Seriously, why does our country lag behind some arguably third world countries and other first world ones when it comes to TV, Internet, and communications in general? We invented the internet for crying out loud!
I contend that its because of crap like this:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/102024
This isn't a new thing. Even my home city of Lafayette, a city in Louisiana, one of the most corrupt and backward states in this county has been laying fiber to homes! But oh man did they ever have to fight tooth and nail to get it started.
In a seemingly capitalistic society our content distribution carriers control more of our airwaves than ever before. While costs have plummeted, their prices have skyrocketed. Take texting for example. It's estimated that a text message costs carriers less than a cent to transfer, yet they all charge 20 cents to do so. Imagine if your business had that kind of profit margin!
Looking at the NC example above, the city was charging 100 dollars for what Time Warner was charging 137 as an introductory fee, and that's just starting out!
Point being, I argue that all media distribution companies be regulated like the monopolies they are so that we can finally get things like 100mbps internet server that is so common in places like Japan.
At the same time, I also propose the following:
I propose to the FCC that all radio stations should be taken offline, the spectrum used to give people massive internet coverage with fast speeds and all physical radio stations be moved to online radio....
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Questioning the reason our privacy isnt protected more
Seriously, why isn't our privacy protected more? Its not like we as people don't mostly expect data about us to be used responsibly. It seems that the internet is taking away our privacy at an ever alarming rate. With applications like FaceBook and MySpace, it has become increasingly easier for people to find out what you do on a regular basis.
Here's what I propose:
A new law with the following rules
1. Any website that contains personal data that displays this data to other users must have all of its security settings turned on by default. (For example on facebook, making sure that only your friends can view your data)
2. Any government data on public record about you must be appropriately censored. I have seen numerous reports about government records going digital containing social security numbers being posted online.
3. No company or government entity may sell, trade, give or otherwise transfer any information about a user without express written permission from that user first.
4. No company or government entity can deny a user services because they have not signed away their rights concerning their personal information.
Now granted, I am sure companies would be screaming bloody murder at this, not to mention the government, but none of this is beyond being reasonable. I am also sure that a lawyer would have to stiffen up the language to try and allow less loopholes.
Here's what I propose:
A new law with the following rules
1. Any website that contains personal data that displays this data to other users must have all of its security settings turned on by default. (For example on facebook, making sure that only your friends can view your data)
2. Any government data on public record about you must be appropriately censored. I have seen numerous reports about government records going digital containing social security numbers being posted online.
3. No company or government entity may sell, trade, give or otherwise transfer any information about a user without express written permission from that user first.
4. No company or government entity can deny a user services because they have not signed away their rights concerning their personal information.
Now granted, I am sure companies would be screaming bloody murder at this, not to mention the government, but none of this is beyond being reasonable. I am also sure that a lawyer would have to stiffen up the language to try and allow less loopholes.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Questioning the reason problems seem so hard.
It's been awhile since I last updated this blog. I had been trying to do a post a month, but I had to delete several after realizing that the way I was wording my stances were not the best. No, this is not a commitment to try and get back to that. After some thought I figured I'd reserve this for more of my "ah ha" moments that come on an irregular basis.
So the topic of discussion today is Gay Marriage. This topic is a very polarizing in today's society and I believe it’s one of the easiest problems to solve to the benefit and happiness of all parties involved.
So who are the parties? First, we have religious conservatives that admittedly oppose any allowances in this area. Second, we have gays that demand equal treatment that they believe is owed to them based on the legal principles our country was founded on. Third, we have the politicians/government which either plays the two other sides off of each other for more votes, or tries not to broach the issue at all in fear of losing votes.
So where do I fit in all of this? My views are simple and pragmatic. I believe that there is no reason that my religious views and political ones should contradict each other in any way. Rules are there for a reason and frankly the rules of the Bible and of our country have no reason to contradict each other. As a Christian I believe that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin, plain and simple. I also believe that marriage is an institution created and ordained by God. This, in simple terms, means that the government, federal or local, has no right to be in the business of marriage. Our country has vowed a separation of church and state. Therefore, the state should extricate itself from having anything to do with marriage.
Now this presents us with a problem, especially for a society as legalistic as ours. The government has to have some legal way to bind two people together for several reasons, medical, financial, etc. This, I believe, has only one real solution: civil unions for everyone, not just gay couples. There would be no more marriage certificates, because as stated above, the government should not be in the business of the church. In other words, the government makes no distinction as to who the married couple is. A civil union is nothing more than a way for the government to recognize a legal bond or contract between two people. This also has the nice side affect of getting it out of religious affairs, i.e. certifying marriages that take place in the church.
So what happens now is that a couple wants to get married. They are then married by a priest, and then also have to sign a marriage certificate. Instead, what the above would mean is that people who choose to be married spiritually are done so by their priest. The government would not recognize this type of bond, because it is a religious marriage, not a legal one. The couple would then sign a civil union certification. This would be the bond that the government oversees, and one that guarantees all citizens equal treatment under the law.
Now civil unions are obviously not a new concept, so why do I bring them up now? The problem is that civil unions were made as a shoe horn to give gay couples the legal rights they are entitled to as U.S citizens. It doesn’t really answer the age old question of what power should the church have, and what power the state should have. Well, my version of civil unions is different from the one before because of how the issue is framed and dealt with. While the name remains the same, the idea is completely separate.
1. No more marriage certifications. (Gets the government out of marriage completely)
2. Civil unions are applied to everyone equally, not just gay couples. (Puts government in proper perspective to church to the benefit of both parties)
3. Churches decide who they spiritually marry. (The government doesn’t care because it’s a spiritual matter and they don’t recognize that a spiritual marriage has any affect on the legal standing of that couple.)
So the topic of discussion today is Gay Marriage. This topic is a very polarizing in today's society and I believe it’s one of the easiest problems to solve to the benefit and happiness of all parties involved.
So who are the parties? First, we have religious conservatives that admittedly oppose any allowances in this area. Second, we have gays that demand equal treatment that they believe is owed to them based on the legal principles our country was founded on. Third, we have the politicians/government which either plays the two other sides off of each other for more votes, or tries not to broach the issue at all in fear of losing votes.
So where do I fit in all of this? My views are simple and pragmatic. I believe that there is no reason that my religious views and political ones should contradict each other in any way. Rules are there for a reason and frankly the rules of the Bible and of our country have no reason to contradict each other. As a Christian I believe that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin, plain and simple. I also believe that marriage is an institution created and ordained by God. This, in simple terms, means that the government, federal or local, has no right to be in the business of marriage. Our country has vowed a separation of church and state. Therefore, the state should extricate itself from having anything to do with marriage.
Now this presents us with a problem, especially for a society as legalistic as ours. The government has to have some legal way to bind two people together for several reasons, medical, financial, etc. This, I believe, has only one real solution: civil unions for everyone, not just gay couples. There would be no more marriage certificates, because as stated above, the government should not be in the business of the church. In other words, the government makes no distinction as to who the married couple is. A civil union is nothing more than a way for the government to recognize a legal bond or contract between two people. This also has the nice side affect of getting it out of religious affairs, i.e. certifying marriages that take place in the church.
So what happens now is that a couple wants to get married. They are then married by a priest, and then also have to sign a marriage certificate. Instead, what the above would mean is that people who choose to be married spiritually are done so by their priest. The government would not recognize this type of bond, because it is a religious marriage, not a legal one. The couple would then sign a civil union certification. This would be the bond that the government oversees, and one that guarantees all citizens equal treatment under the law.
Now civil unions are obviously not a new concept, so why do I bring them up now? The problem is that civil unions were made as a shoe horn to give gay couples the legal rights they are entitled to as U.S citizens. It doesn’t really answer the age old question of what power should the church have, and what power the state should have. Well, my version of civil unions is different from the one before because of how the issue is framed and dealt with. While the name remains the same, the idea is completely separate.
1. No more marriage certifications. (Gets the government out of marriage completely)
2. Civil unions are applied to everyone equally, not just gay couples. (Puts government in proper perspective to church to the benefit of both parties)
3. Churches decide who they spiritually marry. (The government doesn’t care because it’s a spiritual matter and they don’t recognize that a spiritual marriage has any affect on the legal standing of that couple.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)