Net Neutrality Threatened By Court Decision

Image via Wikipedia

Published on Sunday, April 11, 2010 by Women's International Perspective
The Battle for Net Neutrality: Corporate Takeover or Opportunity?

by Megan Tady

On Tuesday, April 6th a federal court decision put the Internet, and your ability to use it, in jeopardy. It's a major setback for free speech online and for the prospects of connecting the entire country to broadband.

The Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacks the current authority to enforce rules that keep Internet service providers from blocking and controlling Internet traffic - a principle called Net Neutrality.

The court ruled in favor of the Internet service provider Comcast, which was caught blocking the file sharing service BitTorrent in 2007 and contested the FCC's attempts to stop the company. The decision makes it nearly impossible for the FCC to follow through with plans to create strong Net Neutrality protections that keep the Internet out of the hands of corporations. Additionally, without authority over broadband, the FCC could be unable to implement portions of its just released National Broadband Plan designed to bridge the digital divide.

Millions of Internet users don't realize that a battle over the future of the Internet is being played out right now in Washington D.C. On one side are public interest and consumer groups, small businesses, Internet entrepreneurs, librarians, civil libertarians and civil rights groups. They want to preserve the Internet as it is - the last remaining open communications platform where anyone with access and a computer can create and consume online content. The principle of "Network Neutrality" is what makes this open communications possible. Net Neutrality is what allows us to go wherever we want online.

In a message to members of the organization ColorofChange.org, Director James Rucker stressed the importance of Net Neutrality for voices, perspectives, and communities traditionally marginalized and ignored. "For Black folks, [Net Neutrality] is crucial," he writes. "For the first time in history we can communicate with a global audience - for entertainment, education, or political organizing - without prohibitive costs, or mediation by gatekeepers in government or industry."

On the other side of this battle are the Internet service providers who want to dismantle Net Neutrality. Not only do they want to provide Internet service, but they want to be able to charge users to prioritize their content, effectively giving the Internet service providers the ability to choose which content on the Web loads fast, slow, or not at all.

The foundation for the Net Neutrality battle began in 2002 with the Bush FCC reclassifying broadband as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service." This was a huge blow to Internet protections like Net Neutrality because the FCC doesn't have the same regulatory oversight over information services that it has over telecommunications services.

It is this classification loophole, coupled with the D.C. Circuit's decision, that let Comcast wiggle out from under the FCC's thumb and convince the courts that the FCC has no business clamping down on their Net Neutrality violations. And it is this loophole that will make the FCC powerless when it comes to achieving many of the objectives set out in the Obama administration's national broadband plan to provide high speed Internet access to rural America.

The FCC can resurrect its power by changing broadband back to a "telecommunications service." Reclassifying broadband will make these questions about FCC authority obsolete, allowing the agency to get back to the important work of protecting free speech online and bridging the digital divide.

While this fix may seem simple, it will take political courage from the FCC and Chairman Julius Genachowski to do the right thing. The telecom industry will be hammering the FCC with pressure to keep broadband a lawless land in order to deepen their control and enormous profits. At the same time, concerned Americans are encouraging the FCC to protect Net Neutrality and the national broadband plan.

Free Press Director Josh Silver reminded the public what's at stake during an interview Wednesday on Democracy Now! "People have to remember, all media-television, radio, phone service-every type of media other than the printed page, will soon be delivered by a broadband or Internet connection."

Like me, you love the Internet. It takes you where you want to go. Frustrated with mainstream media you have found alternative news and information online, like this very site. You turn on your computer and you're connected to the world. Our relationship with the phone and cable companies should stop when we pay for our Internet service. These companies should not be able to block, control, or interfere with what we search for or create online. Nor should they be able to prioritize some content over others.

Let's hope the court just handed the FCC the best opportunity to make a systemic change to how they oversee our nation's primary communications platform, and their ability to stop the corporate takeover of the Internet once and for all.
© 2010 Women's International Perspective

Megan Tady is Campaign Coordinator for Free Press. Prior to joining Free Press, Megan was a national political reporter for In These Times, The New Standard, and worked extensively as a freelance journalist.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FCC pursues broadband agenda in spite of legal setback (macworld.com)
• Court Favors Comcast in F.C.C. 'Net Neutrality' Ruling (nytimes.com)
• Net neutrality takes a hit in court (americablog.com)
• Court says FCC can't impose network neutrality (sfgate.com)
• Court says FCC can't impose network neutrality (sfgate.com)
• Court rules FCC doesn't have authority to impose net neutrality (engadget.com)
• FCC can't enforce net neutrality: court (cbc.ca)
• The FCC must act quickly to regulate broadband companies, (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• "Net Neutrality" Suffers Setback in Court (lockergnome.com)
• D.C. Circuit Quietly Ruins the Internet for Everybody (abovethelaw.com)

Scientific Argument Against Evolution Lacks Science

Image via Wikipedia

Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.

Founder, The Clergy Letter Project
Posted: April 9, 2010 11:09 AM


The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution


The Discovery Institute (DI) isn't impressed with what I've been writing for The Huffington Post.

On 3 April 2010, DI posted a piece on their website that claimed that "Michael Zimmerman ignores the science that challenges evolution." Written by attorney Casey Luskin, the article was an attack on my essay saying that the evolution/creation controversy was not a battle between religion and science but between various religious perspectives.

Despite there being more fundamentalist ministers than you can shake a stick at who repeatedly claim that people must choose between religion and evolution, Luskin makes the preposterous argument that the "controversy" should be seen solely as a scientific one! Religion, he claims, has nothing to do with the ever-present attacks on evolution.

Let's look at both of his absurd claims, and then let's look a bit more closely at the Discovery Institute itself. You may remember Pat Robertson warning the good people of Dover, Pennsylvania, when they threw out the school board members who required that intelligent design be taught in their schools, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city."

Or you may remember Robertson saying that "the evolutionists worship atheism. I mean, that's their religion."

Or perhaps Albert Mohler's comments in Time, will come to mind: "You cannot coherently affirm the Christian-truth claim and the dominant model of evolutionary theory at the same time." In case you don't remember, let me remind you that Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I could go on ad nauseam, providing you with similar quotes from high-profile fundamentalist clergy members, but I see no need to do so; clearly these folks regularly claim that they cannot accept evolutionary theory on religious grounds. I have no problem with these people saying what they believe, but I am completely opposed to them implying that all who are religious must agree with them. As I've said so often, the very existence of The Clergy Letter Project and the more than 13,000 clergy members who have affirmed that they are fully comfortable with both their faith and evolution makes a mockery of such ridiculous claims.

Despite what Luskin asserts, those promoting one narrow religious perspective are entirely responsible for the ongoing evolution/creation controversy.

What about his contention that I've ignored "the science that challenges evolution?" I'm sorry to be so blunt, but there's simply no way to be polite about this: his claim is utter garbage. And he must know it because he doesn't direct his readers to a single piece of scientific evidence supporting his charge.

Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts extending, testing, and refining evolutionary theory are published each and every year, but there aren't any calling the basic premise of the theory into question. And yet Luskin has the nerve to say that there is "overwhelming evidence" of a "scientific controversy about the importance of evolutionary theory."

Luskin does go out of his way to praise the Texas State Board of Education for their recent stance on evolution, a stance that was in conflict with the recommendations offered by their own experts and which has been widely criticized by scientific and educational groups.

What's going on here? Why is Luskin, on behalf of the Discovery Institute, so eager to publish such absurd statements? Not surprisingly, it all comes down to religion and money. The Discovery Institute and its main supporters, supporters who have pumped millions of dollars into their efforts, want to remake both science and the United States into their religious image.

As both Steve Benen and Max Blumenthal have shown, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., one of DI's biggest donors, has expressed extreme views about the role religion should play in America. And that's putting it mildly, since he's said, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives." He's also helped bankroll the Christian Reconstructionism movement, a group that, according to Benen, "seeks to replace American democracy with a harsh fundamentalist theocracy."

As frightening as all of this might be, it is fully consistent with the reason the Discovery Institute gives for attacking evolution and promoting "intelligent design": "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Luskin and his DI colleagues have created a well-funded public relations machine which they use relentlessly to mislead the public about evolution and to encourage school boards and state legislatures to take steps to destroy high-quality science education. They get what seems to be unlimited air time on Fox to promote their dangerous message.

Interestingly, for a group that pretends to be about openness and professes to want to look at all sides of the issue, the pieces they post on their site permit no comments. Instead, they attack me and expect that theirs will be the last words -- as incorrect as they are. But here on The Huffington Post, readers who form a robust community will have the last words. Those words may well demonstrate exactly what the Discovery Institute is all about and how offensive most people find their actions.

Related articles by Zemanta

• US Geneticist Wins $1.5 Million Religion Prize (huffingtonpost.com)
• Why Does the Discovery Institute Hate America? (washblog.com)
• A Brief Report On The Finances of The World-Controlling Atheist Cabal (randi.org)
• Clay Farris Naff: Praying For Darwin: Hundreds Of Congregations Set To Celebrate Evolution Weekend (huffingtonpost.com)
• Calif. Science Center Sued For Nixing Intelligent Design Film (blogs.wsj.com)
• Surprise! Morons who hate Darwin also hate Al Gore (trueslant.com)
• Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Profiles in (Evolutionary) Courage: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin (huffingtonpost.com)
• New Fossils Fit Evolutionary Gap From Apes To Humans (huffingtonpost.com)

Extra Risk and Cost Associated With French Nuclear Approach

Image via Wikipedia

French-Style Nuclear Reprocessing Will Not Solve U.S. Nuclear Waste Problems
France Uses Less than 1 Percent of the Natural Uranium Resource, Has Higher Waste Volume; Reprocessing Still Requires a Repository and Increases Costs, Proliferation Risks

TAKOMA PARK, Md. - April 8 - Contrary to some prevailing opinion, reprocessing would not eliminate the need for a deep geologic disposal program to replace Yucca Mountain. It aggravates waste, proliferation, and cost problems. The volume of waste to be disposed of in deep geologic repository is increased about six times on a life-cycle basis in the French approach compared to the once-through no-reprocessing approach of the United States.

A new report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), a nonprofit scientific research group, shows that France uses less than 1 percent of the natural uranium resource, contrary to an impression among some policy makers. The report has several recommendations for President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, which was created to address U.S. nuclear waste issues after the administration's cancellation of the Yucca Mountain program.

IEER President Dr. Arjun Makhijani, the author of the report: "In recent years, a 'French fever' has gripped the promoters of nuclear power in the United States. Praise of France's management of spent fuel by reprocessing, including its use of the extracted plutonium as fuel in its nuclear power reactors, is now routinely heard. But it is a fantasy on the scale of the 1950s "too cheap to meter" mythology about nuclear power to imagine that 90 or 95 percent of the "energy value" of U.S. spent fuel can be extracted by reprocessing."

Key IEER report findings include the following:

* On a life-cycle basis, French-style reprocessing and recycle increases the volume of waste that would have to disposed of in a geologic repository. Reprocessing results in high-level radioactive waste and large volumes of Greater than Class C waste, both of which must be managed by deep geologic disposal. Their combined volume on a life-cycle basis is estimated to be about six times more than the no-reprocessing approach that is current U.S. policy, according to Department of Energy estimates. Low-level waste volume and waste transportation shipments are also estimated to increase several-fold.
* France spends about two cents per kilowatt-hour more for electricity generated from reprocessed plutonium compared to that generated from fresh uranium fuel.
* Attempting to combined reprocessing with breeder reactors to convert uranium in U.S. spent fuel in plutonium will create intolerable costs and risks. Reprocessing plus breeder reactors are much more expensive than light water reactors today, which are themselves expensive. Such a system is required to convert most of the uranium in spent fuel into a reactor fuel. Even a single penny in excess generation cost per kilowatt-hour in a breeder reactor-reprocessing system would lead to an added $8 trillion in costs to convert nearly all of the uranium in the 100,000 metric tons of U.S. spent into usable fuel. It would take hundreds of years to accomplish the task and require separation of tens of thousands of bombs equivalent of fissile material each year. The proliferation risks will be far greater than today.
* Adoption of French-style reprocessing program would not eliminate the need for a deep geologic repository. Even complete fissioning of all actinides - an unrealistic proposition - will leave behind large amounts of very long-lived fission and activation products like iodine-129, cesium-135, and chlorine-36 that will pose risks far into the future -- much beyond the 24,100-year half-life of plutonium-239. In fact, France needs a geologic repository and opposition to one has been intense there. The French appear to dislike nuclear waste in their backyards as much as people in the United States.
* Proliferation risks are inherently part of the French (and any other) approach to reprocessing. Even advanced reprocessing technologies will not significantly reduce proliferation risks. For instance a study authored by scientists from DOE laboratories, including Los Alamos and Sandia, concluded that it would take only a few days or a few weeks for proliferant country to make material for nuclear bombs once it had reprocessing plants. It found that new technologies, including electrometallurgical processing, resulted in "only a modest improvement in reducing proliferation risk over existing PUREX technologies and these modest improvements apply primarily for non-state actors." The IEER report concluded that electrometallurgical increases risks in other ways. For instance, it is far less difficult to conceal a plant than the present PUREX technology.

Other key findings include the following:

* Six decades of sodium cooled breeder reactor development has so far resulted in failure. Historical experience indicates no learning curve for the sodium cooled fast breeder reactor, which is the breeder technology that has received the most development. In fact, the two most recent large scale demonstration reactors, Superphénix in France and Monju in Japan, have been failures. Superphénix had a cumulative capacity factor of less than 8 percent before it was shut. Monju has been closed for almost 15 years, following a sodium fire, and has not generated a significant amount of electricity. Sodium cooled breeder reactors are not commercial today despite global expenditures on the order of $100 billion over six decades. They face a host of safety, proliferation and cost hurdles to overcome, some arising from the fact that they use liquid sodium for cooling. They are unlikely to be commercial in the near future. For instance, Japan's estimated date for commercialization of the sodium cooled fast breeder is 2050.
* Storage of liquid high-level wastes creates some risk of catastrophic releases of radioactivity. For instance, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority has estimated that a severe accident at the liquid waste storage facility in Sellafield, Britain, could result in cesium-137 contamination between 10 percent and 5,000 percent of that created in Norway by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident, which is the worst commercial accident to date, by far. A catastrophic release of radioactivity from a military high-level waste tank occurred in the Soviet Union in 1957.
* Using more than 1 percent of the uranium resource in a light water reactor system is technically impossible even with reprocessing and re-enrichment. In light water reactor systems, almost all the uranium resource winds up as depleted uranium or in spent fuel. Even with repeated reprocessing and re-enrichment, use of the natural uranium resource cannot be increased to more than 1 percent in such a system. A corollary is that the use of 90 to 95 percent of the uranium resource or of the material in the spent fuel is impossible in a light water reactor system even with reprocessing.

These are physical constraints that go with the system and also apply to France's system.

The IEER report also sets out a number of recommendations for the Blue Ribbon Commission on

America's Nuclear Future appointed by Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

* Spent fuel from existing reactors should be slated for direct geologic disposal without reprocessing of any kind; a suitable path for a scientifically sound program should be set forth.
* In the interim, spent fuel should be stored on site as safely as possible - in low density configurations while in pools and in hardened storage when moved to dry casks.
* Breeder reactors and reprocessing are not commercial after six decades of development of sodium cooled breeder reactors, and enormous expenditures. Given the long time frame for commercialization estimated even by some promoters, the proliferation risks, and efforts already made, it does not appear to be a good investment to spend more R&D money in that direction. Rather energy supply R&D resources should be focused on development and deployment of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency.
* The Commission should request the French company AREVA and/or the French government to supply it with data on the present use of the natural uranium resource purchased for French nuclear reactors, including, specifically, the increases in fission fraction that have actually been achieved by reprocessing and recycling.
* The Commission should also request official data on Greater than Class C waste equivalent expected to be generated on a life-cycle basis in France, and the total volumes and heat generation of packaged waste expected to be disposed of in a deep geologic repository, including estimates of decommissioning waste.
* The Commission should investigate the public support or lack thereof for repository programs in France and Britain, the countries with the longest history of commercial spent fuel reprocessing.
* The Commission should make the same requests regarding the British reprocessing program.
* Official analyses of the mechanisms, probability, and consequences of large accidental releases of radioactivity to the atmosphere from liquid high-level waste storage in tanks should be requested from the French and British governments.

###

On March 24, 2010, IEER held a news conference to release documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing that the outgoing Bush Administration inked 11th-hour agreements with more than a dozen utilities involving 21 proposed nuclear reactors. As IEER noted, between the output of existing commercial nuclear reactors and the 21 proposed nuclear reactors covered by the agreements quietly signed by the outgoing Bush Administration, the U.S. already has agreed to store enough spent (used) reactor fuel to fill the equivalent of not one, but two, Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste repositories. For more information on the March 24th news event, go to http://216.250.243.12/ieer/032410.cfm.

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research provides policy-makers, journalists, and the public with understandable and accurate scientific and technical information on energy and environmental issues. IEER's aim is to bring scientific excellence to public policy issues in order to promote the democratization of science and a safer, healthier environment.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Nuclear Waste Problem: Where To Put It? (abcnews.go.com)
• Obama shuts down Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• UK returns nuclear waste to Japan (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Robert Alvarez: Five Reasons NOT to Invest in Nuclear Power (huffingtonpost.com)
• U.S., India agree on nuclear-fuel reprocessing (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Failure of Too Big To Fail Banks Hurts Reform

Image via Wikipedia

Published on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
Why We Must Break Up the Banks
Paul Krugman says it isn't necessary – but breaking up financial giants would at least give us hope that things can change

by Dean Baker

It's not often that I disagree with Paul Krugman, but there are occasions where at least one of us is wrong. And the treatment of too big to fail (TBTF) banks is one of them.

Krugman argued in a column last week that breaking up the TBTF banks is not a necessary part of financial reform. Krugman pointed to the example of Canada as a country with a well-regulated financial system. Canada did not experience a financial crisis in 2008 in spite of the fact that five big banks essentially account for the whole of the Canadian banking system. On the other side, Krugman noted that the collapse of large numbers of small banks can also create a crisis, pointing to the chain of bank collapses at the start of the Great Depression.

These are valid points, but to paraphrase Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz: "we're not in Canada anymore." While Canadian banking regulation appears to have been effective thus far (we may want to see how they cope with a yet to deflate housing bubble before pronouncing it a success), Canada is a very different country from the United States. In Canada, they have had universal Medicare for 40 years. As the first President Bush used to say, it is a kinder, gentler, country.

This matters for financial regulation, because there is a level of independence and integrity on the part of the regulators in Canada that does not exist in the United States. The line in Washington is that if you want to talk to someone from Goldman Sachs, call the treasury department.

The close connection between the industry and the regulators matters because regulation will always require judgment calls. It also matters because regulation means limiting bank profits. The regulations are by definition about preventing banks from carrying on lines of business that are profitable.

Going back to the last crisis, our regulators should have cracked down on the junk mortgages that were being issued by the millions to buy homes at bubble-inflated prices. But this would have meant clamping down on banks that were making huge profits issuing the loans. It also would have meant clamping down on the investment banks that were making huge profits packaging them into securities and selling these securities all over the world.

To take an even more extreme case, the recent analysis of the Lehman bankruptcy showed that New York Federal Reserve Bank helped to hide Lehman's insolvency for months. It accepted Lehman's junk as collateral for short-term loans. This was a direct violation of the Fed's charter, which only allows it to accept investment grade assets as collateral, a definition that clearly did not include Lehman's "Repo 105s".

In these cases, our regulators instead used their judgment to decide that everything was just fine and looked the other way. Remarkably, no regulator was fired for these astounding failures in judgment. In fact, there was probably not even a single regulator who missed a promotion.

In the United States it will always be easy for regulators to look the other way, even when the ultimate consequences prove to be disastrous. By contrast, cracking down on politically connected banks is difficult for regulators. The banks' executives will call their friends in the administration and Congress to complain about the crazy regulator who is trying to keep them from running their business.

And, you can be sure that the banks will have a story. They pay smart people lots of money to develop those stories. The banks' mouthpieces will make a conscientious regulator look like a crazed vigilante who just doesn't understand modern finance. Just ask Brooksley Born, the head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission who was stopped in her effort to regulate credit default swaps back in 1998.

Krugman is right that breaking up the banks does not guarantee good regulation. In addition to his Great Depression example, we also have the savings and loan disaster of the 80s. The S&Ls were overwhelmingly small institutions with even the largest being far below any conceivable TBTF threshold.

However, a break-up of the big banks will at least give the country some hope that things can change. As it stands now, the big banks are back on their feet, and in some cases more profitable than ever, feasting on the now explicit government guarantee of support in the event of a crisis. By my calculations, this guarantee could be worth as much as $34bn a year, more than one-third of the gross cost of the healthcare bill.

There are many aspects of regulatory reform that involve technical issues that the public will not follow. If we have to say what is different the day after financial reform is passed, rules on leverage limits and exchange-traded derivatives will not mean much, especially if they are enforced by people who accept Repo 105s as investment grade collateral.

If we break up Citigroup, Goldman, JP Morgan and the other giants, then we will know that something has changed. This break-up, along with a financial transactions tax, will lead to a qualitatively different financial industry.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

Related articles by Zemanta

• Greenspan: No Longer a Willing Crisis Fall Guy (curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com)
• Dudley: Fed should act to contain asset bubbles (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Alan Greenspan's Fed lambasted for failing to stop financial crisis (telegraph.co.uk)
• Geithner Says China to Pursue 'Broader' Role for Yuan (Update2) (businessweek.com)
• Hugh Hewitt: "Some Call it Obamacare for the Financial Sector" (hughhewitt.com)
• Greenspan says it's not his fault; Former Fed chairman grilled mercilessly but doesn't budge in defending tenure (bendbulletin.com)
• 4 things you need to know about financial regulation (trueslant.com)