Month: January 2018

Net neutrality: Who is the government actually working for?

 

 

 

 

 

Net neutrality has been a hotly debated topic in recent weeks, with some praising the repeal as a thwart to a government overreach and others calling it the end of times for free internet. While both viewpoints can be debated as being right or wrong, the fact of the matter is that the net neutrality debate is one orchestrated by the influence of lobbyists and big business in the government. While many viewed the previous FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler as a saint for his protection of net neutrality rights, the fact still stands that he was a lobbyist for the wireless industry and acting in the government in the ISP’s interest. This is similar to how the current FCC chairman Ajit Pai eventually came into power as a former employee of Verizon, regulating the business that he had once worked in.


When the telecom companies have more influence on how they are regulated by the government than the people do, it means that the government is no longer working in our best interest. Whether you support net neutrality or not, the truth of the matter is that the ISPs will benefit more than the people under the current ruling. Giving ISPs the ability to group websites in a “Fast Lane” will give them the ability to eliminate competition between websites, charge higher prices for internet access, and censor certain platforms on the internet. On the other side, the consumer would have to pay more to access the internet, would theoretically have slower internet speeds, and depending on the area would only have one ISP to choose from. Overall, the companies that both FCC chairmen used to work for benefit much more from this decision than the average U.S. citizen.

The power that cable companies had in this ruling extends much farther than the lobbyists in the FCC chairman seat. Comcast, one of the ISP giants at the forefront of the anti net neutrality movement has had a huge influence on the Legislative branch of government for many years, with over 31 members of congress having comcast stakes in 2015. Furthermore, Comcast has funded the campaigns of 360 house members and 52 senators in the 2016 cycle giving it a far reach on the processes that influence our daily lives. While it seems that this is an act only committed by opponents of net neutrality, in reality the advocates of net neutrality are guilty to a similar degree. Google, being the most powerful supporter of net neutrality spent  16.8 million dollars on lobbying and employed 90 lobbyists in 2014. Microsoft being the second place holder for the most influential pro net neutrality companies is also a popular investment for congressmen being ahead of Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T. No matter which side you support, these companies are the main influences in a ruling that affects the general population the most out of everyone.

The precedent set forward by this ruling could have more an effect than the ruling itself. With the growing influence of companies and lobbyists in the decisions that affect our daily lives, the government loses sight of whose best interests should be kept in mind. The idea that the people are the driving force behind the pro net neutrality position is false and the companies pushing that position are acting for their benefits. Beyond this, the anti net neutrality debate is one run exclusively in the ISP’s interests, serving to only benefit themselves. Lobbying has reached an all too powerful influence in the government, and it is only a matter of time until companies have the power to enact world changing decisions like ones with foreign affairs and the structure of the economy.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/net-neutrality-a-lobbying-bonanza-115385

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/

 

A Tessellesson In Tessellations

I know it’s a far leap from reviewing cheap foods to reviewing origami trends, models, and techniques but as Lao Tzu once said “if you don’t change, you might end up where you are heading”. Considering how I was about to enter a rut due to the fact that you can only write so many blog entries about shitty food, this was necessary. Continuing on, the idea of folding origami Tessellations is one that has gained a lot of traction in recent years, and for a good reason. They are complex to fold, but at the same time very simple to design. What this means is that while they require many precise folds and complex collapses to reach the final model, they can be designed by any experienced folder rather than more “organic models” which are akin to being designed by talented artists. Tessellations are usually based on asquare or hexagonal grid, and composed of layers and cells. My personal favorite, the Hex spread tessellation is based off of hexagonal layers and relies on a unconventional hexagon shaped paper to take form. Tessellations are not necessarily complex to fold, as folding a single layer or cell is simple. The beauty arises when one compounds many cells and layers on top of each other, creating a work of art that is uniform and unique at the same time.

A System Without Representation

The years 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 all had one important event in common. In all of those years, a president of the U.S. was elected who did not receive the majority popular vote of the people that he aimed to lead. The system as it stands now aims to give equal representation from all states so that the the elected president supports the views averaged across the entire landmass that is America. This has the purpose of preventing states like New York,California, or Texas from deciding virtually every election and gives the candidates reason to appeal to demographics that may not be present in those huge states. However, when the candidate that is actually elected does not represent the views of the majority of the people, doesn’t that mean that the system is flawed? And in extreme cases, wouldn’t that mean that uncivic political discourse is justified? In 1824, the first time popular vote was officially used in an election, the results ended up in a 4 way stalemate. No one managed to secure the minimum amount of electoral votes to win the election, despite Andrew Jackson having the majority of both popular vote and electoral vote. The election was then delegated to the House of Representatives, where each state had only one vote. Only the top 3 candidates were counted in this election, pushing Henry Clay in 4th place out of the race. During the House election, Clay’s old electors switched to John Quincy Adams causing him to win the presidential election. This election was not won by a majority representation of the people aligning themselves with one candidate despite that being the case for a truly democratic system. Instead, this election was decided by a calculated political move amongst party players.

If it were the case that the electoral system were somehow amended to prevent this case in 1824 from happening again, it would have followed the logical path of a government that actually sought out to represent its people. In reality, this is not the case. Just this past year during the controversial election of Donald trump, there was a third player who aimed to do what John Quincy Adams did almost 200 years ago. Even though he entered the race 3 months before the election, he still had a path to the white house. By dividing the republican vote he had the ability to prevent both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump from reaching the minimum electoral vote to win the election, then pushing the election to the house of representatives where he would have a much more likely shot. Despite the fact that many would agree that McMullin was a much more dependable candidate than the alternatives, the fact is his winning the election would not have represented the will of the people.

The declaration of independence states that “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government” if the government rules without consent of the people and does not secure the people’s rights. This directly contradicts with the system put in place for deciding the winner of the presidential election, as we can see with cases like 1824 and 2016. So in this case, would uncivic discourse be justified? And I’m not talking about a fringe movement like the current Alt Right or Black Lives matter that just pushes around hot air without creating true change in the government. By uncivic discourse, I mean a coordinated revolution that seeks to have the best interests of all the common people whose government proved that it won’t represent their interests. If the government has proven that it will not fix itself to represent the people, then why would it be logical to believe that a civic protest would be effective when attempting to make a real change?