Skip to main content

As many of you probably have, I received another e-mail last night asking me to comment on FCC Proceeding 14-28, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet.

I’m glad to see these e-mails and I’ve commented, written Tom Wheeler, called the FCC, and written all of my Congressmen (and they are men) about this issue.  

 photo tom_wheeler_barack_obama_sm_zps4d0b8dcb.jpg

I really hope this isn’t the case, but I have a feeling that something else is going on with this “feedback period” that doesn’t really have anything to do with feedback.

Why?

Because unfortunately, I believe the incentives are structured in such a way that people like Tom Wheeler have more to gain by selling off the Internet than they do to lose.

You see Tom Wheeler is a former industry lobbyist. How, you ask, did an industry lobbyist get appointed to head the agency responsible for regulating the industry?

Well, he helped raise a lot of money for the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns. In 2008, he raised between $200-500,000 and in 2012, he bundled at least a half a million. Wheeler personally donated $28,500 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008.

In February 2012, he hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama that you too could attend if you could afford the lowest priced ticket of $5,000.

 photo wheeler_fundraiser_obama_zpsf0f804c6.png

Does Tom Wheeler do this out of the goodness of his heart?

Perhaps … But it sure looks like Tom Wheeler bought himself a regulatory agency. Rather cheap too. It doesn’t look like it cost him much more than a couple million.

So let’s look at Tom Wheeler’s negotiating position as head of the FCC. What does he stand to lose or gain from this decision?

If he rules in favor of the Comcasts and Verizons of the world, he is pretty much guaranteed a nice cushy million dollar a year lobbying post for some industry group upon leaving the FCC. If the FCC rules in favor of net neutrality and the people of the United States, he merely does his job.

In other words, Tom Wheeler's negotiating position is strong. The broadband service provider industry will both reward and protect Tom Wheeler if he rules in their favor. On the surface, the incentives seem to favor a decision in their favor.

The current FCC proposal (passed for consideration 3-2 in May) considers pay-for-priority service to be against FCC rules until a company proves it has a legitimate reason for prioritizing traffic (at which point the company can prioritize all it wants).

This is, I believe, the loophole the service providers of the world (Comcast, TWC, Verizon, etc) desire because they know that if they spread enough money around they will eventually, one way or another, win "legitimate reasons."

This is what Tom Wheeler would have lobbied for if he were in his previous lobbying position as President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA).

The problem

There’s a problem though. It’s called a mid-term election in November. Now this doesn't matter much to Tom Wheeler, but it matters a lot to the people who put Tom Wheeler in charge of the FCC, the Democratic Party.

Tom Wheeler’s dilemma is that Democrats could feel the blowback.

Here’s where the FCC comment period comes in. I really hope I’m wrong on this, but the FCC comment period seems designed to make people feel like they have a say in this decision. It also seems designed to shift the heat onto Tom Wheeler and the FCC.

Why?

Because, once again, Tom Wheeler has little incentive to care what people think. He’s not up for election in November. But he doesn't want Democrats to get hit by the oncoming bus. If the FCC takes the heat, Democrats don't. Or at least this is one possibility.

I don't think Millennials are going to be so forgiving, however. From conversations I've had, I think this could be a tipping point that shifts Millennials even further away from politics at a time when conventional wisdom says that Democrats win when people vote.

To date, more than 640,000 comments have been received on #netneutrality. That's the most comments ever on an FCC proposal. People, especially the Internet generation, are going to remember who caused this "cable company f*ckery."

 

Now I could (and really hope) I'm wrong

I could be wrong about the feedback period. I like both of the proposals on the table.

One, the FCC is asking for feedback on whether "fast lanes" should be banned altogether.

And two, the FCC is asking for feedback on whether broadband should be regulated more like a utility, whether broadband should be classified as a "common carrier."  

Please use the feedback period to comment on these proposed changes. Either, I believe, are better than the proposal passed in May. You can comment here through July 15th.

I sincerely hope the "feedback period" is legitimate but my fear is that it's setup to simply shift responsibility away from the Democratic Party and onto the FCC.  

My question to you, fellow Democrats

Without the appointment of Tom Wheeler in 2013, however, would we even be having this conversation?

Is the $1 million (or let’s even say he’s helped raise as much as $10 million for various Democrats) worth it if you lose the Millennials? Was it worth the massive amount of damage he’s about to inflict on your party?

Because that could very well happen if you f*ck up the Internet.

I understand your situation. Really, I do. With the Citizens United decision, the floodgates have opened on corporate campaign donations and you need more money than ever to win elections. Or at least you think you do.

You seem to have populist leanings (or perhaps it’s more of a populist tradition), but appointments like Tom Wheeler undermine your populist claims.

If you really want to be a populist party, however, I think the money hurts you more than helps you.

If you stopped taking the money, you might not appear as much on the radio and TV, but you could stand for something.

You could once again fight for democracy without the fear of offending the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Tom Wheeler special interest business groups of the world. You could build a movement that stood for something other than “we’re not Republicans.”

What’s holding you back right now is the money.

I think you’ve got a decision to make. The decision is whether you want to be a party of principle that stands for something or a party that takes the money and then tries to message standing for something. A tactic that seems to be turning more and more people away from politics.

I fight for you, Democrats. And I try to convince other to fight for you. But you make it really hard when you appoint industry hacks like Tom Wheeler to regulatory positions.

Maybe it’s time to start thinking differently and be honest with ourselves, we’re not going to win the money war.

So maybe it’s time we start asking the question, how much is the money helping or hurting us?

Is the $1 million Tom Wheeler raised for Democrats enough to cover the damage he’s considering inflicting on Democrats? Does taking the money really help us as much as we think it does?

The Occupy movement almost upended the country with a budget of thousands of dollars because they said what everyone knew yet no one would say because of the money: “Let's build a democracy. Let’s get rid of the corruption (aka ... Tom Wheeler). Let’s stand for the 99%.”

If you took a truly strong stand like this, I think a helluva lot of people would stand with you. But you’d lose the Tom Wheeler campaign bundlers of the world.

I think you’d be better off.

Is it time for us to stand for something?

I believe if we trusted the people, we might find that the people are capable of cutting through the b*llshit. But first, we have to be honest with ourselves and stand for something.

A quick thought on actions

I believe we should continue to put pressure on the FCC.

But while you’re at it, you may want to remind your elected Democratic representatives that if Democrats lose the Internet, they lose the Internet generation.

Remind them that you’re going to remember who put Tom Wheeler in charge. Because I think Tom Wheeler might be more likely to listen to a phone call from Barack Obama (who probably has his home number) than he’s going to be to listen to us.

This is, unfortunately, the situation.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not that it's much consolation... (11+ / 0-)

    ...but as much as the Democratic party is in the pockets of Big Media, the Republicans never manage to be any better.

    Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) may be gone (from office,) but he lives on in spirit.

  •  2008 filled them with hubris (33+ / 0-)

    Dem leaders really think they pulled one over on millemials with their use of the internet to campaign and GOTV.

    They Obama kidz mistakenly think this system will workveven better once its privstized and that Millenials are too dumb to realize the problems.

    The important thing to remember is that Obama and his whiz kids are mostly Gen X , Gen Y folk, who usually dont have much inisight into or  respect for Millenials.

    They know this policy is bad and harmful, they dont care as long as it makes them wealthy.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:08:34 AM PDT

    •  I think it's more of a case of incentives, Betty (49+ / 0-)

      It goes like this:

      1. Belief: Money wins elections.

      2. The easiest way to get lots of money quickly is to get it from corporate special interests.

      3. The expectation, of course, is that once money is given, something is expected in return. Like say for example, a position atop the FCC. None of this is ever spoken out loud of course in a quid pro quo fashion. Yet we see it happen all the time.

      If you're a Republican, this isn't a problem because Republicans don't have to lie in their naked support of business. Democrats, however, have traditionally run on a more populist platform.

      In other words, Republicans appear "honest" (even if they're corrupt because they run on a corrupt platform). Democrats don't.

    •  In addition, Obama isnt up for re election (32+ / 0-)

      Its become increasingly apparent he and his associates could care less about the future of the Dem Party or its ability to win elections.

      The party was a convenient tool for them to use to get elected and consolidate wealth and power, but its no longer useful. The think the future is in corporate funded "think" tanks and dark lobbying organizations that funnel billionare dollars into the campaign system to buy politicians and control government. Lots more money in that than in holding office or running a political party.

      The future is in mass media manipulation and buying elections, not educating voters.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:16:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Starting up their own political party (13+ / 0-)

        Is also a realistic alternative for them. Ross Perot was the pioneer in funding his own start up party.

        The OFA folks probably think they can do the same, creating a corporate owned party that doesn't have to deal with liberals, evironmentalists and organized labor. They want those low information voters who are easily manipulated by mass media and political fads, willing to vote against their own interests.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:31:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Last 3 Dem presidents all governed as neoliberals (35+ / 0-)

        The party as  whole visibly suffered during all 3 of their presidencies.  Dems lost House majorities 2 years into the presidencies of both WJC and Obama.  They lost Senate 2 years after WJC took office and 4 years after Carter took office.  GOP nominating total crazies in 4-5 winnable races last 2 cycles is main reason why Obama has been able to keep a Senate majority thus far.

        I won't even get into all of the governorships and state legislative seats lost in 2010, nor will I dwell on the fact that, since it was a census year, those losses are a gift that will keep on giving for the rest of this decade.  I will merely note that electing neoliberal presidents hasn't exactly been helpful to the party as a whole.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:18:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  GOP Gerrymandering, thanks to neolibs (18+ / 0-)

          The 2010 debacle is still a mystery to me, though we'll be living with the negative consequences for a couple more decades.

          The mystery part was whether OFA just fumbled the ball in not getting their new base out to vote or whether the fumble wasn't accidental.

          It doesn't make sense that such savvy political experts keep fumbling and making mistakes that weaken the country and the Dem Party. Stupid, crooked or a little of both?

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:05:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look To 1994 (7+ / 0-)

            Compare-

            -after years of a Republican in the White House, a "young" (for the office) Democrat is elected.

            -in doing so, they attract the support of the youth and others who have been disengaged from politics while a Republican was in the White House.

            -the campaign of said new president pulls in disaffected voters with the promise of change and reversing the lousiness of the previous Republican.

            -reality sets in once the new president is sworn in.  It turns out members of his own party in Congress are not interested in the change that was promised.  Not all, but enough of these members are simply interested in perks and pork for their districts.

            -on the other side, the conservative media machine paints the new president as Satan and a radical communist-socialist for the millions that make up the GOP base.  Huge amounts of money pour in to either oppose any new seeping ideas or lobby them to nothing.  And millions more go to the Republicans for the midterms.

            -meanwhile, not only are the Democratic party activists disheartened by all the compromising and backsliding, but the political newbies are "disappointed."  Enough of them really thought it was as simple as voting for one person in one election to change things for them.  Without seeing any "real change", they begin to tune out again, as politics do not work the way they thought, or the way they want.

            -just two years after winning the White House and seeming to re-capture the zeitgeist, disheartened liberals and Democrats find themselves trounced in the first midterms.  On the left there are complaints that they have "nothing to vote for."  On the right, fearful of the Democrats from propaganda, and emboldened by the PACs, think tanks, and cash from right wing billionaires, they now claim that the "left" (never mind what the Democrats really are, it's the "left" of them) have utterly failed and that "America" has rejected their "change" and liberal policies.

            Footnote- almost no one on either side, and certainly not in the media, note that if the Democrats would have gotten about a million more votes, spread selectively throughout the country, that they still keep the House.

            In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

            by Bring the Lions on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:53:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The economy was recovering in 1994 (8+ / 0-)

              It's still terrible now.  Ask any non-millionaire voter.

              It's hard to turn out votes when you fail to fix the economy, when you ignore the need to do so.

              Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

              by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:26:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, But (0+ / 0-)

                The economy was getting better in 1994, but the Democrats lost on health care and the usual grab bag of right wing standbys (Taxes are too high!  The morals!  The gays!)

                I'm saying that they really "lost", as any sane person would welcome an attempt at fixing the health care system as opposed to the status quo.  But the "narrative" was shaped by the right, and absent an MSNBC and blogs like this, the Dems never got the chance to correct that.

                As for the economy now, nearly every reader of this website will agree that we're suffering from long term structural problems that have been building for decades.  However, while the Democrats may be accused of being compromised and ineffective, the Republicans are aggressively trying to make things worse.  They even celebrate the destruction in their wake.  No question which side to choose there.

                In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

                by Bring the Lions on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:49:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, for craps sake (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CoyoteMarti, Sixty Something
        he and his associates could care less about the future of the Dem Party or its ability to win elections.
        You really, really think that?  After all of the obstructionism that's been thrown in his path at every step he takes?

        I'm not even going to cut and paste a list in this comment.

        Really, Betty?

        •  Look no further than the "Chairman" (13+ / 0-)

          of the FCC.

          When the top of the Party installs a goddamn shill for the likes of Comcast to head up the oversight of the entire communications infrastructure of this nation, then yeah, it's a reasonable extrapolation.

          "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

          by lunachickie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:58:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I do (4+ / 0-)

          And so does a growing number of Dem voters.

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:14:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  it always makes me wonder if these people ... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Whimsical, eyo, Zadatz, 417els

          understand that the president can't just pass laws on his own.  not just understand this concept, but grok it.  it's like congress isn't even in session anymore, that's how bad the legislature is.  in the mean time, PBO is doing everything he legally can through executive action.

          it's like we're living in two different worlds - the real world and the world interpreted by political bias.

          •  Yes, isn't it? (3+ / 0-)
            it's like we're living in two different worlds - the real world and the world interpreted by political bias.
            It's like your fantasies just aren't going to come to fruition anymore when this party has its ass handed to it in a few months. You will not be able to blame "millennials" for it successfully and believably for those losses any more than you were able to blame whoever you fobbed off your FAIL on for us having our asses handed to us in 2010.

            But we know you'll try anyway. So...well, good luck with that, you're gonna need it.

            "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

            by lunachickie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:37:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i am a millenial (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eyo, Zadatz, akadjian, 417els

              so i naturally will not blame myself.  but last i checked, congress has to propose and pass laws before POTUS can sign them and they become law.  The House is controlled by the Republicans, notably the Tea Party branch, and the Senate is nominally controlled by the Democratic party, but really controlled by the Republicans due to the filibuster.  This naturally means that the President's legislative agenda will not move forward at all.

              additionally, the Republican congress shut down the government and technically defaulted on the debt limit fiasco.

              •  Like the President can't say "I want a law (0+ / 0-)

                that does thus-and-such, now you see that it gets passed"?

                How do you think Bush the Lesser got away with so much of his shit?

                If it's
                Not your body,
                Then it's
                Not your choice
                And it's
                None of your damn business!

                by TheOtherMaven on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:26:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  not even two comparable admins! (0+ / 0-)

                  bush had a compliant legislature as well as an adoring media and 9/11 to bolster his agenda.  PBO's agenda not only suffers from congressional gridlock of epic proportions and some of the worst extremist partisanship in modern times, but he has to deal with a blatantly hostile and racist opposition party every single day who have devoted the last 6 years of their lives to making him a "one term" president and intentionally disrupting his agenda.

                  what part of opposition party do you not understand?  it seems like you have a problem with the opposition part!

                  •  Effectiveness is what matters at the end... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...of the day.  I don't blame the President for the ineffectiveness of government -- I blame a 200+ year old system of government designed to allow a rump party to choose their voters and put themselves into a position where said opposition can ensure that nothing more than Post Offices naming bills get passed, and only if they're named after Reagan.

                    I'm not hating the player.  I'm hating the game and asking why continued participation in a rigged game is going to make it any less rigged, especially when you're not dislodging the GOP from the House until 2022 at the soonest, and only if we win the statehouses in 2020.

                    And even still, that just means that Democrats are choosing their voters rather than Republicans.  It doesn't change the fact that voters are no longer choosing their Representatives outside of a few token districts to maintain the illusion that the vote still matters.

                    Everyday Magic
                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:45:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I thought it was readily (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave925

        apparent by 2010, if not earlier.

        Thanks to that blowout, redistricting will hang us up for years.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:48:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  while it's easy to cast Wheeler as that (0+ / 0-)

    it's also not precisely true. More over there's some things that need to be done with the internet as it grows way past it's original intent.

    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:19:06 AM PDT

  •  Lose them to who? (12+ / 0-)

    Millennials are going to stop voting Democratic and vote what?  

    They have some of the highest poll numbers in the "Do you think voting is a necessary action to being a good citizen?" kind of questions pertaining to civic engagement.  I highly doubt they are on the verge of "checking out".

    They going to start voting for Republicans?  "Damn you Democrats for fucking up my Internet.. I'm voting for Jim Inhofe!!"  ..don't see it.

    So maybe they will start becoming vocal in primaries to push for younger tech-savvy progressives that better represent their views?  ok....  ...GREAT!.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:24:07 AM PDT

    •  They wont show up. They will have become... (34+ / 0-)

      jaded if they arent already.  Lucy can keep pulling the ball but eventually Charlie wont show up to play.

      The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

      by kharma on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:33:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Always the same predictions.. (4+ / 0-)

        Like we lost the environmentalists that have since fled the party in droves to either stay home or vote green?

        Or all the African American voters we lost for all the things we've failed to do/stop on racial issues?

        Or the Hispanic vote for failing to get immigration reform completed?  

        If there were any person that felt so passionately about these single-issue priorities, what do you really think they are going to do on election day?

        I hope they would stand up and be loud during the primary process to make sure their views are properly represented, but in the general if "the environment" is your number one concern to the point of risking "losing you" over inaction and the office of the President is on the line between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul, you are going to "not show up" because of a Charlie Brown analogy?

        If the Digital policy is the defining issue for some subset of the Millennial voting bloc, they are going to throw up their hands over an FCC ruling and decide "Fuck it.  I don't care if Mitt Romney is President.  They are all the same." ?

        Sorry. ...just don't see it.

        That said... they should be loud as hell locally and in the nominating process.  But you can only make the same threat over and over so many times and still be surprised that no one takes it seriously.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:07:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If it makes you feel good to deny it... (24+ / 0-)

          then by all means feel good.  I have contact with quite a few of the young people that voted for the first time in 2008.  They were motivated because they saw opportunity to make a change, they were also promised change.  I don't know how you are going to influence them to get to the polls the next election.  Maybe you don't think we need them but I think it's important to keep them interested and voting.

          The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

          by kharma on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:23:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, Whimsical

            if you have contact a few of these ephemeral young people we all hear about on the teevee and that's what they say, then I stand profoundly corrected.

            Did they get all their first-time hopes and wishes fulfilled in Obama's 1st term?

            Because, in Florida where we were fighting tooth and nail for that perennial battleground state Obama won the 18-29 vote in 2008 61-37 but then the disillusioned youngin's in 2012 went to Obama 66-32.  We're lucky we squeaked that one out over all the apathy.

            Same in Ohio (2008:61-36 | 2012:62-35) and the bluing purple state of Virginia (2008:60-39 | 2012:61-38)

            But Im sure now all their other critical issues like Marriage Equality, Immigration, Jobs, Social Justice, Economic Inequality, Green Energy, The Environment, War Aversion, Racism, Student Debt,  will only crater these numbers further because of this FCC rule.

            I mean, you would know I guess.. you have contact with quite a few of them.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:43:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Except it's not a single issue (30+ / 0-)

          It's happened over and over.

          The real issue is that Democrats claim populism, act corporate special interest.

          The real issue is that when it comes down to it both parties vote special interest. Different special interests perhaps. But special interests.

          Doesn't that concern you?

          What would the Democratic Party lose if they trusted people and took a stand?

          I know you think they'd lose elections. I don't think they would. I think they'd win more elections.

        •  You are underestimating our arrogance (30+ / 0-)

          Actually, yes, Millennials will throw their hands up and say "fuck it" and just stay home.  They already did in 2012, compared to 2008.  We probably won't vote for Republicans, but that's only half the battle.  Democrats need my generation's votes.

          You know how a lot of Gen X'ers in the media chastise us Millennials as being spoiled, self-centered, and just hyper?  Uber app this, smart watches that, Google Glass and self-driving cars.

          It is quite true.  We want whatever we want, and we want it now.  A lot of people here on Daily Kos detest that type of attitude, probably a mixture of the site's demographics and the personalities it draws (i.e. - not so much 'Murica! Sports! TMZ! stuff around these parts.  And that's fine, it just explains how people here are unfamiliar with Millennial culture).

          The problem is, Democrats need us.  We're the next generation, and someone has to vote for Dems.  So it's us or nobody.  We were sold Obama as our savior against Bush and neocons, and nothing really changed.  It led to massive disillusion for my generation.

          If a Democratic-controlled FCC gives corporations the green light on tiered Internet, us techie Millennials are once again going to see how government sold us out, and many will just not participate anymore.

          "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

          by mconvente on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:40:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And before people yell at me (23+ / 0-)

            when I mean "nothing really changed", I meant Obama throwing down FDR style in response to the Great Recession.  We could have enacted a lot more progressive legislation in that first two years.  Perhaps not as far reaching as in FDR's time, but certainly more than we got.

            There was a spectacular opportunity to finally swing the pendulum in the direction of the common people after 30+ years of Reagan-led corporatism, but instead we just propped up the pendulum and kept it going toward corporations.  Wages are still depressed, bankers have more money than ever, and not even a slap on the wrist was given to Wall Street.

            That's what I mean.  Of course, there is a universe worth of distance between Obama and Bush on many, many issues.  I voted for Obama twice and I'm still happy I did.

            The first time was because I believed in this transformational change I thought was coming.  The second time was to keep Romney out of office.

            "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

            by mconvente on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:46:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  you millennials will get to be the scapegoats (22+ / 0-)

            for Dems not taking back the House.  

            The Democratic Party can do no wrong; they don't need to offer anything worth voting for, they just need to be not Republicans.

            don't always believe what you think

            by claude on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:59:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We get scapegoated for everything else... (10+ / 0-)

              ...by our elders.  This is not a new thing.

              Everyday Magic
              Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
              -- Clarke's Third Law

              by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:49:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  All I can say is-- (11+ / 0-)

                1)I'll do my damnedest not to do it, and to call it out when I see others doing it
                2)Get used to it. The Boomers, many of whom I love, have been doing this to my generation since we were adolescents. I've come to the conclusion that nothing can make them stop. Just keep your eyes on whatever prize you're working toward and make common cause with other generations as much as you can. At least, that's what I do.

                oh, and 3)Given the climate change fiasco, nobody over 40 has the right to bitch at anybody under 40 for anything.

                There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:28:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's human nature. (7+ / 0-)

                  I only expect the generational gaps as far as culture and the like go to widen as technology enables culture movements to move faster than ever, and I expect to be telling the members of whatever they call the cohort after Millennials to get off my lawn and get a job in 20 years.

                  The biggest difference (that I can tell, at least) between the Millennials and the older cohorts is that the Boomers through GenX/Y all came of age during an American golden age as far as the economy went.  Education was cheap.  Jobs were everywhere.  The economy recovered from recessions quickly.  They can't fathom the idea of not being able to go walking down the street and not being able to get a job doing -something- by the end of the day, because that concept is alien to them.

                  They've had programs to soften the hard edges of poverty like Social Security their whole adult lives so that they've never really had to be confronted by it.  Social Security may not let many people live well, but it mostly lets them live, unlike the days before it where if you got too injured or too old to work, well, them's the breaks, chap.  Hope you got family!

                  When you can't even imagine a quarter of your peers being unemployed (and not because they retired, either), it's kinda hard to address that issue.

                  Everyday Magic
                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:41:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (9+ / 0-)
                    the Boomers through GenX/Y all came of age during an American golden age as far as the economy went.  Education was cheap.  Jobs were everywhere.  The economy recovered from recessions quickly.  They can't fathom the idea of not being able to go walking down the street and not being able to get a job doing -something- by the end of the day, because that concept is alien to them.
                    Not true. Neither Gen X nor Gen Y came of age during a golden age when jobs were everywhere. It was not as bad as it is now, but jobs were not everywhere, unless you're counting being a techie during the tech bubble--and that was hardly the experience of a whole generation.

                    The fact is that we were the transitional generations, Gen X and Gen Y. The economy and whole culture were being moved from that economic golden age you were talking about, where a working person could fairly easily buy a home, where education cost very little and jobs were everywhere (as long as you were white) to what we've got now, which basically can be summed up as "If you're not rich, you can suck it."

                    The 80s and 90s were the decades when this change was being accomplished by putting the political, cultural, and economic pieces in place to bring the whole thing crashing down around our ears in the twenty-first century.

                    As for this:

                    They've had programs to soften the hard edges of poverty like Social Security their whole adult lives so that they've never really had to be confronted by it.  Social Security may not let many people live well, but it mostly lets them live, unlike the days before it where if you got too injured or too old to work, well, them's the breaks, chap.  Hope you got family!
                    We haven't gotten to the point of receiving Social Security or Medicare benefits yet. Most of my generation (that I know) don't expect to receive any. We support Social Security and Medicare because we love our parents and our grandparents, not because we think we're going to get anything out of it.

                    Also because we're fucking sick of seeing the rich plunder everything.

                    It's my mom's generation that doesn't understand why my boyfriend (who is GenX) can't "just get a job."

                    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:00:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  GenX/Y came of age during the ass-end of... (5+ / 0-)

                      ...a golden age, but it was still part of the golden age as far as employment opportunities were concerned.  The likelihood of my generation ever seeing unemployment at 4% (and without having to fuzz the numbers to get such a low number) like the late 90's saw is a pipe dream thanks to automation and outsourcing.

                      As far as SS/Medicare, I was referring to the fact that the sort of poverty that they prevent in the elderly hasn't been experienced since then.  They're not cure-alls by any means, but they pretty much do prevent the sort of elder poverty and dehumanization that comes with said poverty, and it's always been this way for all but out oldest living citizens.  There's no reminder in the brains of most people of how bad poverty was for the elderly that we needed to enact a national pension for them (and later, national elder hospital care that's gotten expanded into national elder health care).

                      I expect to get something out of Social Security, given that it's solvent at reduced rates until long after I'm dead/uploaded to the Matrix.  I just don't expect it to be a viable safety net for much longer for the elderly that need it.

                      Everyday Magic
                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                      -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:14:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In the mid-90s they changed the way (9+ / 0-)

                        they measured unemployment.

                        There was a reason for that.

                        Check out my friend Don Midwest's friend's book Worse Than You Think.

                        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:26:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  We were told the same thing (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        high uintas, Whimsical
                        The likelihood of my generation ever seeing unemployment at 4% (and without having to fuzz the numbers to get such a low number) like the late 90's saw is a pipe dream thanks to automation and outsourcing.
                        We were all supposed to learn Japanese in order to properly welcome our new manufacturing overlords.  The American laborer was being crushed.  NAFTA went into effect Jan 1 1994 and plunged us all into a irrevocable globalized hell of dog-eat-dog subsistence living.. or whatever.

                        We went out and started the dot-com boom and created a new economy the mainstream Serious People, Very couldn't have imagined.

                        Millennials are sitting on the cusp of the Internet of Things, shared economy critical mass, Artificial Intelligence, massive health-care revamping and 15 other things you and I aren't smart enough to comprehend, and you want to lament about how good other people had it?

                        pfft..... Millennials will be fine.  They will find their way.

                        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                        by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:24:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, yes. (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Chi, mconvente, nathanfl, akadjian, mattc129

                          We'll be fine.  Not because of one party or another, though.

                          AI's here.  We use it to personalize advertising, recommend movies to you on Netflix, and all sorts of things that get referred to as "decision engines".  Not as world-changing as we expected because there's no money in world-changing.

                          It's a shared/sharing economy because nobody makes enough to buy their own shit anymore.

                          I work in said industry, and design the systems those 15 or so things you have trouble comprehending run on.  I have it just fine.  My generation as a whole is eating it in the shorts and is going to have to clean up the mess left behind to us.

                          As long as there's an app for that.

                          Everyday Magic
                          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                          -- Clarke's Third Law

                          by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:22:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Anyone who came of age (5+ / 0-)

                      from the mid 70s thru the 80s and 90s got to come of age in the Season of the Witch. Not good.

                      As a late Boomer I began my young adulthood in the good ol' days, but by the time I was 25 it had all melted like sherbet does in the sunshine. What little good was left was killed by Reagan as soon as he walked into office.

                      Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

                      by high uintas on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 07:17:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  If you are actually a millennial.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Stude Dude

                    You need to either relearn history.  Or learn history.
                    Before posting false statements and blaming everyone older than you for everything wrong.
                    The lsye seventies and early eighties were horrendous for blue collar workers. Google or wiki it... Then post.

                    "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true...Or is it something worse... That sends me down to the river... Though I know the river is dry". The Boss.

                    by Christin on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:22:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I suggest you relearn how to read. (4+ / 0-)

                      Because blaming isn't what I'm doing, and I don't care to play along with your strawman-filled bullshit.  But, for shits and grins, quote me where I'm blaming people.  I gotta see this.

                      The late 70s and 80s are nothing compared to the current economy, and every statistic out there backs that up.  The only one close we call The Great Depression.

                      Google it or wiki it.  Then post.

                      Everyday Magic
                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                      -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:30:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  . (0+ / 0-)

                        You are blaming. Whining.  Misstating facts.
                        And attacking.   And stomping your feet.
                        Grow up.
                        Meanwhile.  Don't vote.
                        See how that works out for you.

                        "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true...Or is it something worse... That sends me down to the river... Though I know the river is dry". The Boss.

                        by Christin on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:08:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Quote it. (5+ / 0-)

                          I asked you to quote me where I'm blaming people.  You can't.

                          I'll ask you now to quote me where I'm whining attacking people.  You won't, because you can't.

                          You can't do it because I'm not.  You don't get to project your stomping your feet and attacks as mine, because they aren't.  You don't get to make up your own facts and ignore those that burst your nice, shiny, rose-colored bubble.

                          Grow up, indeed.

                          P.S.:  I'm here because I do vote.  But my Facebook is lit up with people laughing at people like you in this thread where I've shared it.  You're not convincing them in the slightest.  Keep up the awesome work, Christin!

                          Everyday Magic
                          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                          -- Clarke's Third Law

                          by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:16:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Where's my #&%(@! Golden Age? (8+ / 0-)

                    I graduated from high school in 1974 (blue collar, working class upbringing). Good times. High inflation (anyone remember Ford's WIN program?), recovering from Watergate, oil crisis, manufacturing is taking a nosedive. Graduated from college in 1979. I remember trying to find a job in Chicago in 1980, standing in a freezing line outside Kroch and Brentano's bookstore. There were 60 people ahead of me applying for a minimum-wage sales clerk job. The guy in front of me had a PhD. You get the idea. Took me forever to find a horrible job doing data entry.

                    I'm not saying I had it worse—this isn't a contest. Things have shifted further, and in a permanent way, towards economic inequality. Education was a lot cheaper back in the day, and you didn't have to go into indentured servitude to go to college. But don't assume Baby Boomers don't understand the current economic climate. Because many of us do. And some of us have children who are in college experiencing the same struggles. We empathize.

                    •  high uintas has it right (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Betty Pinson

                      Though of course it's gotten steadily worse, with a positive blip of sorts where the tech bubble happened,  and a brutal shift downward in '08 , complete with corresponding changes in the social rules.

                      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:51:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  That's by design (6+ / 0-)

                it's just another way to divide us all. I'm glad to see it not working when I talk to young people in Real Life. They're not buying snake oil again. They're over it.

                "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                by lunachickie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:01:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pretty much. (6+ / 0-)

                  It's not a matter of generational blame.  For my generation, it's a matter of looking at all the work that needs to be done, being raised in a time where government is not up to the task of doing it thanks to intentional sabotage, and shrugging, rolling up our sleeves, and getting the hard word done ourselves because everyone else would rather sit back and argue about whose fault it is the ship is sinking rather than trying to NOT MAKING THE FUCKING SHIP SINK.

                  Everyday Magic
                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:21:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree, it's not a matter of blame. (3+ / 0-)

                    If we stand around blaming each other (a new "Generation Gap"? I always hated that phrase), we stay divided, and the fucking ship will just sink faster. My children are Millennials, this is something I care deeply about.

                  •  Amen and amen (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    The Technomancer
                    It's not a matter of generational blame... it's a matter of looking at all the work that needs to be done...and shrugging, rolling up our sleeves, and getting the hard word done ourselves because everyone else would rather sit back and argue
                    If we stand around blaming each other...we stay divided, and the fucking ship will just sink faster.

                    "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                    by lunachickie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:40:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Nope. That's GenX. (14+ / 0-)

              We've already been scapegoated once in this diary.

              Actually, everybody under 50 is going to be scapegoated. It's all our fault. The fact that the whole country went trooping like sheep after a bunch of unregenerate Nixon administration dregs in the 80s, the fact that the Clintons sold their souls to the devil and ate the Democratic party out from the inside in the 90s, NAFTA, welfare reform, deregulation of the financial industry, attacks on unions, the rise of the religious right, the demonization of liberalism and dissent and reason, the destruction of the Constitution and the rule of law--that's all our fault. Never mind that the political pieces were put in place for all the crap that we're living in now by 1994. I was 24 years old in 94, and I'm one of the oldest Gen X'ers. Many of my cohort couldn't even vote until 1992. But never mind, the neoconservative, neoliberal "revolution" that destroyed this country from 1978-1994 is all our fault. Why? Apparently, because all we care about is money.

              Actually what's going on is that the only members of our generation that regularly get heard from in the public sphere are the ones who only care about money, because they're the ones who got promoted by the previous generation when they were in their teens and twenties. They're the ones who got mentorship, connections, internships, jobs. They're the ones who were recruited by the Republicans in the late 80s to be the neoliberal and neoconservative lawyers, judges, politicians, pundits, pseudo-journalists, think tank employees, political consultants, pseudo-scholars, and organizers. The rest of us got nothing, are unemployed or underemployed and certainly have no place in the public sphere. Why? Well, pretty much because the Democratic party of the time and their donors were not interested in stopping by our anti-apartheid rallies or our ACT UP actions or our environmental groups. Or our women's groups. They were too busy making nice with the Koch brothers.

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:25:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ^^^This!^^^ (3+ / 0-)

                Ans I say that as a younger Boomer sore at the Boom born before Sputnik.

                "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

                by Stude Dude on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:26:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks, Stude Dude. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Stude Dude, orestes1963, cybrestrike

                  This isn't because I hate all Boomers or anything.
                  In fact, I rarely go on these rants unless someone starts picking a fight.

                  GenX is a really easy target because there's few of us and we're not tremendously engaged or loud in the public sphere. The very name "GenX" was a coy way for Big Media to say they didn't know how to label us or what made us tick. We are supposedly cynical, apathetic, distrustful, disengaged Goth bastards. :-)

                  I just feel that arguing about which generation or generations is responsible for a change in a culture is a historical question, demanding historical analysis, and the only responsible way to do historical analysis is with concrete specifics. In other words, you might want to look at who was fucking in charge during said changes. And while political leadership ain't the whole biscuit, perhaps it's a good place to start looking.

                  There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:27:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm just endlessly annoyed at the older Boom. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cybrestrike

                    Many may be jolly fine as individuals, but how endlessly self-serving, self-centered, and self-congratulatory they were, especially in the '80s-'90s.

                    This is 25 years plus a few weeks after dealing with one that thought he could wholesale wrong me and solidly be in the right because he had an octuple case of that "the sun revolves around me when it's not shining out of my ass" arrogance that far too many older Boomers had. And also because peace and love and understanding out of the other side of his mouth.

                    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

                    by Stude Dude on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:30:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I'm a boomer and I'm with you all the way on this: (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi, dfarrah, mconvente, eyo, cybrestrike
            We were sold Obama as our savior against Bush and neocons, and nothing really changed.  It led to massive disillusion for my generation.
            I've been voting for Dems and to the left thereof for decades. It's likely to be exclusively to the left thereof from here on out.

            The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

            by Wolf10 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:26:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Insufferable smugness goeth before a fall. Has (8+ / 0-)

          the memory of 2010 and the very likely possibilities of future losses in the near future taught you nothing?

          Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord.

          The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

          by Wolf10 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:18:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We can't simply be "not Republicans" (30+ / 0-)

      This is not what movements are built on. If Democrats can't figure this out, maybe it's time to start figuring out something else. It won't be Republicans of course. But something else.

      When Democrats put people like Tom Wheeler in charge of the FCC, isn't it simply just a matter of their corporate special interest groups against ours?

      If the Democratic Party continues to court corporate special interest groups, it is only a matter of time before people check out or look for different alternatives.

      We can't simply be "not Republicans". People want to believe in something. People want to fight for something genuine.

    •  that's right: take them for granted (15+ / 0-)

      Assume that the latest voting generation will eagerly step forward to play the perpetual game of Lucyball with our captured political establishment.

      "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

      by quill on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All Im taking for granted is their passion (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stude Dude, Whimsical

        If they are so fired up over this issue that the party is at risk of losing them over it, then I'm sure there are plenty of them out there making this a defining platform plank locally.

        Who has been the most outspoken on this in DC?  Franken?  Are the Millennials rushing to him because of his principled stand on this?

        Sherrod Brown?  Ron Wyden?

        You can't expect the weaker politicians to FEAR THE WRATH of a particular constituency for doing the wrong thing if that same constituency isn't out there openly backing the ones that are doing the right thing.

        I'd love to see some House/Senate/State-Level politicians start adopting and championing the Millennial priorities on things like digital policy, capitalism, shared economy regulations, green energy, etc.  

        And if the Millennial keep speaking up for themselves and stake these positions out clearly I think it will happen.  Which will only benefit them, the Party and the Country in the future.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:15:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Vote in every eection (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wisper, elwior, CoyoteMarti, Whimsical

      Make it a creed. Be willing to hold out decades for what you want.
      Is sitting out an election an effective tactic? Hardly ever.

      Censorship is rogue government.

      by scott5js on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:59:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not arguing for sitting out, Scott (11+ / 0-)

        Not by any stretch.

        I am considering different options though. Mostly I fight for issues. One of the issues I firmly believe in is getting money out of politics.

        One, politicians come and go. Two, politicians almost always disappoint.

        Let me ask you a question.

        Do you think it would help or hurt Democrats if they came out and took a stand on campaign funding from corporate special interests?

        •  Help, to some extent (0+ / 0-)

          Nevertheless, the public needs to take more responsibility if they want money to carry less weight in politics. If you amend the First Amendment lawyers like James Bopp will find ways around you as long as a majority of the electorate lets money work for big business.
          Why do corporations pay people like James Bopp or Karl Rove? Because they can get something. Why did Willie Sutton rob banks?

          Censorship is rogue government.

          by scott5js on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you think it would hurt Democrats ... (6+ / 0-)

            ... if they took a stand on campaign funding from corporate special interests?

            I think it would help them.

            •  Probably not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Whimsical

              but I do not think it would by itself really change things. Real change must also come from the electorate.

              Censorship is rogue government.

              by scott5js on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:17:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's the rub ... (10+ / 0-)

                The electorate already supports real change.

                Poll after poll shows that the electorate (by and large) "gets it" on issues.

                The problem is that politicians choose the money over what the electorate wants. Again and again and again.

                Looking at nearly 1800 issues over a 20 year period, the research of Gilens and Page shows that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

                Why do you think the electorate doesn't "get it"?

                I think they do. I just don't think it matters.

                •  As long as a single Republican wins an election (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  scott5js

                  and yes, that includes winning by our side saying home as the diarist is claiming will happen, then what the people say they want is irrelevant.

                  Cause folks, I don't care how many pollsters you tell you want an open internet, or money out of politics, or whatever- if you don't work for, advocate for, and donate to those people who will get you closest to those things, the message you are ACTUALLY saying is "Don't listen to what I tell pollsters; I actually don't give a crap about ANY of that stuff".

                  "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                  by Whimsical on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:32:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  ??? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pablo Bocanegra
                Real change must also come from the electorate.
                What is that supposed to mean? Do you think the electorate isn't in favor of less money in politics?
                •  The electorate's part (0+ / 0-)

                  It must be more than just going to the polls every 4 years. There are also off-years. There is also the matter of looking critically at the propaganda one sees on TV. Also a matter of seeking out multiple sources of information. Politics is not easy in a country of 300 million.

                  Censorship is rogue government.

                  by scott5js on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:52:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The specifics? (0+ / 0-)

              Just profit-making corporations? What about labor unions? What about donations to Planned Parenthood?
              Should Democrats make compromises to get Republican votes?

              Censorship is rogue government.

              by scott5js on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:34:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is a really good question (8+ / 0-)

                The trouble, at least according to Gilens and Page, is that these "special interest groups" don't have anywhere near the impact of corporate special interest groups.

                Basically, what have unions gotten in exchange for their support?

                I see them getting screwed all the time. Even by Democrats. The most obvious example is NAFTA.

                One way to look at it is that even if money from unions and other citizen groups were restricted, it's not having the same influence as corporate special interest money.

                So I'm not sure if Democrats would really be making any compromise here. Basically, they're already not really responding to these groups.

                This is an excellent question though. There's probably a better way of coming out against corporate special interest money though.

      •  been there, done that. (0+ / 0-)

        And I'm about finished with it.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:02:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  My millennial (26+ / 0-)

      granddaughter is a liberal who even before she could vote was an active Democratic supporter and worked to get Obama elected. When she was eligible to vote this year  she refused to register.  'It's rigged' she said. We all talked her into voting as she's a student, cares about community/people and is an active environmentalist. We told her that local elections would effect the issues she cares about. She did register but not as a Dem. She's an Indie.

      Her mother my DIL is a true 'moderate' Democrat who got so pissed at the Dems. that instead of voting for Obama in the last election she wrote in Bernie Saunders. She is also now registered as an Indie. The Democratic Patry is going to lose more then just tech savvy millennial's with this overt corporate corruption they are going to lose voters who are savvy about what is happening. At some point fear won't be enough to make them drink the water

      •  Pew poll (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher, Christin, Whimsical

        shows that's a common trend for milennials:  Register Independent, vote Democratic.

        I don't have the link handy (sitting through budget meetings), but its out there.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:06:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mine support third parties (6+ / 0-)

        Very liberal ones.  Watch this group create their own, new party.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:18:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or just ignore government entirely. (11+ / 0-)

          The DIY mentality is strong in my generation.  Rather than fixing something dysfunctional, we'll work around it, and we haven't lived in a time when government was portrayed as anything resembling functional.

          Why form a third party when the first-past-the-post voting system itself makes it so that there's only two viable parties at a time?

          Why go into government when you're trusted more outside of it and more effective outside of it?

          Why bother with a government that was designed to move at the speed of geriatrics fucking in molasses at the North Pole at all?

          Most of us vote Democratic because the we think the Democrats are less likely to fuck things up too badly and because the Republicans are currently batshit insane.  Obviously, that's not great motivation to get out to the polls.  Shit like Net Neutrality (remember, most of us don't remember a time WITHOUT the Internet in wide use) is a Big Fucking Deal for us.  'Net relates stuff does motivate my generation.  Let's make sure we're motivating them to go out and vote Democratic rather than motivating them to stay the fuck home.

          Everyday Magic
          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
          -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:06:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not in my family (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, Whimsical, akadjian

            We don't do that.  We participate.

            My kids were raised working on Dem campaigns from the time they were in strollers.  They don't have to choose my party, but they don't have the option of not voting.

            Gr-grandad was a Socialist who ran and won races in his small midwestern hometown.  So I'm ok with that, too.

            Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

            by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:17:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Participation isn't the issue. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade, JVolvo, Chi, cybrestrike, mattc129

              Thinking that a rigged "republic" is the right place to put precious time and effort is, especially given the number of extra-governmental places that are more effective in helping people day-to-day than a hamstrung government saddled with rich old folk, half of which want nothing more than to do nothing, and most of which had a state party pick their voters out for them.

              We don't mind participating where we can make a difference.  We just don't see the point in continuing to do so when it's a game of heads you win, tails I lose.

              Everyday Magic
              Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
              -- Clarke's Third Law

              by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:53:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Typical (0+ / 0-)

            Stop whining . and change things
            And stop with this millennial chant of expecting things to be good.  And if they are not? Wah.

            "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true...Or is it something worse... That sends me down to the river... Though I know the river is dry". The Boss.

            by Christin on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:31:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I do change things. (5+ / 0-)

              It's sort of my career.  In fact, the point of my post, had you actually read it rather than taking the opportunity to post this bullshit, is pretty much about how we'll go do it without dealing with broke-ass government.

              But here.  We Millennials suck.  We're sorry.

              Everyday Magic
              Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
              -- Clarke's Third Law

              by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:26:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No you don't suck (4+ / 0-)

                your a generation that has grown up with global information at your fingertips and you are not buying into the bs. I salute you as your the best thing this oldster has seen coming down the pike in a long time. gives me the hopies.

              •  More.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Whimsical

                Tedious nonsense.  No one blamed you.  But you keep stomping your feet and crying it all sucks and it's not your fault and threaten to sit it out when things don't go your way.  And then post nonsense videos that are meaninglessness. You'll always have team frustrati to cheer support you.

                "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true...Or is it something worse... That sends me down to the river... Though I know the river is dry". The Boss.

                by Christin on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:19:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I never said anyone blamed me. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cybrestrike, shaharazade

                  This now makes the third reply to me where you haven't actually proven you have the ability to comprehend the English language.

                  At the very least, you might want to take a crash course in sarcasm, because that thing that zoomed over your head there?

                  Yeah, those are my posts.

                  You play the team bullshit all you like.  Lumping me in with some team pretty much proves that you aren't reading posts you're responding to.  Go ahead -- I invite you to comb my comment history to find ANYTHING to back up a single accusation or label you've tossed my way.  This'll be the third time in this thread alone that you've been asked for some sort of proof of the bullshit you're spewing, and in three responses, you haven't.

                  Because you can't.

                  Now, go cry to the help desk that you're getting picked on by that mean old Technomancer like you do every time you get destroyed in a comment thread.

                  Everyday Magic
                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:46:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Amateur (0+ / 0-)

                    The only thing that was destroyed here was any credibility you thought you had. Your Internet bullying tough guy spiel is as tedious and obnoxious as your ignorant claims that the Golden age of the eighties was a great time for those older than you.  You then falsely made claims that I blamed you. You then whined further about not voting because things are hard.  You then threw out surly childish insults when challenged on your nonsense and claim you are destroying me .  Yeah tough guy... You're so brilliant it goes right over my head.

                    "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true...Or is it something worse... That sends me down to the river... Though I know the river is dry". The Boss.

                    by Christin on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 07:31:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Still waiting on those quotes... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cybrestrike, shaharazade

                      ...that you can't produce to back up your claims about me.  If asking for proof of your claims makes me an Interwebs tough guy, then I'm guilty as charged.

                      Quote where I claimed you blamed me.  I've stated multiple times that I vote in this very thread.

                      And as far as destroying you?  You're doing that just fine on your own.

                      Now, quote me.  Quit lying.

                      But, you won't, and everyone reading your bullshit knows it.

                      Sorry, I mean, everyone reading your "senior moments" knows it.

                      Everyday Magic
                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                      -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 07:55:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your (0+ / 0-)

                        Seething bitter resentment is amusing. You do nothing but insult people older than you and  you blame them for all your problems and then you throw out more asinine insults about senior moments.... you're a silly little internet bully punk raging away your resentment on your little computer and your continuous attacks are.... Pathetic.  Amateur. :-)

                        "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true...Or is it something worse... That sends me down to the river... Though I know the river is dry". The Boss.

                        by Christin on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:18:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Please stay the hell away from potential and (7+ / 0-)

              undecided voters - especially Millennials.  Most young folks don't respond well to scolding from someone in your cohort.

              If it helps, the Democratic party and POTUS thank you in advance.

              "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

              by JVolvo on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:32:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Embrace the suck (7+ / 0-)

              you young'uns, that's the ticket. Change you can believe in is right around the corner if you just vote for whoever and whatever isn't Republican. Stop expecting anything good cause your just a whiner if you believe in the common good, equality and justice or even the rule of law. Democratic governance where you actually have representation and expect life to be good is just a pony that you don't deserve.

              All you can get is the lesser of the inevitable evil that is in Axelrod's words 'the world as we find it'. Nice Christin, they should make you head of the DNC or maybe press secretary. you and Rahm have it down. Bash the whinny liberals who aren't willing to let go of democratic governance that makes society work for all people. What a coward you are and to make it worse you hide behind pointing fingers and calling people of good spirit racists whiners and haters if they don't buy into your fear and loathing.      

              •  . (0+ / 0-)

                wtf are you screaming about now shararazade one year after that surreal rant that I was the devil with sharp teeth or something. You refuse to end it. Your lie that I called anyone a racist or hater? Not doing this sickness with you this year.  Reported.

                "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true...Or is it something worse... That sends me down to the river... Though I know the river is dry". The Boss.

                by Christin on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:30:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  S. 2 nt (0+ / 0-)

                "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true...Or is it something worse... That sends me down to the river... Though I know the river is dry". The Boss.

                by Christin on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:46:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Entirely agree, 27 year old tech worker here (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Technomancer, shaharazade

            I'm about as much of a wonk as you can be without actually working in government, but as a tech worker I love being able to make impacts on a constant, rapid pace. And it's that DIY mentality that is influencing others' predictions that Millennials will become Libertarian. Perhaps not in the "I've got mine, screw you" sense, but in the "government is a waste of time" sense. I do think Millennials need to educate ourselves on some of the more severe Libertarian platforms, but nonetheless our "move fast and break things" attitude is why we openly accept companies like Uber unlike the traditional Union Dems found here.

            TD;LR we don't accept legacy platforms just for nostalgia's sake. If we can do it better, even (or especially) without government, we will.

    •  Wow. (15+ / 0-)

      Do you think there is anything the Dems could do that would turn off Millenials to voting for them? I guess not. It's the old Dem canard of "They'll eat shit and like it because where else do they have to go?" That one never fails to get people to the polls, amirite?

      Between net neutrality, the NSA, and completely half-assing the issue of the cost of education, you better believe that the starry-eyed first-time voters of 2008 (myself being one of them) have noticed the follow-through of this administration.

      So maybe they will start becoming vocal in primaries to push for younger tech-savvy progressives that better represent their views?  ok....  ...GREAT!.
      Right and if they don't and the Dems lose, it's all their fault!
      •  I think it would take positive action not inaction (0+ / 0-)

        I linked turn-out stats above where key battleground states improved the Dem share of the youth vote between the starry-eyed 2008 first-time voters and the supposedly-disenchanted 2012 voters.  Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania... all had an INCREASED share of youth voters.

        The Millennials are the most ardent voting bloc supporting Marriage Equality.  What party do you think they see as representing their issues?

        They say Green Energy, Climate Change and the Environment are all important to them?  Who do they think could implement policies to reflect these beliefs?

        They see Income Inequality and Cost of Education/Student Debt as major issues in America.  They are the first generation to have a 50%+ polling number saying that "The primary purpose of a corporation should not be just to make a profit".

        ANd all of this coupled with the fact that they are some of the most devout believers in civic engagement and that voting is the responsibility of every citizen.

        Elections aren't about dreaming about the best imaginary person you can think of to be President.  2016 will roll around and it will be Hilary Clinton versus Rand Paul/Ted Cruz/Jeb Bush/Mitt Romney 2.0/some other asshat.

        What do you really think they are going to do?  Not say or how they will register....I mean, what do you think they are actually going to DO on November 8th, 2016?  

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:16:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for informing me about my own generation. (10+ / 0-)
          They see Income Inequality and Cost of Education/Student Debt as major issues in America.
          I like how you didn't follow that up with "what party do you see as representing them on this issue?" At least we're being honest here.
          Elections aren't about dreaming about the best imaginary person you can think of to be President.
          Spare me the centrist boilerplate.
          What do you really think they are going to do?  Not say or how they will register....I mean, what do you think they are actually going to DO on November 8th, 2016?

          Well, despite being one myself, I'm not prepared to speak on behalf of my entire generation for how we're all going to vote in 2016. Apparently you can, though, because you know that we've got nowhere else to go. Me personally, I refuse to support continued neoliberal policy and will probably abstain from voting for HRC, while participating in all my state elections in 2014 and 2016.

          I can tell you this, though: if you think there are no consequences for Dems appointing people like Wheeler and doing the direct opposite of what the people want, you've got another thing coming.  Just because they've got "nowhere else to go" doesn't mean they'll support Dems no matter how blatantly hypocritical they are.

        •  Your stats mentioned the percentage of youth vo... (7+ / 0-)

          Your stats mentioned the percentage of youth voters that voted Dem, but they didn't say anything about how many (or what percent) of eligible voters actually voted. If the Dem share of youth voters increased, but the total number of youth voters decreased, that's a bad thing (and I don't know if they did or didn't, but your numbers don't address it either way). In other words, would you rather have 100% of 100 votes, or 60% of 100,000 votes?

          •  Thats an interesting point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Whimsical

            and in fact over-all turnout was down 3.6% from 2008 to 2012, which is understandable.  You can't have a massive landslide touchstone election every 4 years.  2008 was special; 2012 felt more like a typical election year.

            And yet youth vote remained about constant.  Over all at about 50% and 58% in toss-up/battleground states.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:50:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  A new third party (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude, dfarrah, cybrestrike

      They could probably create a pretty good one. They know economic, health care and education issues pretty well, given how badly they've been burned by both parties.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:15:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? You see this happening? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Whimsical

        I think the Tea Party with all their self-generated insanity is light years ahead of anyone in being close to actually attempt a 3rd party and even they aren't actually going to do it.

        What groundwork do you see out there where this new left wing is going to rise up?  I haven't seen anything or anyone actually talking about trying this.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:19:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  to apathy & disengagement (0+ / 0-)

      what we have now, but more so.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, the old "Who else ya gonna vote for?" argument (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah, orestes1963, cybrestrike

      A winner every time...just like carnival games!

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:56:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They won't vote at all or libertarian (I'm not (0+ / 0-)

      even kidding here, for some reason young college kids can be some of their most avid and vocal fans and hell if I know why)

  •  I agree wholeheartedly.... (16+ / 0-)

    We, as activists, should also let our teabagger acquaintances how loss of net neutrality will affect them too.  No reason that the elk and the panther cant join forces to destroy the wolf.

    The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

    by kharma on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:26:21 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely ... Especially Libertarians (9+ / 0-)

      I've found a great deal of support for net neutrality from Libertarians.

      Also, a lot of support for getting money out of politics.

      •  That surprises me. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Simplify, Brown Thrasher, mattc129, cany

        I would think that a libertarian would say that a privately-owned internet service provider should be able to favor whatever content providers they want to.  

        •  I think they view the Internet as creating jobs (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          akadjian, Brown Thrasher, mattc129

          It's like how Google and all of Silicon Valley wants net neutrality.  They see the Internet as a driver of the economy, but that requires unrestricted access to all of their latest online innovations.

          So it's really favoring one corporation side vs. another.  But let's be honest, it's really easy to hate on telecoms, whereas Google and Silicon Valley is "cool", so they get attacked less.

          Either way, I'm still in favor of net neutrality.

          "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

          by mconvente on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:50:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think it depends on how it's explained (7+ / 0-)

          What many Libertarians don't like about the May proposal is that it's not really clear what makes something "commercially reasonable".

          This looks a lot like "choosing winners and losers." This is one reason I've found Libertarians to be against the May proposal.

          Many people I've spoken with who consider themselves Libertarian have also grown up with what looks like a "free" Internet. Not in the sense of money "free". But in the sense of open "free". Everyone has equal access. Maybe it's not economic Libertarianism, but I have heard this from people who consider themselves Libertarian.  

          You're right though that I have heard the economic argument you mention as well.

          If you frame net neutrality as regulation, I think Libertarians tend to be against it. If you frame it as protecting a free Internet, they seem more for it.

          My take anyhoo.

  •  Answer: yes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, Brown Thrasher
    Without the appointment of Tom Wheeler in 2013, however, would we even be having this conversation?
    Since the whole debate predates his appointment by a long mile.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:48:52 AM PDT

  •  If you thought there was a difference between them (4+ / 0-)

    look no farther than Wheeler, an industry tool whose stellar suckup abilities got him an appointment from the Obama administration.

    This is an abomination that we should neither tolerate nor accept.

    HOW DO WE MAKE THEM RETRACT THIS APPOINTMENT WITHOUT BREAKING LAWS?

    You know what I mean. Stand Your Ground.

    THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. -- L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88

    by xenubarb on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:34:48 AM PDT

  •  The Internet--not just for young people anymore! (11+ / 0-)

    The idea that the internet is mainly, or even primarily, a phenomenon among young people is actually an old fashioned idea.

    Everyone is on the internet basically all the time now. Everyone who isn't an employee of a Big Telecom company needs it to remain open and free.

    Sign and send a comment to the FCC before tomorrow's deadline, regardless of your age.

  •  My 18 year old cares about two political things (16+ / 0-)

    1. Distribution of wealth.

    2. Net neutrality.

    Democrats have already lost him on point #1. If they lose #2, they'll never get his vote.

    “Hardworking men and women who are busting their tails in full-time jobs shouldn't be left in poverty.” -- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:15:45 AM PDT

    •  Who pays the internet bill? (0+ / 0-)

      I remember being 18.  Didn't have a firm grasp on economics yet.  I wanted a car for college and naively thought my dad could easy find 10 grand for the red sports car I wanted.  That's when my dad sat me down and explained to me that real things cost real money, that no he didn't have 10 grand just lying around.  And that insurance costs more the faster and more sporty your car is.  And that if I wanted the red sports car, here's the bill for it, I was free to work and pay for it myself.

      After that I settled for a grey compact costing $4000, and I resolved to pay my own car insurance, instead of asking my father to pay for it.

      18 year olds think everything should be free, because for them, everything always has been.

      •  What does this have to do with "net neutrality"? (14+ / 0-)

        Net neutrality is about Service Provider ability to determine which content is delivered to you slowly and which quickly.

        Not you. It doesn't matter what you pay for. The service provider determines the speed.

        I think there's a slight misunderstanding here somewhere.

      •  Pfft. What is that even supposed to mean? (10+ / 0-)

        Milllenials opposing Obama on Net Neutrality are simply entitled brats who want everything for free?

        Good luck with that.

        •  Is free wi-fi a right? (0+ / 0-)

          I call it like I see it.  Millennials don't want to pay for music, for movies, for TV, for news, for games, for anything digital.  And they don't even want to pay for the internet access to those things.  It should all just be free, over free Wi-Fi.

          My question is, who is it who's supposed to work for free to provide all of those things to them?  Where does all this content and hardware come from that no one wants to pay for?

          •  We like paying for things just fine. (7+ / 0-)

            Sorry for standing on your lawn, sir.  We'll get right off of it post-haste.

            Everyday Magic
            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:29:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed, this Millennial will pay for things (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Norm in Chicago, mconvente

              just not at ridiculous gouging prices. I'd love to have a la carte TV channels, even acknowledging the price per channel will rise, but right now that won't happen because the content creators won't let it. Maybe if they didn't have to have ESPN subsidize all these BS channels, we'd be able to buy 5 instead of 150 just to watch 5.

            •  Look at comedian Louis CK's business model (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Norm in Chicago, mconvente

              Sells downloads of his standup specials for $5 online, sold tickets to his show exclusively on his website, any seat was $45. Sold out cross country, even with 8 shows in NYC. I'll pay $5 or even $10 for a 70 minute comedy special — what I won't pay is $20–$25.

              Same with music. I gladly pay $9.99 for a full digital album, but remember when Sam Goody used to charge $17 for the same physical copy? Ridiculous.

              •  That also paid people's salaries (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mattc129, The Technomancer

                I miss record shops.  I miss being able to go music shopping with friends, to walk down the isles and see the albums.  To be able to interact physically with people and discuss music.  And also, real people worked in those stores, and earned a paycheck.  How many people does it take to maintain one iTunes website for the entire country.

                Maybe $17 was a bit high, but I never minded paying $12 or $14.  We got something for our money, and now that something is gone.  Shopping for music now just isn't the same.

                •  I barely had the experience, so I don't miss that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Norm in Chicago, mconvente

                  I was in Amoeba Music in SF 3 summers ago (was 24 at the time), and although it's a cool place to have visited, I didn't feel any nostalgia browsing for albums because that wasn't really a part of my generation.

                  As far as the loss of jobs, it's obviously a bigger issue than iTunes swallowing music stores, but the same could honestly be said for all industries. Tech first came to entertainment, now it's coming to more complicated industries like healthcare or those who might as well be a cartel (taxis).

                  As a tech worker, I'm clearly biased in this movement towards tech. It mirrors what others have said upthread about going around government to get things done. We plead with the Taxi and Limo Commission for more and better service, but we don't get it. In the past you were screwed. Now thanks to tech and the super low costs to start a business these days, we have people who just said "fuck it, we'll do it live," to paraphrase a favorite TV blathermouth. I fully support that type of business building.

                •  It takes... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Norm in Chicago

                  ...a few hundred people to maintain iTunes.  Did that for a little while, along with iAd.

                  Even the current price is pretty high.  Steam's proving that after the initial sales rush, massively dropping the price of copies of a video game going forward results in a second life of sales for the game, and it's only possible because there's not a box to distribute and promote in a retail outlet.  It's a few pennies of bits at that point.

                  It's artificial scarcity.

                  I do, however, agree with you that there is something to be said about the record store experience and finding random conversations about artists you may or may not heard of while browsing albums.

                  Everyday Magic
                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:48:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You might as well put up a gray haired avatar... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kharma

                  Seriously.

                  You do know they still have vinyl stores in hipster areas of cities.  I'm sure they will be happy to accommodate you...

                  "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

                  by mconvente on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:41:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  You sound like.... A Republican. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            schumann, JVolvo, cybrestrike

            You sound like.... A Republican.

          •  I don't even.... What? (6+ / 0-)
            Is free wi-fi a right?
            What the fuck does that have to do with net neutrality?
            •  It has everything to do with it (0+ / 0-)

              There are lots of people who are saying with a straight face that free Wi-Fi is a right.  That the internet should be open and free and no one should have to pay for it.  Magical fairies pay for it apparently.  Or taxpayers, same thing to them.
              Of course people who think the internet should cost nothing would think that paying for faster access is wrong.  But people who understand that real things cost real money know that faster costs more.  Someone will pay, and it should be those getting the faster speed.

      •  Speak for yourself (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, cybrestrike

        Where I was raised the notion of a parent buying a kid a car (any car) at 18 was something only seen in the movies.  It would have never crossed our minds.  None of my peers thought that everything was free because we had to work for what we wanted and were very familiar with our parents letting us know they could not afford X or Y.  Free things were Xmas presents and a birthday present.  

    •  And rightfully so. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, JVolvo, cybrestrike

      That's how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to move to meet the people where they are, not vice versa.

      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:30:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But its not the way it ACTUALLY works (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mconvente

        And confusing the two leads to nothing but disappointment.

        You want the politicians to listen to you? You're going to have to convince them you have enough power to both put and keep them in office before you'll be considered WORTH listening to.  And here's a tip: sitting out elections convinces them of just the opposite.

        Is it right? Of course not.  But you can either whine about how you shouldn't have to do it that way and make no progress, or suck it up, deal with things the way they actually are and make progress.

        Your call.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:48:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not the way it actually works, either. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD

          If I can count on your vote no matter what I do as long as I have (D) after my name, I have no incentive to listen to you whatsoever.  You'll show up rain or shine as long as I have a (D) after my name.

          You make an excellent case for showing up for primaries.  Not so much for the general election.

          Everyday Magic
          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
          -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:49:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't "sat out" an election (0+ / 0-)

          since 1998.

          Elections I've "sat out:"

          1986. I was eighteen. Midterms didn't really register w/me.
          1990. Twenty-two. Still didn't really think about midterms.
          Note: I started thinking about midterms in 1994.
          1998: Life was falling apart. Diagnosed w/neurological condition, problems with financial aid, roommate moved away and couldn't find another one. Moved from PA back to FL.

          So, uh, that's three elections I haven't voted in since 1986.
          I haven't missed an election since the turn of the century.

          So I don't know what you're talking about.

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:11:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Waaah! The mean man's gonna take my toys away! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago

    Seriously, I know the millennials is the cool name for the "youth vote" but do you have to play to type with this childish nonsense.

    If you want the Democrats to take your threat seriously, you need to elucidate the actual mechanism by which the FCC proposal will "lose the internet" (whatever that means).

    If you can't do that, then you're just howling at the moon, and they will ignore you.

    •  If DC Dems don't take the issue seriously (15+ / 0-)

      then they need to be replaced, just for their incompetence and ignorance.

      No one should have to convince them, they should know the best choice already.  Unfortunately, corporate money has corrupted them. Fortunately, it hasn't corrupted the rest of us in the Dem Party.

      Kick em out.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:23:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ah, the old "best choice" option (0+ / 0-)

        It's surprising how often people don't choose the "best choice" when it's always so clearly labeled. I mean, why doesn't Obama just solve the immigration problem by choosing the best choice?

        It must be because of corporate money!

        Again, I get that you think the internet is in dire peril, I just don't understand what you believe the mechanism for that peril actually will be.

        How will we know when the internet is broken?

      •  Remember when Obama told us to (7+ / 0-)

        push him to do his job?  
        I don't want a president or any members that need to be pushed.
        I just want them to the job they told is that they would do if we elected them.
        They ran on rolling back the Bush abuses in 06-08 like the diarist noted.
        But what was the 1st things put of Pelosi and Obama mouth?  

        "Americans don't understand that terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution. Terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism."

        by snoopydawg on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:30:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, people forget (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          orestes1963, snoopydawg, cybrestrike

          that these overpaid, elitist, entitled blowhards work for us.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:17:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We remember that those (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cybrestrike

            overpaid, elitist, entitled blowhards are supposed to work for us.
            They are the ones who forget :).
            But how else are these poor millionaires supposed to stay in power if they don't take the bribes from the corporations?  

            "Americans don't understand that terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution. Terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism."

            by snoopydawg on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:31:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You could organize into coalitions (0+ / 0-)

              and guarantee they have the votes to win their elections.

              Telling them you'll sit out on the other hand, why all that'll do is send them running straight into the arms of corporations.

              "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

              by Whimsical on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:04:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Politicians... (0+ / 0-)

                ...are supposed to be working on our behalf.  If they're not, why would I bother saying that I think they should get the job?

                You've got it all backwards.  Politicians are supposed to earn the right to represent us -- not us earning the right to have them listen to us.

                Everyday Magic
                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:51:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Youve got it backwards (0+ / 0-)

                  You've confused the way it should work with the way it does work.

                  Now, I agree with you that that's the way it should work, but I also understand that until you suck it up and deal with it the way it DOES work, you're not going to make progress.

                  "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                  by Whimsical on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:53:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Once again... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...you have yet to explain how you get from what we have now to how it should be by continuing to support the antics and assholery happening now.

                    It's all very inspiring.

                    Everyday Magic
                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:11:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Im the one who isn't doing that. (0+ / 0-)

                      By not voting, volunteering and donating to the Democrat in the general (and primarying bad Democrats) I believe it is you who is "support[ing] the antics and assholery happening now."

                      "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                      by Whimsical on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 03:30:12 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, well.. (0+ / 0-)

                        ...you seem to be convinced that I don't vote or donate, despite the fact I do, have said I do, in multiple threads, so we're all aware that what you believe has no relation to reality.

                        But please, oldsplain more to me about my generation!

                        Everyday Magic
                        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                        -- Clarke's Third Law

                        by The Technomancer on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 07:37:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, there's the obligatory contemptuous (9+ / 0-)

      response on behalf of the Very Serious People in DC.

      You'll get another one in November if the Democrats lose the Senate.

      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:31:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and yours would be the obligatory dismissal? (0+ / 0-)

        If the Democrats lose the Senate it will be because they ran scared. That's what happened in 2010. It could very well happen again.

        I don't think that Wheeler or the FCC's decision will alter young voter turnout at all. Though I suppose I could be wrong.

        Perhaps millenials really don't care about gay rights, or access to health care, or women's rights, or income inequality or anything other than punishing the Democrats because the FCC dared to propose a rule affecting their precious internet.

        •  Ah, I see. (5+ / 0-)
          Perhaps millenials really don't care about gay rights, or access to health care, or women's rights, or income inequality or anything other than punishing the Democrats because the FCC dared to propose a rule affecting their precious internet.
          The ol' Dem canard of "where else are they going to go?"

          Clearly there are no consequences for Dem neoliberal policies, or straight-up breaking of any campaign promises. "Where else are they going to go?"

          •  it's amazing that you don't see (0+ / 0-)

            The point of the sentence you quoted was that like all other groups of voters, young voters have a lot of different concerns.

            One of them might be "not losing the internet" (I'm still not clear what that could possibly mean). But there are many many others. Will I get a job? Will I keep my job? Will my employer be able to fire me because I get gay married? Will I keep my health insurance if I lose my job? How will I pay off my student loans? Are we going to go to war with Iran? Am I going to have to take my shoes off at the airport for the rest of my life? Is the NSA spying on my emails and phone conversations in order to blackmail me in case I become a political dissident?

            etc. etc.

            So, perhaps the Democrats should be punished for the FCC proposal (though really? really?). But doing so would require overlooking all other priorities.

            So here's a question for you: do you think the internet will still exist in November? If you do, then why would young voters overlook everything else they care about to punish the Democrats for a decision that has no appreciable affect on their lives?

            To me it's like someone saying that the Democrats will lose the election because NASA has abandoned the Space Shuttle. There are certainly a good number of people who are upset about that, but I don't think they're going to turn an election.

            •  Well... (8+ / 0-)
              So here's a question for you: do you think the internet will still exist in November?
              a decision that has no appreciable affect on their lives?
              One of them might be "not losing the internet" (I'm still not clear what that could possibly mean).
              It's worth noting that you clearly do not possess even a basic understanding of what this issue is or what it means. But that's okay, it's not what we're specifically arguing about here.
              The point of the sentence you quoted was that like all other groups of voters, young voters have a lot of different concerns.
              Of course. But I'm seeing alot of old people in this diary acting as if the blatant promise-breaking Obama has done over the issue of Net Neutrality just isn't enough of a big deal to Millenials to influence their votes.

              For some Millenials, it definitely is.

              And for the rest of them, it's another reason to be dissapointed in the Democratic party, and all those reasons add up fairly quickly.

              Things like: The NSA. Democratic inaction on the cost of education and student loan reform. Lack of accountability for banksters. And now, net neutrality.

              These things add up. You can say that Millenials have other concerns besides net neutrality, and they do, but Dems aren't really doing much on those issues either, are they?

              •  that's not the point of this diary, is it? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Whimsical

                the point of this diary is that Tom Wheeler was a lobbyist and therefore don't vote for Democrats in November.

                It's worth noting that you clearly do not possess even a basic understanding of what this issue is or what it means.
                The irony of this statement is profound. Please continue thinking that the only reason anyone might disagree with you is because they are ignorant. I am sure that approach will lead to many productive conversations in the future.

                I see you wont answer my question, so I'll make it easier. Do you think the this website will still exist (and be accessible to you) in November?

                If you don't like that question, try this one: Can you name a single website that you anticipate not being available to you come November due to the FCC's proposed rule?

                These things add up.
                Gay rights. Equal pay. Affordable health care. Help with student loans. I guess those things don't add up.

                Look, young people don't vote in midterms. It's been that way forever. Maybe it's because when they think about their elected representatives they can only think of the grievances.

                Whatever the reason, low youth turnout is reality. The Democrats know that young voters will find reasons not to vote because that's what they always do. That's why they don't care if you say you wont vote. That's everyone's default assumption.

                You want to have a voice? You want people to listen to your concerns? Vote. Not to send the message that their actions don't matter. But to send the message that your actions do.

                Of course, you're bound to misinterpret everything I am saying.

                •  Actually... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo, Boogalord, cybrestrike, mconvente

                  ...I think that recent history has proven that if you want to have a voice and you want people to listen to your concerns, you buy a Congresscritter or a regulatory agency.  Voting's for the rubes without 7-8 figures to throw around.

                  Gay rights?  SCOTUS did it, specifically, the current 9.

                  Equal pay?  Nothing.

                  Affordable health care?  Better than it was before, but I wouldn't classify this system as all that affordable.  Bronze 80/20 coverage is still going to bankrupt a lot of people.  Most Democrats don't actually have the testicular/ovarian fortitude to run on this accomplishment.

                  Strengthening unions?  Nothing.

                  Obviously, I'm here because I do think the President has done a pretty damn good job given what he's up against (and has run up a long list of accomplishments), but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Democratic Party, and this is a Democrat-appointed FCC chair.  Shit, my complaint is more about the fact that our system of government is fucking designed this way and that your vote rarely means anything thanks to officials picking their voters rather than vice versa, and that pay-to-play politics is the norm.

                  Finally, if you think this:

                  I see you wont answer my question, so I'll make it easier. Do you think the this website will still exist (and be accessible to you) in November?

                  If you don't like that question, try this one: Can you name a single website that you anticipate not being available to you come November due to the FCC's proposed rule?

                  ...has anything to do with Net Neutrality, I suggest educating yourself on the topic.  You can start at the link in my sig.

                  Everyday Magic
                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:10:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

                    the FCC ruling wont change the internet (in any noticeable way) before the election but nonetheless young voters will be so upset about everything being completely the same that then they wont turn out in November to show their anger. And this will be different from 2010/2006/2002/1998/1994... when young voters didn't show up because how?

                    As far as net neutrality, we've talked, you and I, on this very subject before. And we came to an impasse.

                    Essentially though, I think we agree that as long as private industry controls the pathways of the internet (And is responsible for building them out) rollouts will be slow and coverage limited, bandwidth will be expensive, and users will pay for the internecine war between providers.

                    The FCC cannot force them to be content neutral (though the evil Tom Wheeler did try) because the courts wont let them. The FCC cannot make them common carrier because Congress wont let them. And Congress will never pay for a public internet to compete with the ISPs.

                    I am sure that there are pie-in-the-sky solutions to these problems, but I don't think any of it matters for November.

                    •  You're wrong. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Boogalord, cybrestrike, mconvente

                      Reclassification doesn't require Congress.  Just the FCC.  The Net Neutrality decision threw out Net Neutrality because their authority is to regulate telecommunications entities under Title II, and the FCC reclassified Internet service as an information service, which they are not authorized under the law to regulate.

                      Returning Internet services to telecommunications status from information service status is within the purview of the FCC.  Congress is only needed if they want to bring information services under the purview of the FCC, not to reclassify information services as telecommunications services under Title II.

                      The only thing that makes that solution "pie-in-the-sky" is having Tom Wheeler as FCC chair, since he's the deciding vote on reclassification.

                      Everyday Magic
                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                      -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:11:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  what's the first thing that would happen (0+ / 0-)

                        if the FCC tried that?

                        The ISPs would sue for an injunction and win.

                        What's the second thing?

                        Congress would take away the FCC's authority to regulate ISPs.

                        Pie-in-the-sky.

                        But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the ISPs didn't sue and Congress didn't put the FCC on a chain. What motivation would the ISPs to continue upgrading and rolling out their network?

                        It costs billions of dollars, took decades to set up. And now they have to offer their most precious asset at wholesale prices to their competitors? Begin: the tragedy of the commons.

                        (I know, AT&T or something in California... like I said, we had this conversation)

                        In order to not result in a degrading of the network, common carrier regulation would have to be tied to a publicly funded infrastructure program. An independent federal agency (the NSA, perhaps?) with a significant budget would be in charge of maintaining and building out the network.

                        Pie-in-the-sky.

                        •  The first thing that would happen... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Boogalord, cybrestrike, mconvente

                          ...is that the FCC would actually be acting like they're run by Democrats rather than Comcast.

                          The second thing would be that the ISPs sue.  Obviously, this means we shouldn't try at all, per your reasoning.

                          The third thing is that I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but Congress can barely name Post Offices, let alone pass anything substantiative.  And if they do manage to do so in a bipartisan manner, then that sort of proves the points in this diary and its comments about the Democratic Party no longer being the party of the people.

                          As far as motivation?  There's still money to be made.  If it's not enough for them, they'll sell the business to someone who is satisfied with that level of profit and the country will be better off for it.  If they can't operate under those circumstances, they'll bankrupt and some lucky corp will pick up all that infrastructure at fire-sale prices.

                          Believe it or not, it doesn't take 6 billion dollars a year in profit to motivate someone to run an ISP.   That's rent charged for lines laid by and large on public property.

                          They rolled out DSL and Cable Modem services under a telecommunications regulatory environment prior to being reclassified as information services.  There is no historical evidence for your assertion.  It's a zombie lie.  Telcos have had to deal with this since the breakup of AT&T.

                          The only impasse in this conversation is that you keep asserting things are not true, and pooh-poohing everything that is as "pie in the sky".

                          PS:  If you think Comcast and AT&T have laid new lines every time they've upgraded speeds, I've got some oceanfront property in Denver I'd like to sell you.

                          Everyday Magic
                          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                          -- Clarke's Third Law

                          by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:37:13 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  A solution as flawless as a diamond (0+ / 0-)

                            I know everything you're saying and I yet here I am with a completely different conclusion. It's not out of ignorance, but because I have seen this play out before.

                            Radical change is never all its cracked up to be; the payoffs are never as big as promised (if they even come), and the costs are always far higher than "anyone could have anticipated".

                            I acknowledge that there are problems with the structure of the internet in this country. I acknowledge that the current regime is far from perfect and that the FCC's proposals do nothing to change that.

                            You, and many others on the NN crusade, do not acknowledge any benefit of the current status-quo. You take it for granted as though fiber-to-the-home is your birthright. And, of course, you would never acknowledge any possible drawbacks to your policy proposals.

                            Look at this:

                            If they can't operate under those circumstances, they'll bankrupt and some lucky corp will pick up all that infrastructure at fire-sale prices.
                            What you're describing would be an economic and social disaster akin to the failure of the big banks. Millions of people and tens of thousands of businesses rely on those companies that you're fantasizing about destroying.

                            But hey, whatever. All in the name of preserving Net Neutrality. The great law of the internet. The totally made up, self-justifying meme of our age.

                          •  It's not radical. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cybrestrike, mconvente

                            I do not think that word means what you think it means.  Frankly, there is no benefit to the status quo.  It's done better elsewhere.  Same with health care.  Speeds improved at a greater rate prior to the most recent classification.  Take a look at when US 'Net speeds started dropping relative to the rest of the world.  Look at when the FCC ruled that Internet services were information services, not telecommunications subject to common carrier regulation.

                            What you're describing would be an economic and social disaster akin to the failure of the big banks. Millions of people and tens of thousands of businesses rely on those companies that you're fantasizing about destroying.
                            Show me the last time a communications company the size of Comcast straight up shut their doors rather than there being an orderly dismantling or re-incorporation through bankruptcy.  It'll be like every other ISP that sank or was purchased.  Customers will either have their service provider transferred to the new service or given plenty of notice to get a replacement in place.  I remember never calling to change my ISP (well, my parents not calling, anyway) and going through 5 different ones in the span of a few years when the industry consolidated in the 90s.

                            I remember when Earthlink and AOL sold cable internet service on Time Warner and Cox Cable lines and did just fine until the FCC ruled that cable internet was information services, not telecommunications, and the cable companies didn't renew the CLEC leases.

                            I do find it telling that your first worry was about consumers and businesses rather than the labor that gets their check from Comcast and the like, though.

                            Regardless of that interesting point, you keep saying the sky is falling.  I keep asking you to point to the pieces, but you don't seem to be able to do that.  Why is that?

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:31:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  AOL and modems and DSL (0+ / 0-)

                            you are bringing back memories, my man! Not really fond memories, though.

                            You know what killed AOL? It was the free and open internet. Google killed AOL.

                            Show me the last time a communications company the size of Comcast straight up shut their doors rather than there being an orderly dismantling or re-incorporation through bankruptcy.
                            Hey, it's your fantasy. You can have it play out however you like. (Sorry that I failed to include you in my list of people who would be devastated by the collapse of a major ISP. I guess I am just selfishly thinking of the cost to society as a whole, rather than the cost to those who cash Comcast's checks)
                            I remember never calling to change my ISP ... and going through 5 different ones in the span of a few years when the industry consolidated in the 90s.
                            Ah memories... Maybe you should ask your parents how much they enjoyed that experience? Nothing says "stable and growing internet" like being handed off from one failed ISP to another. Man, remember how speeds totally jumped from 28.8 to 33.6 baud! It was amazing! The power of the free market.

                            Remember how fun it was to listen to the modem song and hope that you'd be able to connect at full speed and not get knocked down to the backup array of 9 baud modems. Oh! Good times!

                            Don't get me started on 56.6. You could download an entire webpage in less than a minute (Mosaic waited to load the pictures)! Mind. Blown.

                            Seriously, you are harkening back to a time when the fastest internet speeds were measured in kbps, the internet was a toy, and businesses ran on fax! That's the halcyon days you want to return to? Bonkers.

                            you keep saying the sky is falling
                            This is rich. I do? I am pretty sure I am not writing hair-on-fire diaries about a proposed FCC rule change.

                            I think things are actually going pretty well, considering how late we started. Internet service a little expensive. But it was always expensive. And it's immeasurably faster and far more reliable than it ever was. Content's better too!

                          •  Nothing killed AOL. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mattc129, cybrestrike, mconvente

                            It's alive and kicking as a media platform after getting spun back off by Time Warner.

                            Yeah, I was amazed when I read that too.  Can't blame you on that one.

                            I don't work for an ISP, so I'm not included in that category.  I will, however, assume you're ceding the point about it being hellfire and damnation if a large ISP decided it wasn't worth it anymore and went under.  Because that's what actually happens when businesses larger than a mom-and-pop close up shop.  Call it a fantasy all you like -- I just notice that you did that rather than actually providing proof to back up your claims.

                            Think of the dial up days all you like.   Broadband over DSL and cable went from 256kbps tops to 6Mbps tops (10Mbps in the case of Sprint ION and a close RA) in less than a decade -- a 24x improvement in speed.  Same old lines.

                            Needless to say, we haven't gotten another 24x in this country on the consumer end of things unless you live in a Google Fiber area. Other countries...don't have that problem.

                            And finally, yes.  You are saying the sky is falling.  You say innovation and upgrades will drop off.  Most of that innovation and upgrades happened under the old regulatory regime or is coming in the form of protocol upgrades from research universities.   AT&T still won't get you more than 40Mbps outside of areas where they're planning Gigapower, which they can somehow roll out without any additional capital expenditures on the books.  We have proof that these companies already aren't upgrading their networks to keep up with the traffic.  We know from Level 3 that this only happens in markets without common carrier.

                            You say that a large company would just shut their doors overnight, when no large company does that, even when bankrupting so bad that the smoking crater they leave behind owes someone money.  And nobody likes getting shipped around during industry consolidation, but that happens in every emerging market and isn't exactly a function of regulation like you seem to be making it out to be.  Earthlink, Netcom, etc., didn't fail.  They got bought.  As did AOL.  And spun back off.  And amazing still exists.

                            I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything here, dude.  But your doom and gloom predictions haven't happened.  There's no reason to think it won't happen.  

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:15:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  AOL became a media company (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mconvente, The Technomancer

                            instead of a bona fide ISP. Sure, they still have legacy dialup subscribers, but right now they are no different from Yahoo, et al, aside from the fact that AOL is on the smaller end of major online properties.

                          •  are you also on Comcast's payroll? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Technomancer, mattc129

                            Yes, because ensuring that all citizens have equal access to fast Internet is radical.  Or something.

                            I guess you're ok with rich people getting the best healthcare.  I mean, after all, they can afford it.  Screw the poor, working class, and middle class.

                            Because if Net Neutrality dies, we're going to end up with the rich getting the top tier while us peons fight over crumbs.

                            Yep, ensuring that doesn't happen is soooooo radical...  Give me a fucking break.

                            "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

                            by mconvente on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:32:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that's not what net neutrality means (0+ / 0-)

                            though I guess it is one of those phrases that means whatever you want it to mean. (That Technomancer uprated your comment is shocking to me)

                            There is no rule that says the ISPs have to provide everyone with equal access. There is no rule that says that the ISPs cannot give better service to rich people. And, in fact, they do. They have always done.

                            And rich people have better health care. They own yachts, stay in fancy hotels, and own luxurious summer homes on other continents. And none of that has anything to do with net neutrality.

                            Net neutrality is about whether the ISPs (Comcast.. still waiting for my check, guys!) can charge content providers (Netflix.. if you want to send me a check, that'll work too!) to prioritize their traffic to their customers.

                            Services that need timely continuous delivery (pretty much exclusively talking about HD video streaming services, at the moment) will be able to pay the ISPs to make that easier. And it's not a coincidence that this debate is playing out just as Netflix is rolling out 4K Ultra HD.

                        •  Oh man. (3+ / 0-)
                          what's the first thing that would happen if the FCC tried that?

                          The ISPs would sue for an injunction and win.

                          What's the second thing?

                          Congress would take away the FCC's authority to regulate ISPs.

                          Pie-in-the-sky.

                          Gotta love the centrists. Always there with the reasons why we shouldn't even try to fight for the right thing. And they call it "pragmatism".

                          Seriously, just think about what was said. If the FCC does it's job, Congress will neuter it (apparently this is a stone-cold fact), therefore there's no point. Alrighty then.

                •  Good God. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo, cybrestrike, mconvente
                  The irony of this statement is profound. Please continue thinking that the only reason anyone might disagree with you is because they are ignorant.
                  You're not ignorant because you disagree with me, you're ignorant because of the highlighted portions I quoted previously.
                  I see you wont answer my question, so I'll make it easier. Do you think the this website will still exist (and be accessible to you) in November?
                  See? You're doing it again. If you had even the slightest understanding of this issue you would know that this is a stupid question that betrays your ignorance on the subject.

                  Also to answer your (terrible) question: of course the site will still exist, because that's not the issue with net neutrality. I don't even care to explain it to you.

                  Gay rights. Equal pay. Affordable health care. Help with student loans. I guess those things don't add up.
                  All of those things have varied from tinkering around the edges of a broken system to throwing up their hands in defeat when the Republicans vote it down. We're still left scratching our heads wondering how the hell we're going to retire, and that's an issue that no-fucking-body is touching.
                  Whatever the reason, low youth turnout is reality. The Democrats know that young voters will find reasons not to vote because that's what they always do. That's why they don't care if you say you wont vote. That's everyone's default assumption.
                  Maybe they could try pursuing legislation that will encourage young people to vote? Gee whiz!
                  You want to have a voice? You want people to listen to your concerns? Vote.
                  We did, in 2008 and 2012. And we've been paying attention ever since.
                  •  Something happened between 2008 and 2012 (0+ / 0-)

                    Any chance you know what it was. It's very germane to our conversation.

                    Why didn't millenials show up to vote in 2010? That election was huge! I mean, other than following a historical pattern that goes back forever. Young voters don't vote in midterm elections.

                    this is a stupid question that betrays your ignorance on the subject.
                    I know. It's frustrating when someone takes a righteous cause and frames it in a way that makes it seem pedestrian.

                    But there you go: your righteous cause is pedestrian. Net neutrality is a nebulous concept the spirit of which is currently violated in any number of ways by the current network structure we call "the internet".

                    When I was a youth voter, the rage was that "information wanted to be free" and "the internet will route around you". Meaningless phrases used (even by myself) to justify rampant piracy.

                    Now it's "net neutrality" and in twelve years it will be something else and the youth vote wont turn out for that election either.

                    •  So because you don't understand the issue (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cybrestrike, The Technomancer

                      it's "pedestrian" and irrelevant. Hoooookay!

                      Also, liberal Dems voted in 2010 (me included). The moderate unicorns did not.

                      •  yes, we did (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Whimsical

                        of course we did. We wouldn't be on this site if we didn't vote. but the millenials didn't.

                        This diary isn't about "liberals" it's about "millenials". Liberals vote in every election. Sometimes they grit their teeth and vote for the D because they cannot bear Republican rule, but they always vote.

                    •  One last thing cause I'm feeling salty (3+ / 0-)
                      It's frustrating when someone takes a righteous cause and frames it in a way that makes it seem pedestrian.
                      No. It's frustrating when someone takes a righteous cause and frames it in a way that completely skullfucks the whole issue because the person is talking out of their ass out of pure ignorance.
                      •  the premise of this diary (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Whimsical

                        is that we will shortly "lose the internet" and this will have a negative effect on youth turnout.

                        And the premise of my reply was that nothing will happen to the internet between now and election day. I'm unclear the mechanism by which an arcane decision by the FCC that doesn't do anything will motivate so many people to not vote. I suppose John Oliver will tell them what to do.

                        The low turnout of young voters will shock absolutely no one. Because in every midterm election, young voters do not show up. Every election they're asked "Why don't you vote?" and every time they have a new answer.

                        This time it's Tom Wheeler (or Edward Snowden). Next time it will be something else.

                •  As the diarist, a few comments on "the point" (3+ / 0-)
                  the point of this diary is that Tom Wheeler was a lobbyist and therefore don't vote for Democrats in November.
                  Let me be perfectly clear here.

                  The question is, is taking the money helping the Democratic Party?

                  I don't believe it is. I believe it hurts the party long term because the money leads the party to go against their populist rhetoric. What this has the effect of doing is discouraging people who want to support Democrats but have a very hard time doing so because the best argument for doing so is "they're not Republicans."

                  So we support Democrats but hold our nose because of the stench.

                  In other words, they say one thing, do another. Tom Wheeler at the FCC is simply an example. Millennials are simply an example. To be quite honest, I think the Democratic Party disappoints many people outside of the Millennials as well. But the Internet, because the Millennials have grown up with it, is likely more important of an issue to the Millennials than other generations.

                  My argument is that we would be much better off as a populist party not taking the money. What I am saying is not "Don't Vote in November".

                  What I am saying is that I believe Democrats would do better in November if they would actually take some populist stands (Again, net neutrality is an example. But a powerful example judging by the 700,000 or so comments on the FCC page.)

                  I personally, would have a much easier time selling the Democratic Party to people if they were more 'democratic' with a small 'd'.

                  To be perfectly clear, that is the point.  

          •  "Clearly there are no consequences for Dem" (3+ / 0-)

            Authoritarians expect you to vote for The Party no matter what. No questions asked. Anyone who doesn't, or even hints at dissent, has harmed The Party and is thus the enemy.

  •  Do Millennials all hate broadband and refuse it? (0+ / 0-)
    One, the FCC is asking for feedback on whether "fast lanes" should be banned altogether.
    To make any sense of this, it must be true that millennials hate broadband internet, they hate the very concept of paying more for faster internet access.  Instead, they are all refusing to pay more and are all sticking with the cheaper 56k dial-up.  Yes?

    Show me a serious proposal to ban all broadband internet access as unfair to those who don't want to pay more than 56k dialup, and I'll take these complaints over "fast lanes" seriously.  Paying more for faster hardware and faster access has been a key feature of computing for the last 30 years.  Deny that, and I've got an old 486 without a math coprocessor to sell you.  Should still be just fine for your needs, yes?

    •  You're comparing apples and dial-up modems (16+ / 0-)

      What this is about is the ability of the Service Provider to determine the speed of content to you.

      In other words, you're paying for broadband, they determine what will run quickly for you and what won't. Not you.

      It has nothing to do with what you pay for. It has everything to do with who pays them for priority content.

      Oh, and BTW, you don't pay them? Guess what happens to your content ...

      Ssssssllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

      Doesn't that sound kind of like extortion to you? And, as a small business owner, how would you compete w/ a company like Netflix who is able to pay Comcast extortion fees?

      Here's a great post that shows the "improvement" when Netflix agreed to pay the Comcast extortion fee.

    •  You're completely wrong on this (12+ / 0-)

      The point is not how much bandwidth I'm willing to pay for (right now it's a nominal 15 Mbps down). It's that there should not be discrimination based on origin from my ISP as to how fast the data gets to me. Now, it could be that I'm hitting a server with a slow upload speed, or one on the other side of the world with a lot of latency, or just a simply busy server. But it should not be that my ISP gets to prioritize how fast I get the packets based on which server I'm hitting and who owns the server.

      Now, I'm willing to listen to some arguments about things like packet shaping and bandwidth throttling but those should also be as agnostic as possible about the data and data source.

      •  Voice over IP is a good example (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        ... of a legitimate application. In my opinion anyways.

      •  Do you reject priority mail from the post office (0+ / 0-)

        The mail used to work like this:  Everybody puts a stamp on their letter, everyone's letter gets delivered in 3 days.

        Then the post office came up with Priority Mail.  Pay us extra, we'll get your letter there in 2 days.  What they didn't tell you is, because some of the resources used to get letters there in 2 days came from the normal mail, some of those 3 day letters now take 4 days to get there.  That birthday card you sent got throttled down because someone else used Priority Mail.

        At Disney World, it used to be that everyone paid to get in, everyone paid to stand in the same line.  Now you pay to get in, and pay extra for the fast pass that lets you cut in line ahead of everyone who won't pay.  Their line gets longer and slower to let those who pay more go faster.

        Ban Priority Mail and Fast Passes, and any other pay for performance, make everyone equal, and you can ban Fast Lanes.

        •  Except... (6+ / 0-)

          ...the physical resources in question when it comes to the 'Net aren't overloaded (or, more specifically, any scarcity involved is a false one), unlike the Postal Service or the physical footprint and people-moving capacity of Disneyland.

          But again, you know this.

          Everyday Magic
          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
          -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:11:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry sir, but it appears there's still (9+ / 0-)

          ... a huge misunderstanding here.

          It has nothing to do w/ what you pay.

          Your post office analogy only works if companies other than you were paying the post office to determine the speed at which your mail arrived.

          An example. Amazon determines that it wants its mail to be faster than a competitors.

          So Amazon pays the post office for faster service at the expense of its competitor. Smaller competitors who can't also afford to pay are at a disadvantage.

          net·work neu·tral·i·ty
          noun
          the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

        •  Your comparison is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. I worked ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo, cybrestrike, MEAT HELMET

          Your comparison is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

          I worked for the USPS for seventeen years. You are COMPLETELY WRONG with that comparison, so totally, fucking cluelessly wrong I'm not even going to give it the dignity of refutation.

          What you describe is NOT THE WAY IT HAPPENS. Don't even try to argue otherwise with me. You are WAY out of your league.

      •  Well, packet-shaping and quality-of-service... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        akadjian, JVolvo, Odysseus, cybrestrike

        ...isn't a factor in Net Neutrality, because it's the type of data being shaped, not the source of the data.  Your mail provider filtering spam is a wanted service, not a net neutrality issue that isn't fair to spammers.

        Your ISP prioritizing -all- video, VoIP, and gaming packets over other traffic does you a favor since your other applications are likely far more latency tolerant.

        Blacklisting/blackholing traffic from known sources of attacks (DDoS, phishing, malware havens, etc) keeps large parts of the 'Net up and running, and is, again, a service, not a Net Neutrality issue.

        Nobody's asking for all network stewardship to be abolished.  Net Neutrality is about making sure that the ISPs are providing the pipe, not keeping the gate.  Common Carrier regulation ensures that they have to share the pipe, too.

        Net Neutrality is just a bandaid until Common Carrier gets enacted.

        Everyday Magic
        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:18:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  move to Europe or Japan (14+ / 0-)

      where 100 Mbps access is common. Pay anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 what you pay for 1Mbps here in America. Paying more to get more is a myth, that only those here in "Merica have bought into.

      "There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." ~ Sun Tsu

      by coyote66 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:48:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That truly deserves a double facepalm (5+ / 0-)

      and is probably one of the worst pro-corporate arguments I've read in a  while.

      Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

      by The Dead Man on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:14:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We already lost the Democratic Party (13+ / 0-)

    this realization is coming late for some... the Dems will have another election cycle or two of fooling people into believing they are populists, then they are toast, permanently. People are waking up to the fact that the Democrats are unprincipled sellouts, just like the evil Republicans.

     Then we can seriously start rebuilding this country with neither Party.

    The Republicans are crazy, but why we follow them down the rabbit hole is beyond me.

    by Jazzenterprises on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:04:10 PM PDT

  •  Watch "The Internets Own Boy" for clue (4+ / 0-)

    Aaron knew what net neutrality is. People continue his work, you can too.

    If your pockets are empty, it's free on archive.org, else JFGI. Don't be an "old world" Democrat. /looks askance

  •  In favor of Net Neutrality. (9+ / 0-)

    I support Net Neutrality.  As do the vast majority of young voters.  If Net Neutrality is gutted under President Obama's watch, the people will realize the Democrats are just corporate shills and the whole party will get egg on their face.  Independent voters already self-identify at over 40%, and that number is going to spike if ISPs get to rule over the internet, rather than serve at their customers' pleasure.

  •  I suspect this article is not only right, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    This is already a done deal.

    Judas has already paid his 30-pieces of silver to get Internet-Jesus onto that cross...

    And he's up there already - the internet; the shining beacon that has changed the world and every way we communicated since it became a public thing in 1996...

    Is already in the process of being crucified.

    And yes, the Millennials might not go GOP, but we've tossed them out over this...

    In the longer picture, even the corps that wanted this thing crucified will suffer for it. But they've always been blind to the long term costs of their term gains.

    And that may very well in time make the Dems the minority party again. Aging hippies and other diehard dems are... aging out of the planet...

    Plenty of us in between them and our own aging out are going to be here in through 2050 or longer... and will have to suffer the fallout of living in a nation that ends up in the third world run by what will be a racially-charged minority-population using increasingly draconian laws on its growing brown majority... because while it was still the majority, we democrats de-motivated its soon-to-be-formerly-liberal youth.

    de-motivate the younger side of the 99%, and the 1% keep winning.

    OMG, like, gag them with a multi-colored spoon. Like, ya know.

    by Jyotai on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:52:28 PM PDT

    •  de-motivated (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike
      we democrats de-motivated its soon-to-be-formerly-liberal youth.
      Hopefully, a significant number of formerly liberal youth will wake up and reject both liberals and conservatives and go full out leftist.

      "Americans have a strong devotion to afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable. They have a hard time contemplating any meaningful overhaul of the rules of their political system" -- Alec Baldwin

      by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:16:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Libertarian, more likely. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike

        Leftism requires people wanting to make government work rather than slow it down or get rid of it to have any chance at success.  

        Needless to say, this is not something I've experienced in my adult life.

        Everyday Magic
        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:52:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm hoping for democracy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike, The Technomancer

          Real democracy.

          While I would say I have Libertarian leanings, real Libertarian leanings, I think most of what we hear today as "Libertarian" is simple corporate propaganda.

          The only reason we hear so much about it is because corporate special interest groups are pushing it in order to further their interests.

          Of course they're pretty good at doing this with just about any philosophy :).

          I do, however, wonder whatever happened to democracy.

          I think it got lost in the corporate framing of "free markets" vs. "big government"

          •  Small-L libertarianism... (0+ / 0-)

            ...is an awesome ideal, but completely ignores the fact that even when people -can- work shit out on their own, they'll decide not to for one reason or another, and that's when you need a government to step in and settle the disputes.  That's pretty much the lynchpin of civilization, right there.

            So, I'd love to see it, but I classify myself as a liberal because I don't see any evidence that libertarianism is an achievable ideal, and therefore, the form of government that works for the people as an institution of the people is the next best option, and liberals are the ones supporting the construction and maintenance of such a government.

            I tend to agree with conservatives on the ideal that we shouldn't need a big government.  We shouldn't.  But it's unfortunately an unrealistic ideal, and the bulk of recorded human history shows that.

            Since we obviously do need a big government to function as a modern society, that leads me to support the school of thought that wants to make government work rather than the one that wants to tear it down or outsource it to the private sector, where only money talks.

            If the Democrats are going to simply take corporate dollars to build the government corporations want rather than the one their constituents want, I'm not in favor of that and I wish I didn't have enough civic guilt to just sit out a vote in protest.  And this is why I can't blame people of my generation that don't have the tolerance for bullshit and holding one's nose than I do.

            Everyday Magic
            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:01:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Or libertarian in the non-American (0+ / 0-)

          original sense of the word ... ala Chomsky.

          "Americans have a strong devotion to afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable. They have a hard time contemplating any meaningful overhaul of the rules of their political system" -- Alec Baldwin

          by Sagebrush Bob on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:18:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm glad you wrote this diary, but I have to tell (6+ / 0-)

    you that many of us knew who he was when he was nominated and were wholeheartedly against his nomination.

    Big surprise, not,  that Wheeler doesn't work for The People.

    Originally considered a frontrunner for the position,[6] Wheeler was confirmed as the new Federal Communications Commission chief in November 2013.[7] Despite a letter written by several prominent former Obama administration officials endorsing Wheeler for the position, many people expressed concern over the consideration of Wheeler for the position due to his history of lobbying for industry.[6]

    In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame.[4][8][9] He is the only member of both halls of fame.[5] Cablevision magazine named Wheeler one of the 20 most influential individuals in its history during cable's 20th anniversary in 1995.[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Frankly, it's not Wheeler's fault.  Everyone knew who he was and what he stood for.

    Why he was nominated and confirmed says everything one needs to know and understand.

    Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

    by gooderservice on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:27:29 PM PDT

  •  Democrats are doing plenty... (8+ / 0-)

    plenty to lose millenials and not over just this one issue.

    "Americans have a strong devotion to afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable. They have a hard time contemplating any meaningful overhaul of the rules of their political system" -- Alec Baldwin

    by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:14:22 PM PDT

    •  Where are they going to go? (0+ / 0-)

      Rand Paul? Only the libertarian and perhaps corporate wing of the GOP could conceivably appeal to most millenials, and they're being pushed out.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:39:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They go... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattc129, cybrestrike

        ...to someplace other than the polling booth to make the world a better place, because what's happening there ain't doing it.

        The choice is never "this or that".

        Everyday Magic
        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:26:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which of course is a cop out (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Whimsical

          You can do both, as you yourself say.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:00:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't just say it, I do it. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cybrestrike

            I'm already convinced that voting's still worth it, for now...or at least I have enough civic duty guilt to keep doing it even though I feel that voting in an election for a representative in a mid-term general election where gerrymandering decided the winner well before November -- something not currently applicable to me in CA, but was when I lived in Texas and is applicable to most of the country -- is a waste of a half-hour to an hour.

            I'm one of those weird fucks that enjoys jury duty, after all.

            I also think that what I do at my job is going to impact the world in a far greater way than balloting.

            I'm also fortunate enough that my job doesn't care if I disappear for an hour on a Tuesday.

            And really, I'm a dude who argues on the Internet for fun.  I apparently have an affinity for doing hopeless things.  Can't blame my peers for not having as much patience.

            Everyday Magic
            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:07:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When it counts, voting is imperative (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Technomancer, Whimsical

              And even when it doesn't, because your candidate has no chance, it's a civic duty, a way of reminding the other side that you're not taking it lying down. It's the ultimate "Letter to the editor": I'm not giving up, assholes.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:26:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Its a moral duty (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kovie

              not just a civic one to vote for those who will do the most good (and yes, sometimes "most good" has to be translated as "least harm") for the country.  Your feelings are entirely irrelevant.

              The idea that if it doesn't feel good you can shirk your moral and civic duty is reprehensible, and sadly all too common.

              "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

              by Whimsical on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:25:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have no moral obligation to vote (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike

                for people who are fucking me over.

                •  Actually you do. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kovie

                  You have a moral obligation to vote for what is best for the country. What happens to you(and how you feel about it) is irrelevant to that, so yes, if the best candidate for the country is fucking you over personally, you're still obligated to vote for them.

                  But you've demonstrated over and over and over again that you're shortsighted and selfish enough to put yourself ahead of your country, so I don't really expect any better from selfish thugs like you.

                  You can lie and try to justify it all you want, but you're only fooling yourself, not me.

                  "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                  by Whimsical on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:52:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I don't (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cybrestrike

                    And you harping on it doesn't change it one bit. I have a moral obligation to NOT vote for people that are doing more harm than good. I will act on that.

                    And you always, always, get back to the name calling. Always.

                    •  Yes, you do. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kovie

                      And you trying to deny it wont change it one bit. You can lie to yourself about it all you want, but I'll be damned if I let you get away with lying to me about it.

                      You are obligated to do whats best for the country regardless of your own personal circumstances or how you feel about them. Period. Point blank. End Of Story.

                      But as I said, Ive learned not to expect better from those who are selfish and shortsighted enough to put their own welfare (or worse their own feelings) ahead of their country.  That attitude is largely responsible for the mess were in today, and I lost patience with it ages ago.

                      Selfishness and shortsightedness are hallmarks of thuggery. Don't like being called a thug? Simple solution- don't act like one.  It's hardly name-calling when the descriptor is accurate, after all.

                      "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                      by Whimsical on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:40:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Didn't you know that it's more important (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Whimsical

                        to be morally pure than to get shit done, or at least prevent even worse shit from happening? Yay, Not Gore '2000!

                        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                        by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:52:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This is not an inspiring slogan. (0+ / 0-)

                          "Vote Democratic:  We're only 95% as evil as Republicans!"

                          Everyday Magic
                          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                          -- Clarke's Third Law

                          by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:53:34 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You really believe that? (0+ / 0-)

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:04:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's the "harm reduction" model... (0+ / 0-)

                            ....applied to the Democratic Party, as is being argued in this thread.

                            Would it make you feel better if I changed the number to 90%?  Here, we'll leave the number out entirely:

                            "Vote Democratic:  Not quite as evil as the Republicans!"

                            It doesn't change the overall point that it's perfectly rational to reject a false "this or that" choice where the argument for voting for this instead of that is that this is the lesser of two evils rather than changing the system so that you're not faced with such a false choice any longer or working outside of the broken system entirely to make things happen -- I find that to be a much greater fulfillment of one's civic duty to leave the world a better place rather than perpetuating the fiction of a working government by participating in it.

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:20:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it's not rational at all (0+ / 0-)

                            Or were you asleep through 2000-2008?

                            And it's not even close to 90%. One party has partly sold out to special interests, while the other wants to destroy the country. Big difference there.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:32:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...there is a difference between death by gunshot wound to the head and death by a thousand papercuts, but you still end up dead either way.

                            One party doesn't give a shit about its constituents.  The other cares even less.  And frankly, even if that wasn't the case, the last few years have proven that our system of government isn't crafted to get shit done and is actively holding the country back.

                            It can't pass laws and programs supported by a clear, vast majority of the populace.  Amazingly enough, the only things that get passed is what helps rich people and corporations.  The fact that some of it, like the PPACA, actually helps people too is a side effect.

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:43:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why are you on this site (0+ / 0-)

                            if you despise the Democratic party so much? Are you a masochist, or just trying to save us all from ourselves? Please, spare us the help.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:16:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I still think the party can be fixed. (0+ / 0-)

                            Promising to vote for them no matter what removes any incentive for them to change.

                            Beyond that, the fact that I spend my time between software builds and deployments arguing on the Internet is sufficient proof of the sort of glutton for punishment I am.

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:23:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And how exactly does one fix this broken system (0+ / 0-)

                            except by working with and within it? Do you really believe that allowing Repubs to win back everything will help that effort? Please, game this out to me instead of speaking in aspirational Poly Sci 101 generalities.

                            You don't actually believe in revolution, do you? Or, its less violent cousin, holding yet more rallies and "raising awareness". You work to elect the best people you can and then you pressure them to be better. There is literally no other way to "fix" the system. If there is, please elaborate.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:36:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's a digital world. (0+ / 0-)

                            National borders mean less and less every day.  The revolution's already happened.  There's far more good I can do with my time than working to get the most milquetoast candidate that can appeal to 50%+1 people in a geographic boundary into office where they can promptly get paid six figures to do fuck-all.

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:48:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then more power to you (0+ / 0-)

                            So, why are you still here seeing as you have vastly more important and useful things to do?

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:17:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because software builds and deployments... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...aren't quite instantaneous yet, meaning that I have, on occasion, 20 minute chunks or so to argue on the Internet.

                            That, and there's no point in trying to do anything truly productive before/during coffee, so that works as well for time to post.

                            I'll turn the question back around on you -- you've made up your mind for good, apparently.  Why are you still here?

                            I'm guessing the reasons are fairly similar to mine.  It's a good source for information, the user commentary is miles above most of the bottom half of the Internet, and it's proven that it has/had the ability to change the Democratic Party.

                            Please correct me if I'm wrong.

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:28:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because I believe the party can and must (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Technomancer

                            be reformed, but only by pressure by "outsider Dems" like many here, myself included, Dems who don't like a lot about the party but aren't giving up on it (unless a truly viable alternative emerges, which is not the case). And part of that is trying to win over people who are currently more willing to go along with the party's platform than we are. I think the party has to be pushed, prodded and pulled left. But only by Dems, not true outsiders.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:34:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reasonable enough. (0+ / 0-)

                            But it leaves the question of what incentives the Democratic Party has to implement the change you're looking to accomplish without the threat of not getting the votes they want from the base unanswered.

                            I'm not trying to knock your party loyalty, or your patience with the party, or anything like that -- it's admirable and I wish I could just do that, and if it has sounded like I'm trying to mock/knock your loyalty, then I apologize for poorly choosing my language to the point that one could reasonably make that inference.  I'm a sarcastic bastard.  It doesn't always translate well over text.

                            However, I just don't see how saying "I'll vote for anything labeled Democratic on the ballot" come general election time provides incentive for the Democratic Party to improve the quality of its platform and the candidates it supports to execute the platform once in office.

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:33:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                            Your feelings are irrelevant.

                            You don't have to be inspired.

                            You just have to vote.

                            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                            by Whimsical on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:16:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I don't. (0+ / 0-)

                            We don't have mandatory participation.  My primary vote has far more power to change things than a general election vote in a state and district that's solidly for one side come general election time.

                            Civic guilt keeps me going to the polling stations.  I can't blame others my generation for having a lower tolerance for bullshit than I do.

                            Play a rigged game all you like, but the only way to win a rigged game is to simply not play.

                            Everyday Magic
                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:25:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  No, I am most certainly not (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cybrestrike

                        It is my vote and I will use it as I deem best, and that is not giving it freely to people screwing me over. Don't like it? Boo fucking hoo.

                        And right back to the name calling. Do you really think that's remotely effective? I realize you're just trying to get me worked up but, quite frankly, I don't give enough a shit about your opinion.

                        •  That makes us even. (0+ / 0-)

                          As you, and your opinion are less than worthless to me.

                          I'm not trying to be effective. You've won, and as a direct result of you and selfish petty thugs like you putting their feelings and their purity ahead of the welfare of this country we are going to have a hard crash, and soon.

                          All I'm doing is leaving a record for future archeologists to find so that in a thousand years when decency and Democracy are restored after the crash you are in part responsible for, history will know who to blame.

                          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                          by Whimsical on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:36:08 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Not voting for Gore = Voting for Bush (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Whimsical

                      No amount of blah blah blah can change that.

                      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                      by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:51:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Even if in the instance (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Whimsical

                  it allows even worse people to win? So you were ok with 2000? At the time Gore still hadn't fully shed his neoliberal preferences.

                  "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                  by kovie on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:51:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I e-mailed Wheeler and asked point blank (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, Odysseus

    what he had to gain, who was paying him off.  He wrote back and said basically he was on our side, and that an open internet was in the public's best interests.  I wrote back and asked why then was this even an issue, and never heard from him again.

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:33:45 PM PDT

  •  Why do Daily Kos posters talk about millennial ... (6+ / 0-)

    Why do Daily Kos posters talk about millennial a as if were not in the room?

    •  No idea. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, Chi, ororis, mattc129, akadjian, cybrestrike

      I'm just here for the oldsplaining about how my generation is a bunch of whiners that need to get off their lawn and vote!

      Everyday Magic
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:38:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because the average site member (0+ / 0-)

      is probably a middle-aged white collar professional who drives a Prius or Volvo, listens to REM, shops at Whole Foods and voted for Mondale in '84.

      Purely my guess.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:37:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because they're not in the room? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike

      Yes, the Internet is a fantastic tool for communication and propaganda.

      From my view, FB, GOOG, APPL, and MSFT have already destroyed our Internet freedoms. Do you have any idea what could have been built instead of their shiny walled gardens? Maybe not a massive Orwellian database in "the cloud". Oh well shrug.

      Millennials in the room?

      Research Institute of new college students since 1966, showed an increase in the proportion of students who consider wealth a very important attribute, from 45% for Baby Boomers (surveyed between 1967 and 1985) to 70% for Gen Xers, and 75% for Millennials. The percentage who said it was important to keep abreast of political affairs fell, from 50% for Baby Boomers to 39% for Gen Xers, and 35% for Millennials. The notion of "developing a meaningful philosophy of life" decreased the most across generations, from 73% for Boomers to 45% for Millennials. The willingness to be involved in an environmental cleanup program dropped from 33% for Baby Boomers to 21% for Millennials.[33]
      Big money may win again I'm afraid :-(. Carve up the election in to single-issue portions, and eat it alive.
      •  What those companies do/have done... (0+ / 0-)

        ...is a large part of the reason why we have something as shiny as we do have.

        I mean, I'm a Linux/open source guy, but even I admit that Windows having a virtual monopoly on operating systems for the home did more to spread PC usage at home than anything else, because a developer could reasonably only target that platform and hit over 90% of the market.

        Facebook's the single sign-on for the Internet at this point (and the big reason why it'll stick around as profitable company even if people stop using it as a social network), and its API's allow a whole lot of connectivity and continuity between services as well as providing a platform for web-delivered software.  You just pay for it with data instead of dollars.

        Google search made the Web what is today -- it wasn't nearly as useful when searching consisted of querying a hand-populated index of sites.

        Now, I get your overall point about how once said companies established themselves as big players they started doing some terribly shitty things with the data they collect, but to have the kind of interconnection like we have and take for granted, that/those database(s) have to reside somewhere.  The fact that this data gets used for shitty reasons rather than good ones for the most part doesn't change this fact.

        I mean, there's a ton we could do to reform how government operates by making a huge, Orwellian database of citizen information.  It really is the only way to make it reactive to a world that changes faster than ever.  

        However, we call such things Orwellian for a reason -- I mean, if HHS or the CDC or the welfare programs or whatever have this database, you can revolutionize civic planning, disease management, target welfare to be more effective than the blanket system we have now, etc.  The thought of that same database in the hands of the NSA is why I use Tor on a regular basis, though.

        Everyday Magic
        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:15:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The young, radical me would stamp my foot and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Technomancer

          shout, "They're telling you what think! And you're thinking it! Stop it! Stop this madness now please!" But today I'm older and worn down to nothing.

          We are just two geeks passing on the wheel of opportunity. Good luck to you and your future 3.0, or whatever you're going to call it.. Caio.

    •  Hahahahahahah ... well played (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, The Technomancer

      Even if it is about me.

      Help me understand. What specifically gave you that impression?

      To be quite honest and I mentioned this in a couple of other comments, I think people are missing the point if they think this is solely about Tom Wheeler, the FCC, and Millennials.

      The point is that I believe Democrats hurt themselves when they take the money and go against their populist rhetoric.

      It's not just this issue. It's not just with the Millennial demographic. But I think you can see it very clearly with this example. That's the reason I chose to write about it in the way I did.

      It was not by any means an attempt at inter-generational warfare!  

      Some of the "get off my lawn" comments though ... Oy!

  •  Chill, 11DC Grandmaster's got this covered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:34:40 PM PDT

  •  it's too bad dems and millennials both get their (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Whimsical

    internet asses kicked by talk radio, which elected the republicans and blued dogs that influence all aspects of govt including who is and isn't acceptable to appoint to important posts, and how much work it would be to pass exactly who you like e.g.. van jones, eliz warren, and on and on.

    millennials are screwing themselves when they disregard and underestimate the single most effective propaganda tool in US media

    whatever obama thought of that pick, selected for him by his staff, whether he honestly misread him or not, they had to factor in politics and how much they would have to fight the the republicans and their media.

    can he just tell wheeler to do what he wants? what does he want?

    all of it comes down to public and not-so-public pressure, for which the fucking republicans have the upper hand, and millennials will continue to ignore talk radio

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 07:17:17 PM PDT

  •  Now is the time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Technomancer

    I remember when cable was first starting up.  There would be no commercials if you paid a subscription price.  That was just one promise that soon went away.
    Just a few years ago, broadcast TV was free.  Have you looked at your cable or satellite or Internet bill?  We can't afford to give the Internet over to people that will constantly jack up prices and deny new invention.  The US is falling farther behind as is.

  •  History (0+ / 0-)

    Dems have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Dems and libs have alienated the masses who voted for Obama in hopes that he could launch a legitimate discussion about our poverty crisis. He tried, a number of times, but lib media wasn't interested, focusing instead on appealing to middle class consumers and campaign donors. With the latest budget, Dems voted to cut food stamps to the elderly, disabled and working poor.  Again. Clinton/Gore targeted the poor, giving us 8 years of Bush.

claude, Thumb, Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, Doug in SF, chuck utzman, raboof, LeislerNYC, Mogolori, Chi, Phoenix Woman, Odysseus, copymark, Geenius at Wrok, dfarrah, surfbird007, MouseThatRoared, LynChi, Pescadero Bill, cotterperson, liz, akeitz, phenry, RFK Lives, Walt starr, astro, TracieLynn, whenwego, phillies, ivote2004, larryrant, Iberian, splashy, sidnora, dksbook, kharma, TexDem, brainwave, NYFM, flatford39, lcrp, Dave925, Chris Reeves, zerelda, Hillbilly Dem, Steven D, Gowrie Gal, sb, Brecht, nailbender, G2geek, lavaughn, Bluesee, NoMoreLies, chimene, schumann, elkhunter, Simplify, ajsuited, basquebob, dewtx, llywrch, YucatanMan, bleeding blue, Cecile, Tool, brentut5, Savvy813, WisePiper, Rogneid, peacestpete, Indiana Bob, mightymouse, Alan Arizona, xaxnar, esquimaux, buddabelly, Hirodog, Medium Head Boy, cybersaur, 417els, BlueInARedState, ActivistGuy, cookseytalbott, AoT, kck, blueoasis, gooderservice, JVolvo, gabriella, totallynext, ER Doc, Dinclusin, ProgressiVoice, delonix, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, BB10, blueoregon, kurt, shaharazade, bstotts, Aaa T Tudeattack, tegrat, One Pissed Off Liberal, john07801, Russ Jarmusch, camlbacker, ColoTim, FishOutofWater, Cofcos, HeartlandLiberal, bnasley, aseth, fb, JDWolverton, MKinTN, JayC, mconvente, also mom of 5, ChocolateChris, wayoutinthestix, zerone, elwior, Cat Servant, VL Baker, Greyhound, tofumagoo, Jeff Y, codairem, Drewid, petulans, Parthenia, billybam, cybrestrike, The Dead Man, CanyonWren, maryabein, mkor7, dskoe, Shelley99, winkk, IreGyre, sfarkash, ArthurPoet, Just Bob, p gorden lippy, mookins, Lady Libertine, AJ in Camden, DiegoUK, Betty Pinson, USHomeopath, soaglow, slice, BrowniesAreGood, Colorado is the Shiznit, JamieH, redlum jak, Jazzenterprises, slowbutsure, sabo33, Possiamo, FarWestGirl, Teiresias70, Carolyn in Oregon, Wolf10, Santa Susanna Kid, tardis10, worldlotus, organicus, dradams, DRo, SouthernLiberalinMD, CoyoteMarti, No one gets out alive, livingthedream, wolf advocate, quill, chmood, MightyMoe, IndieGuy, orestes1963, 420 forever, SocialRazor, Trotskyrepublican, peachcreek, kellius, MartyM, Brown Thrasher, rat racer, FrY10cK, AverageJoe42, peptabysmal, Chaddiwicker, eyo, poopdogcomedy, SanFernandoValleyMom, DownstateDemocrat, SixSixSix, unfangus, Jon Sitzman, aughtomatic, maregug, oslyn7, TheDuckManCometh, LeftieIndie, Bartskid1, The Technomancer, Darwinian Detritus, gmfp, Choco8, Pablo Bocanegra, LiberalLoner, dblues, windsong01, silverfoxcruiser, charlatan, coyote66, terryberg

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site