FCC disappointment on broadband

Tim Karr of Free Press reports that the FCC's newly released broadband plan is severely lacking on some of the most pressing issues:

Judging from the back-slapping and high fives over at the FCC, you’d think that America’s Internet was sailing smoothly into the future. Think again.

With much fanfare on Tuesday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski delivered the National Broadband Plan to Congress, saying it will help make Internet access faster and cheaper for everyone in the United States. Getting more people connected to high-speed Internet -- from the 65 percent currently online up to 90 percent of households by the year 2020 -- is Job One, according to Genachowski.

There are a lot of good things in the plan’s 376 pages, including pledges to reform the Universal Service Fund and to re-allocate spectrum for broadband. But the plan glosses over some of thorniest problems plaguing U.S. Internet users: high prices, slow speeds and a lack of choices among providers.

Internet access in America is held captive by powerful phone and cable interests. And regardless of what the laissez-faire editors at the Wall Street Journal think, doing nothing to protect people from getting ripped off is not an option.

I haven't yet reviewed the FCC plan, but this report concerns me--Free Press is a highly trusted source regarding media reform. Once again, it appears that the needs of individual citizens are about to take the back seat to corporate interests.

Continue ReadingFCC disappointment on broadband

Using the U.S. census as a teachable moment

I received my census form in the mail today. I don't generally think twice about it - I understand why the government needs this information to allocate representation, funding, etc. But the insert caught my eye: the Census Bureau took the time to tell me that I don't need to worry about what they're going to do with my personal information. It is, after all, protected by law. Here's an excerpt from the Census Bureau website:

We depend on your cooperation and trust, and promise to protect the confidentiality of your information. Title 13 of the U.S. Code protects the confidentiality of all your information and violating this law is a crime with severe penalties. In addition, other federal laws, including the Confidential Statistical Efficiency Act and the Privacy Act reinforce these protections.
Obviously the Census Bureau considers these assurances regarding the legal protection of privacy to be crucial to getting honest answers. I'm not surprised - the information could certainly be used to identify likely tax evasion, immigration status, even occupancy codes. It is very sensitive information in its raw, unaggregated form. This isn't my first census form. I've had the opportunity to participate in the previous two censuses. But for me, for the first time, I am not reassured by their claim. After all, I'm pretty sure that warrant-less wiretaps are illegal too. As is torture - isn't it? I believe the evidence is strong that our government has authorized or allowed both activities. Certainly it was necessary to pass legislation giving telecommunications companies immunity from prosecution for participating in wiretaps. I'm no legal expert but to this citizen that means that the wiretaps are acknowledged to be illegal - we just won't do anything about it. So, how can I have any faith that the Census Bureau would live up to it's claims? How can anyone? But it's an opportunity. This is one of those "teachable moments" that a parent, or teacher would apply to an unruly child. What more natural consequence could there be for lawless behavior by the government than to say "You know what? I won't tell you that information because I don't trust you to act in good faith with it." The census, as an opportunity for civil feedback, is a perfect time to teach that lesson. I only wish that it could be recognized as civil feedback instead of the apathy that it would undoubtedly be labeled as.

Continue ReadingUsing the U.S. census as a teachable moment

Dangerous Intersection is 4 years old!

Back on February 21, 2006, I created the first post for Dangerous Intersection. Somehow, it got to be 4 years later all too quickly. Since that first post, DI authors have now published 3,840 posts. And many of you have created one or more of those 18,913 comments that you can still read at the site (all of our posts and comments are available at DI). Our traffic indicates that we're not small and we're not big (yet). We typically get about 140,000 visitors per month (about 5,000/day-- 1.7 million visitors over the past 12 months), including about 85,000 monthly unique visitors. Over the past 12 months, we dished out more than 7 million pages. Quantity doesn't mean much, in and of itself, of course. But I'd like to think that those of us who have participated in the writing and reading at this site have also learned some important things along the way, along with more than a few laughs. I'd also like to think that DI offers some perspectives that you don't find in most other places, and that we have contributed to the blogosphere and beyond in a significant way. My plan is to carry on, to learn from past mistakes and to make the site better in the future. One thing I've learned during the past few months is that digging into the news cycle too hard and too often can bring me way down, and that's not good for anyone. Therefore, when I'm feeling a paroxysm of cynicism in the future, I will make sure that I pull out of the news cycle for awhile in order to detoxify (thanks, to Ebonmuse for the encouragement and the terminology). In the future, I will also try harder to think of a take-away for those posts that concern ignorance, corruption and incompetence. It's not that we're going to solve society's big problems quickly--most of the time, it's going to be about baby steps if we see any progress at all. That's not going to be an easy task to present a take-action to every one of society's woes, but I'm going to give it more effort. The ultimate goal should be to figure out how to make some real-life progress whenever we identify social dysfunction. I'd like to give thanks to each of the authors, Mark, Brynn, Mindy, Dan, Erika, Mike, Lisa, Ebonmuse, Tony, Tim, Zoevinly, Grumpy, Hank and all the rest for provoking us with your postings and musings. And I really need to thank all of our comment-writers of whom there have been so incredibly many thoughtful people who have offered their own writings to keep the DI authors honest (special commendation to Niklaus). Yet I do know that there are many of you out there who read but don't write--thank you so much for visiting! Maybe this will be the year that you jump in and write your first comment (remember that you can do so anonymously, if you wish--many comments are anonymous). Almost all of the submitted comments get published (I even publish some of the comments that tell me that I'm going to go to hell!). If nothing else, post a comment to this post just to say hello and join in this modest fourth year celebration. I would ask for two little favors. If you know someone who might enjoy the kinds of writing you find at this site, please consider sending our home page link to them. Equally important, if a particular post seems well-written to you, please do follow the green-colored directions on the right side of the page and recommend that post to one or more social sites (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Digg, StumbleUpon). Doing this really kicks up the traffic. It brings a wider (and hopefully a more diverse) audience to the site, which can benefit all of us thanks to more diverse comments. A larger audience would also help me to pay for the hosting costs and the other expense of running this site. I'll be candid. My hosting costs $100/month, and I'm extremely happy with it (thanks, Josh). The ads you see on the site recoup about 75% of that cost. It would be nice to break even financially, and that's my main financial goal here. BTW - none of the authors is paid. None of us has made a cent from writing at this site. All of us have day jobs--writing for DI is purely a labor of love. My overall goal is to present information and opinions that you can trust, but that also challenge you, even though you might disagree with us. In fact, when I tell people on the street about DI, I tell them to visit the site and to comment "especially if you disagree with us." One of my favorite in-person comments came from a well-accomplished lawyer who was also extremely conservative. He said, "Erich, I sometimes visit your site. It is fascinating and well-written. But I disagree with almost everything you say." That comment was a prelude to a good conversation over lunch--this kind of comment often is the beginning of something interesting. I'll end this "happy birthday" post by suggesting that I love to get email with interesting links. I know that this is true of all of the authors. If you find an good link, do write to us and you'll likely see it published at DI. Many of our email addresses can be found at the "About" page. Considerable amounts of the links you see here have been recommended by our readers. My own email address is erichvieth@gmail.com (You can also hit the "Contact" link at the top menu). If you want to reach one of the other authors, but you don't see their email addresses, send me an email and I'll pass it on. Once again, thank you. It has been a privilege to write as part of this thoughtful, iconoclastic and kind-hearted community.

Continue ReadingDangerous Intersection is 4 years old!

Welcome to Prom Night

Constance McMillen wanted to go to her high school prom. Like most students in the United States, she doubtless saw the event as the capstone of four years of effort, a gala event for students that represents a reward for getting to the end of their senior year and, presumably, graduating not only from high school but into adulthood. One night of glamor and revelry, dressed at a level of style and affluence many might never indulge again, to celebrate the matriculation into the next level of independence. A party where students can show themselves—to their peers and to themselves—as adults. It has become something more, probably, than it was ever intended to be. Patterned after high society “debuts” at which young ladies of good breeding (and potential wealth) are introduced to Society (with a capital “S”) in a manner that, when stripped of its finery and fashionable gloss, is really a very expensive dating service, with the idea of creating future matches between “suitable” couples, the high school prom is a showcase, a public demonstration of, presumably, the virtues of a graduating class. Over the last few decades, even the less well-off schools strive to shine in what a prom achieves. Instead of a local band in the high school gym, with bunting and streamers and colored lights to “hide” the fact that normally gym class and basketball are performed in this room, the prom has become elevated to a decent hotel with a ball room, a better-priced band (or a DJ), and all the attributes of a night on the town in Hollywood. Tuxedos and gowns are de rigueur and students’ families spare no expense to deck their children out in clothes they really often can’t afford. Limousines transport the budding fashionistas and their knights errant to the evening’s festivities and you know this cost a fortune. Students may be forgiven for believing that it’s for them. In its crudest terms, the prom is for the community, a self-congratulatory demonstration of how well the community believes it has done by its youth. It is a statement about what that community would like to see itself as.

Continue ReadingWelcome to Prom Night

Talking about God is no longer religious

In the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that talking about "God" is not religious talk. The case was brought on behalf of an atheist public school student who was required to recite the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the phrase "under God." The Majority Opinion holds that the phrase “under God” in the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance is not a personal affirmation of the speaker’s belief in God. Further, the Majority plays a shell game, pretending that is is required to analyze the entire Pledge (which it finds to be primarily patriotic) rather than having the courage to look at the offending phrase "under God," which was added by Congress in 1954, during America's McCarthyite period. Here's the Majority's shell game in action (from p. 3877):

We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge—its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase “one Nation under God” does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.
I will emphasize points raised by the Dissent because the Dissent is coherent and honest, in contrast with the disingenuous Majority opinion. The Dissent begins at page 3930 with an elaborate table of contents. Don't trust me on any of these points: read the opinion for yourself and you'll see that I'm not exaggerating in the least. What are the facts of the case? I’ll refer to the case description given by Judge Reinhardt’s Dissent (from page 3976):

When the five-year-old Roe child arrived for her first day of kindergarten, her teacher, a state employee, asked the young students to stand, to place their hands on their hearts, and to pledge their allegiance to “one nation, under God.” Neither young Roe nor her mother, however, believe in God. Thus, having already learned that she should not tell a lie, young Roe simply stood silently, as her classmates recited in unison the version of the Pledge that requires its proponents to express their belief in God. Everyday thereafter, the children filed into school, and each morning they recited an oath of allegiance to “one nation, under God” — an oath that undeniably “requires affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind” to which young Roe does not subscribe: a belief that God exists and is watching over our nation. Cf. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633 (1943). For eight months, the five-year-old Roe faced, every morning, the daily “dilemma of participating” in the amended Pledge, with all that implies about her religious beliefs, or of being cast as a protester for her silent refusal. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 593 (1992). On some days she quietly endured the gaze of her teacher and her classmates as she refused to say the Pledge, standing in silence as the classroom’s lone dissenter; on others she walked out of the room and stood in the hallway by herself, physically removed from the religious “adherents” — the “favored members of the [classroom] community,” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000), who were able to swear their fealty to the United States without simultaneously espousing a state-sponsored belief in God that was antithetical to their personal religious views. In April, 2005, Jan Roe filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and her child. Her claim is straightforward: The Constitution of the United States, a nation founded by exiles who crossed an ocean in search of freedom from state-imposed religious beliefs, prohibits the purposefully designed, teacherled, state-sponsored daily indoctrination of her child with a religious belief that both she and her daughter reject.

The Majority Opinion also blunders by incorrectly stating that “under God” is not a religious phrase because it was not allegedly not inserted in the Pledge for religious reasons. The Majority Opinion makes the laughable claim that the phrase “under God” is simply “a reference to the historical and political underpinnings of our nation,” and that its purpose is to remind us that our government is a “limited government.” The Dissent responded to this point at page 3931:

Were this a case to be decided on the basis of the law or the Constitution, the outcome would be clear. Under no sound legal analysis adhering to binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the “under God” version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools. It is not the recitation of the Pledge as it long endured that is at issue here, but its recitation with the congressionally added two words, “under God” — words added in 1954 for the specific religious purpose, among others, of indoctrinating public schoolchildren with a religious belief. The recitations of the amended version as conducted by the Rio Linda Union and other school districts fail all three of the Court’s Establishment Clause tests.

Was the phrase "under God" added to the Pledge in 1954 for religious reasons? There is no doubt about this. The idea to insert “under God” began in the pews of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church—The Dissent provides loads of citations and details (see, for example, p. 3944). How did the phrase “under God” get into the Pledge? Congress inserted it in 1954. On page 3957 of the opinion, the Dissent presents the all-telling details. The Dissent explains starting at page 4008:

Not only was the message underlying the new Pledge clear — “true” Americans believe in God and non-believers are decisively un-American — but so too was its intended audience: America’s schoolchildren.

The legislators who set out to insert the words “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance were fully aware that in 1954 the original Pledge was a commonplace scholastic ritual. Indeed, a primary rationale for inserting the explicitly religious language into the Pledge of Allegiance, as opposed to into some other national symbol or verse, was that the Pledge was an ideal vehicle for the indoctrination of the country’s youth. The amendment’s chief proponents in Congress were not at all bashful about their intentions. Speaking from the well of the Senate, Senator Wiley endorsed the bill by saying, “What better training for our youngsters could there be than to have them, each time they pledge allegiance to Old Glory, reassert their belief, like that of their fathers and their fathers before them, in the all-present, all-knowing, all-seeing, allpowerful Creator.” Id. at 5915 (emphases added). Senator Ferguson, who authored the Senate bill, agreed that “we should remind the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, and the other young people of America, who take [the] pledge of allegiance to the flag more often than do adults, that it is not only a pledge of words but also of belief.” Id. at 6348 (emphasis added). In the House, Congressman Rabaut, the original author of the first bill to amend the Pledge, declared that “from their earliest childhood our children must know the real meaning of America,” a country whose “way of life . . . sees man as a sentient being created by God and seeking to know His will.” Id. at 1700 (emphases added). His colleague, Congressman Angell, argued that “the schoolchildren of America” should understand that the Pledge of Allegiance “pledge[s] our allegiance and faith in the Almighty God.”

In conclusion:

An examination of that text and the plain meaning of its words clearly reveals the explicitly religious purpose motivating the amendment to the Pledge. The words “under God” are undeniably religious, and the addition to the Pledge of Allegiance of words with so plain a religious meaning cannot be said, simply because it might assist the majority in obtaining its objective, to be for a purpose that is predominantly secular. The words certainly were not inserted for the purpose of “reinforc[ing] the idea that our nation is founded upon the concept of a limited government.” As I have stated earlier in this dissent and as I reiterate here, the suggestion by the majority that the purpose of inserting the phrase “under God” into the Pledge was to remind us that we have a “limited government” finds no support in the record and is wholly without merit.

And why is it that the Majority Opinion is pretending that this case is about the effect of the entire Pledge rather than the two-word phrase that is clearly at issue? To avoid the obvious. Here's what would have followed from honest and competent jurisprudence (again, this is from the Dissent):

[The earlier U.S. Supreme Court case of Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1984)] explicitly requires us to compare the original statute to the amended form and to examine what the amendment has added. Where the addition is religious, the addition must be invalidated. Here, Wallace unquestionably requires us to strike down as unconstitutional the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation of the “under God” language in the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools. Omitting the two words added by the 1954 amendment and returning to the recitation of the secular version of the Pledge that was used in public schools for decades prior to the adoption of the amendment would cure the violation of the Establishment Clause at issue here.

Newdow v. Rio Linda would seem to suggest two things to those who take the logic of the Majority Opinion seriously. First of all, stare decisis is the sacred foundation of our entire legal system--except when it is not (for instance, when the Newdow Court intentionally skates around the Wallace decision), and that the principle of stare decisis can be cavalierly switched on and off by an appellate judge. Second, it’s time to revoke the tax-exempt status of all churches that talk about “God” because such talk is no longer religious. The bottom line, though, is that Newdow is simply the latest in a long line of dishonest Pledge of Allegiance decisions. For example, see this earlier post on the federal district court case of Freedom from Religion Foundation v. The Hanover School District, where the Court claimed that making the children recite the Pledge each day is for the purpose of "teaching them history."

Continue ReadingTalking about God is no longer religious