Showing posts with label executive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label executive. Show all posts
Talk about a warped view of reality. I just read Dana Goldstein's article about the Department of Education and how the Tea Party is out to destroy education reform.

Ms. Goldstein writes about "the latest small gov't fad" that could have a devastating effect on reform. Nevermind the fact that the Department of Education has been influencing and controlling our schools for ages. Forget about the reality that in the past couple decades we've seen federal influence on our schools increase while the quality of education has decreased. Put logic and reason out of your mind and just increase the scope of federal influence over education...it hasn't worked in current doses so just up the prescription!

The Dept. or Ed has shown its uselessness and its time we all wake up to the realization that our nation's school crisis needs to be addressed on local, city, and state levels, catering to the specific needs of specific school districts. Don't believe me? Look at homeschooling success rates and the success of Charter schools, like Harlem Children's Zone.

Ms. Goldstein's article is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on The Daily Beast. The author refers to recent popularity for small gov't as "the latest small gov't fad"? A fad...really? How about that 200 year old document called the Constitution of the United States, which contains the 10th Amendment? Perhaps she hasn't read it and therefore doesn't know the 10th Amendment grants states the right to govern themselves in regard to things like education.

The author refers to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fact that the U.S. and Somalia are the only two nations that have not signed on...but who cares which nations have signed it? In the U.S., again, we follow this thing called the Constitution. We should refer to that document for guidance and not the whims of other nations. Maybe Ms. Goldstein should spend more time reading this nation's founding documents rather than focusing on U.N. conventions?

She also referred to parental rights by placing the phrase in quotations...so is she trying to suggest the right to raise your child as you see fit is not a legitimate right?

Naturally, Ms. Goldstein has not failed to use classist divisiveness. What's her point regarding a statistic that successfully home schooled students come from more affluent families? Should these more affluent families not have the right to teach their children in a successful style simply because other families can't afford the same method? When do successful families stop being punished for their success?

How a parent raises a child - including educating that child - is a personal decision. Our public school systems are a mess and nobody denies that reform is necessary but I hardly think more federal oversight is the reform we need. Federal oversight hasn't helped so far, why would any logical person think MORE federal oversight will do the trick? To spin the Tea Party's concern for a failing education system as an attempt to destroy reform is absolutely incredulous. The fact is, when compared to other developed nations, with federal oversight of our education system we've managed to rank 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. Federal government has proven it is a failure at education reform and our kids can't afford to give them another chance.

The Internet is one of the most incredible examples of what happens when you leave the marketplace to its own devices. Left untouched by government regulations, the internet has transformed every aspect of life, from education to business to how we communicate as a society. Nobody could have predicted just how important and world changing the internet would be, including those in government. Why, then, is the F.C.C. prepared to argue that government interference of the internet is necessary to guarantee continued innovation?

Julian Genachowski, Chairman of the F.C.C., claims that in order to prevent freedom of the internet from being stolen, the government must seize control of it. He is currently hard at work on a regulatory order that amounts to yet another power grab by big government, this time claiming authority over the internet. Dubbed “Net Neutrality,” the regulatory plan is anything but neutral. It is not neutral on the issue of commerce. It is not neutral on the issue of private property. It is not neutral on the issue of liberty.

Genachowski’s policy would forbid Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from blocking the content they choose to block. The F.C.C. claims this is to prevent censorship but that becomes a suspicious defense when you look at the bigger picture. In 2008, The F.C.C. found cable giant Comcast to be in violation of federal internet policy because they blocked their customers’ access to information from the peer-to-peer service, BitTorrent. Comcast brought the case to a U.S. Court of Appeals and won on the grounds that the agency had no authority over how Comcast manages their business. The F.C.C.’s issue with Comcast was the fact that the company blocked, or censored, use of the file-sharing site, yet just last week the federal government shut down the domains of multiple peer-to-peer sites, a significantly more censoring move than anything Comcast engaged in. What we can glean from this is not that the F.C.C. is aiming at preventing censorship but that they want to be the censors. Referring to an internet free of regulations, Genachowski says, “There are real risks to the Internet’s continued freedom and openness.” In fact, the only real threat to the internet’s continued freedom is the government. It is only government that has the power to censor. A private ISP can certainly choose what kind of internet access it offers customers but they can’t do anything to prevent those users from taking their business to other providers. A free marketplace allows for competition, and competitors will be happy to offer an internet service that gives consumers what they want in exchange for their cash.

To make the policy seem fair, Genachowski points out that the F.C.C. “would allow” ISP providers to tier their pricing based on usage. It “would allow” broadband providers to decide what rates they charge. It “would allow” providers to manage their traffic. It “would allow” them to experiment with specialized services such as a medical, legal, or security specific superhighway…so long as the ISP company can provide justification for the business venture. I have one question for the Chairman: “Why do ISP companies need government permission to develop their business model as they choose?” Genachowski wants to create transparency rules, requiring ISPs to disclose the way they manage their business and he wants to monitor “anti-competitive” and “anti-consumer” behavior. Anyone who doesn’t understand that the market, itself, monitors competition and consumer behavior should play absolutely no role in overseeing a business model of any kind.

Mr. Genachowski is working on this monstrosity of a regulation right now. He plans to finalize it and bring it up for a vote at the commission’s next meeting, scheduled for December 21st. You should begin contacting your elected officials now, letting them know you stand firmly opposed to net neutrality and that they should, too. You can be sure I’ll be calling Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) urging them to oppose this sort of regulation should they be faced with a vote in the future.