With FCC Chair Julius Genachowski working to assure that major carriers can't tie up the Internet, the usual suspects are up to doing the bidding of the major corporations. John McCain, as per the lying asshole he is, has introduced into his caucus a bill he has feloniously named Internet Freedom Act of 2009. Could he possibly be a bigger liar? Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced legislation in the house called, Real Stimulus Act of 2009. This is another laugher of a lie. This article also contains a very nice graphical depiction of global Internet cost / speed relationships. As you might imagine U.S. customers are definitely getting screwed in this globally competitive marketplace. Nothing new with that. You can read about it here.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/house-senate-get-separate-bills-to-kill-net-neutrality.ars

In human terms the Interent is definitely entering middle age. The 29th of October marks the day. For a trip through a day in the life, click the link. Somewhat esoteric but also informative you can read a description of the first two computers connected and how long it took to get the ball rolling to where it is today. For instance, as recently as 1994 there were only 623 websites on the entire Interent. I didn't know the first usable browser came in 1993. I actually started using the Internet myself in 1989. First with a 1200 then 2400 then 9600 baud telephone modem. And yes, people still use dial-up today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/23/internet-40-history-arpanet

Here is a neat chart showing average Internet speed available across a range of countries and the cost for Interent service at that rated speed in each. Unfortunately the U.S. isn't in the top ten for either metric. We can do better and have to if we want to compete. For those who make fun of France their average speed is triple that of the U.S. at half the cost. Last laugh.

http://files.redux.com/images/b3a38a65dc1991703826b71ef1d2e752/raw

The battle being waged to get our healthcare system in order is crucial to the health of Americans, our economy and nation. We have witnessed first hand the difficulty of changing such a massive system. Opponents of reform continue to fight even though studies like this continue to punch holes in their argument.

What then of the near total meltdown of the world financial system?

What will that battle for financial reform look like?

Can there be any doubt congress isn't looking forward to this fight?

Can there be any doubt it'll be bloodier than the healthcare battle?

Can there be any doubt a central issue is 'corporate personhood'?

Can there be any doubt hunreds of millions of campaign dollars will be an extremely contentious issue?

Can there be any doubt principals of the failed system have no business being major players under the current or any future system?

Can there be any doubt that financial industry lobbyists have been hard at work trying to head off reform?

Can there be any doubt proponents of non-regulation have been proven wrong (again)?

Can there be any doubt that here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many more there is substantial examination revealing how serious this is?

Can there be any doubt if this doesn't get truly and properly fixed, the law of the land will be notably characterized by an undisguised inclination to official corruption?

Can there be any doubt the liars will raise the bar to new heights when this battle gets underway?

Can there be any doubt we, as in all citizens, will have to hammer our reps into submission, repeatedly and in very clear language if we expect anything to come of this?

For all of us here who are members of the soon to be over the hill, pushing up daisies gang, this will be the battle of our lives. One last really big one. Get ready. We can't go out without a fight. After all, we are in part responsible for having screwed this pooch. We need to get our pooper scoopers out and clean up the mess before we go home. If we can.

Clarence Thomas has spoken, apparently for the first time, about his reluctance to ask questions during oral arguments and in fact has never asked a question. I guess I don't grasp his rationale. I cannot imagine a condition where a complex issue is under examination where questions would not arise.

More particularly I do not agree with his thinking where he states that the justices already know their positions and thus have no need of questions. This effectively eliminates any need to examine an issue beyond whatever their perspectives already are.

Where Justice Thomas's logic is exceedingly flawed is it nullifies the purpose for and is a judicial corruption of the idea of accepting a case to the court. His rationale means the only reason to accept a case is to change existing law where they are in disagreement with a prior ruling.

Never before has a justice specified a so clearly flawed rationale for departing from the long standing reluctance of the court to revisit existing rulings. Where that departure gives the appearance of being solely about asserting their judicial or ideological view is simply wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/clarence-thomas-to-other-_n_332464.html