, and there are currently no penalties.  If you are reading this right now, your carbon footprint has increased.  Knowing full well that someone will have to pay the price, and knowing that the price increases with time, I volunteer our generation to step up and really do something about this problem.  It’s the cheapest, and most responsible thing to do.

It is embarrassing to me that we have been on this unabated path of industrial progress at the expense of our environment for so long.  I am ashamed that members of our species put their own profits above the wellbeing of life on our planet, of the livelihoods of their descendants.  I am disheartened to know that the profit-hungry polluters have a firm grip on our policymakers.  The one weapon can be of any effect in such a lopsided conflict is public opinion, and it’s about time the public’s opinion were informed by science rather than rhetoric.

Today, I take a stand against climate change deniers.  I name them destroyers of our world, and I hold them accountable for the delay in implementing real solutions.  Today, I display one of many possible ways we can begin our long fight towards fixing our problem.  This proposal was dreamt up by me, a 26-year-old guy with no background in politics or climate science.  If I can come up with a plan of action, it’s clear that something is stopping our policymakers from attempting the same.  That something is the unbalanced power polluters have over them compared to their constituents.  I hope, my dear readers, that through these words, at least some small change can be done to shift that balance in favor of our planet, and all us living things on it, today and throughout our future.