Wilkie condemns 'racism eating at Liberals'

In an extraordinary outburst in Federal Parliament, Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie has condemned what he describes the "racism that eats at the Liberal Party".

He singled out Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison and controversial Senator Cory Bernardi and demanded they be sacked over comments they made in recent weeks.

"As the families of the victims of the Christmas Island disaster buried their dead last month, we listened in disbelief as shadow minister for immigration and citizenship Scott Morrison took politics to a new low by whining over the cost of flying mourners to Sydney, including the orphan boy who probably watched his parents drown," Mr Wilkie said.

He accused Senator Bernardi of "rants whipping up the fear of Islam" and quoted him as saying, "I, for one, don't want to eat meat butchered in the name of an ideology that is mired in sixth-century brutality and is an anathema to my own values".

Mr Wilkie compared the Senator's remarks to former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson's maiden speech, in which she claimed Australia was in danger of being swamped by Asians.

"I say to Mr Morrison and Senator Bernardi, you are a disgrace - a disgrace to the high office you hold and the people you represent," Mr Wilkie said.

Senator Bernardi told ABC News Online that Mr Wilkie was a hypocrite.

"Why did he remain silent when Nick Xenophon, Bob Brown and Kevin Rudd expressed doubts about religion?" he said.  "Nick Xenophon criticised Scientology, Bob Brown wanted a register of businesses run by the Exclusive Bretheren, and Kevin Rudd said he had concerns about some religious practices.
"How can you be called a racist for questioning a religious practice? My comments were all in regard to religious practice, not in regard to race or ethnicity.

"I've been a defender of people's rights to practice religion."

Mr Wilkie, however, called for the dismissal of Mr Morrison and Senator Bernardi. "And I say to Mr Abbott, you must lance this boil once and for all," he said.

"It is not good enough to dismiss the hate inhabiting the dark corners of the Liberal Party and the widespread concern it engenders by just noting your most senior operators go a little too far.

"Some politicians are as much to blame as the thugs themselves for episodes like the Cronulla riots and the hate crimes which continue on our streets."

But Senator Bernardi said "criticism only hurts when you have high regard for the people who criticise you".
ABC News Online was unable to contact Mr Morrison.

Tags: immigration, multiculturalism, government-and-politics, federal-parliament, liberal-party, australia, sa, tas, christmas-island-6798

 Subscribe in a reader

Report from Wisconsin: This is What Democracy Looks Like

JUSTICE -- GOVERNMENT -- LEGISLATION -- LIBERTY. Choose the order in which to recite them. Those are themes of the four murals that adorn the Capitol Rotunda in Madison, Wisconsin and surround the throngs of citizens who have gathered for many days now to protest and, we hope, block passage of the anti-labor, indeed, anti-democratic Budget Repair Bill proposed by Governor Scott Walker. It's a bill that not only slashes public workers' incomes, but also strips them/us of their/our democratic rights to bargain collectively.

On Friday my wife Lorna and I decided, quite suddenly, to go down to Madison. We made the 300-mile round-trip drive on Friday to help bolster our fellow citizens on the eve of the big events on Saturday; to register our anger at the Republican-dominated Assembly's shameful passage of the bill (the Republican-dominated Senate remains "filibustered" with Senate Democrats holding out in Illinois); and to renew our own spirits in the face of the media's inadequate coverage and misrepresentation of what is at stake.

Arriving mid-afternoon, we went straight to the "unionized" Concourse Hotel, where Wisconsin's labor organizations have their "war rooms" set up. There we got caught up on developments and picked up "WI red" AFL-CIO signs bearing a blue map of the state in the shape of a fist and the words STAND WITH WISCONSIN. Informed and equipped, we headed up to the Capitol.

It was a chilly 20-degree afternoon, but it was bright outside and one had the sense that the state's motto "FORWARD!" still mattered. Police officers, drawn from cities and towns around the state, guarded entrances and patrolled counter-clockwise to the marchers. But they too were smiling, at least for now. In fact, to show their solidarity with the protesters, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association responded to reports that the governor's office was planning to close the Capitol that night and clear sleeping protesters from its halls by announcing that some of its own union brothers and sisters were going to sleep in the building along with them. (As one of my colleagues, Steve Cupery, put it hopefully: "Oh, oh, the cops are coming to Madison for a sleepover. Does this mean they are in bed with the demonstrators?")

After one full circle, we went into the Capitol building. It's a gorgeous place, not unlike the Capitol in DC. And it was made all the more gorgeous and welcoming by the presence of the hundreds, no thousands, of our fellow citizens occupying nearly every corner of the place. Posters adorned the walls and banisters, and noise -- the good noise of citizens' voices and young drummers -- reverberated throughout. And yet somehow everything remained "Wisconsin clean."

Moving with others into the Rotunda area, beneath the great dome, I could not help but look up and around, and what I saw and heard made me tearful, joyfully so: throngs of people, the four murals above, the many signs that read "Beam Scotty Up," "Scott Walker is a Weasel, Not a Badger," "Forward! Never Backwards!," "The People Own this BLDG, the Kochs Own Walker," "I'm Sorry if My Rights are an Inconvenience for You," and "Stop the Class War Against Workers!," and the banners of diverse Wisconsin unions.

At the center of it all was the "People's Microphone" (smartly managed by a group of young people whom I assumed were members of UW-Madison's Graduate Assistants Union). There, one-by-one, people young and old spoke: students, Wisconsin unionists and labor delegations from around the USA. Teenagers spoke in support of their teachers and parents. Workers of every trade decried the Republicans' so-called Budget Repair Bill and the corruption of democracy by billionaires such as the Koch Brothers; recounted how their own parents and grandparents struggled to organize unions and secure their democratic rights; and declared their determination. Folks from New York, Florida, Michigan, and points west registered their own unions' solidarity with Wisconsin.

Each little speech garnered rousing cheers -- and regularly everyone broke into "Kill the bill!" But just as regularly, and just as enthusiastically and tunefully, we all sang out with "This is what Democracy looks like!" accompanied by young drummers beating out the rhythm on large white plastic containers.

Voices never spoke hatefully. But they expressed outrage -- an outrage built up over thirty years in which the rich have become extraordinarily richer and working people poorer, in which livelihoods and industries have been destroyed and jobs exported, in which the public good and public infrastructure have been squandered. And they expressed outrage that the corporate elite, conservative politicians and pundits, and even other middle class folk of the Tea Party sort were now eager to not only cut the wages of public workers, but also savage democratic rights and the progressive services we have helped to create.

The democratic spirit and energy -- that's what brought me to tears. Here in Madison, Wisconsin, here in the heart of the state, here in America's heartland, working people in all their diversity were once again coming together in solidarity. It has been in the making for thirty years and more. Sadly it did not arise sooner. But that is history -- a history not to forget and a history from which to learn -- but, nonetheless, history. Now we have the making of a democratic surge. "This is what democracy looks like," I thought. Liberty -- Government -- Legislation -- Justice. Forward!

Follow Harvey J. Kaye on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarveyJKaye 

 Subscribe in a reader

Egypt: The Power of the Military vs. the Power of the People

In the past month Egypt witnessed a change of leadership within the existing regime, not regime change. Egypt has been, and still is, a military regime with a civilian layer of politicians who administer the day-to-day affairs of the country. The popular revolt that brought down Mubarak has merely stripped the civilian veneer from the main pillar of the regime, the military. But the same people and institutions that repressed and stifled Egyptians for the past 30 years are still in power. The revolution is incomplete

Gene Sharp, a scholar on nonviolent social change, and whose ideas influenced demonstrators in Tunis and Egypt, says that power, even that of the most brutal and oppressive kind, ultimately stems not only from the active support of state institutions but also from the passive support of the people it oppresses. According to Sharp, authoritarian regimes, like Mubarak's in Egypt, also manage power from the people through the general population's passive compliance and cooperation with the regime's expectations. On January 25, 2010, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians finally stopped cooperating with a regime they hated. The result has been revolutionary, but not yet a complete revolution.

The military council that now directly rules Egypt has been unequivocal in its desire to hand the day-to-day administration of state affairs back to a civilian government. With growing labor demands, bottled up frustrations of millions of citizens and high expectations for rapid change it is not surprising that they want to pass this toxic brew back to politicians as fast as possible. In fact, critics say the military is rushing a handover to civilians too quickly, before democratic processes and institutions can take hold. But completing the process of democratization of an authoritarian regime is a process that will take time, as political parties are rehabilitated or formed, election rules are determined and people given a chance to debate the transitional process so that it reflects the needs and desires of a broad range of Egyptian views and opinions.

The question of how this transformation will occur is of the utmost importance. Will this regime continue to exercises power behind a newly woven curtain of civilian rule hastily installed before sound democratic processes and institutions can be established, or actually take the necessary steps to develop a functioning democratic regime. More importantly, will Egyptians return to their habit of passive cooperation with the regime, or are they prepared to force real change for real democratic reform if the military are not up to the task?

The military currently enjoys broad and deep popularity among ordinary Egyptians. This support stems in part due to a popular belief among ordinary Egyptians that the military is, due to conscription, most representative of the population, but also due to their perceived neutrality during recent demonstrations. But now in power, the military will have to show that they are not just concerned with preserving the regime, but in taking the side of democracy activists by pushing through genuine democratic reform.

The Independent quotes one Egyptian, Jihad Jibran, in Tahrir saying, "We stood by the army in their revolution," referring to the 1952 coup that brought down the monarchy and led to the creation of the current regime, adding, "They need to stand with us in ours." And the military has stood with the people, but more to preserve security, stability and their own perks than out of genuine support for the demonstrators. The army has not intervened in support of a democratic revolution, and must now prove that they really will oversee the development of a process of democratization that ushers in a whole new period in Egypt's political and social development.

Jibran did not stop at wanting to depose Mubarak. "The goal was never just to get rid of Mubarak. The system is totally corrupt and we won't go until we see some real reforms... Egypt is too precious to walk away now." For the popular revolt to become a democratic revolution he should keep a copy of Sharp's writings close, in case Egyptians have to again cease cooperating with those who now rule Egypt, as the future of of democracy in Egypt always did, and still does, rest in his and his compatriots hands.

 Subscribe in a reader

Misery at the border as Gaddafi's guests flee

Libya's migrant workers have become a pitiful human tide. Robert Fisk reports

"We want the Egyptian army – why isn't our army here?" they shouted in their thousands: the refugees, the poor, the sick – the wealthy having long ago fled Gaddafi's rump dictatorship – as they stormed around the frontier station through refuse and muck. They are the people of Cairo and Alexandria and Sohag and Assiut and a thousand Delta villages, all with their monstrous, preposterous, overweight baggage of cheap clothes and bedding.

The Egyptian army cannot come to Tunisia, of course, to save the tens of thousands of its countrymen pushing their way over the border. Only the Egyptian navy came yesterday, in the shape of a black-painted frigate that carried just 1,000 men, women and children home over rough, wind-topped seas.

But the misery at the border was greater than any ship of mercy. Perhaps 7,000 people – perhaps 8,000, the figures are as imperfect as they are unable to convey such suffering – squeezed themselves up to the last Libyan barrier and over into Tunisia. Libyans beat them – and then the young men of Ben Gardene beat them for arriving in their nearby Tunisian town to take their jobs. The Egyptians were not seeking work – nor were the thousands of Bangladeshis with no embassy in Tunis, nor the Chinese, nor the Filipinos. For yes, this was misery from what we once called the Third World, now made jobless and homeless by a truly Third World dictator.

A young Tunisian security policeman, in a black leather jacket and shades and holding a Steyr rifle, began shouting at journalists. "Do you see how many there are? How can Tunisia look after all these thousands? Go and look at them yourselves." And we could see them on the Libyan side, pushing against a concrete wall, dwarfed by Libya's glowering green-domed customs station. Tunisian army officers cursed the cop for demonstrating his own country's plight.

Yet the Tunisians were also kind. They drove Egyptian peasant workers to a newly installed refugee camp in their own cars. They stamped temporary visas for those who had driven to Jerba airport for flights to Cairo and to the harbour at Djerdjes. They brought bread rolls and water and blankets to the frontier.

An Egyptian foreign ministry official, in a white T-shirt with the Egyptian flag sewn on to it, told us he had come as a volunteer to help his people – not something you could have expected under Mubarak's corrupt old regime – and he, too, praised the Tunisians.

And if 100,000 refugees have now fled Libya for Tunisia and for Egypt itself, how to avoid the ultimate figure of responsibility – that of the despot of Tripoli, he who supposedly gave power, in his wretched Green Book, to the people? "No Democracy without People's Congresses and Committees Everywhere," read one of the nonsensical lines which I read on a poster in Tripoli last week. Then what of all these people at Ras Jdir? No congress or committees for them. Just the hard road home. Or rough seas. For yesterday morning, the Egyptian navy came to the rescue. True, it was a mere frigate with the capacity for only 1,000 souls, but the arrival at Djerdjes of the Shalatein, streaming with Egyptian banners and decks lined with smart Egyptian marines, somehow retrieved this crisis from just pain and destitution. It was the first Egyptian military operation since the overthrow of Mubarak, and the seamen and marines knew that the world's cameras were upon them. They carried children aboard, welcomed old men leaning on walking sticks, put their arms around the rough fellahin from upper Egypt.

Over the ship's Tannoy system they played "Al-Helmel Arabi" – the "Arab Dream", the old song of Arab unity – as buses brought hundreds more Egyptian migrant workers from the border 50 miles away.

Even the reporter of the Egyptian navy's house magazine took pictures of the middle-aged and elderly peasants, almost all of them clutching soiled blankets and cheap plastic bags containing all they possessed. Less than two decades ago Gaddafi threw half of his Palestinian migrant workers out of Libya, a dry-run for this infinitely greater exodus.

But what happens when all these huddled masses at the Tunisian border go home? The economy of Egypt will be sorely hit. So, too, will those of Bangladesh and Turkey. But none more so than Libya itself, whose construction plants and power stations and oil and gas facilities now lie idle.

Four more Egyptian naval ships are en route to Tunisia, a bigger task force than the British and Americans sent for their own evacuees. But even these vessels will not be able to carry the growing crowds at the frontier.

 Subscribe in a reader

Robert Fisk with the first dispatch from Tripoli - a city in the shadow of death

Gunfire in the suburbs – and hunger and rumour in the capital as thousands race for last tickets out of a city sinking into anarchy

Up to 15,000 men, women and children besieged Tripoli's international airport last night, shouting and screaming for seats on the few airliners still prepared to fly to Muammar Gaddafi's rump state, paying Libyan police bribe after bribe to reach the ticket desks in a rain-soaked mob of hungry, desperate families. Many were trampled as Libyan security men savagely beat those who pushed their way to the front.

Among them were Gaddafi's fellow Arabs, thousands of them Egyptians, some of whom had been living at the airport for two days without food or sanitation. The place stank of faeces and urine and fear. Yet a 45-minute visit into the city for a new airline ticket to another destination is the only chance to see Gaddafi's capital if you are a "dog" of the international press.

There was little sign of opposition to the Great Leader. Squads of young men with Kalashnikov rifles stood on the side roads next to barricades of upturned chairs and wooden doors. But these were pro-Gaddafi vigilantes – a faint echo of the armed Egyptian "neighbourhood guard" I saw in Cairo a month ago – and had pinned photographs of their leader's infamous Green Book to their checkpoint signs.

There is little food in Tripoli, and over the city there fell a blanket of drab, sullen rain. It guttered onto an empty Green Square and down the Italianate streets of the old capital of Tripolitania. But there were no tanks, no armoured personnel carriers, no soldiers, not a fighter plane in the air; just a few police and elderly men and women walking the pavements – a numbed populace. Sadly for the West and for the people of the free city of Benghazi, Libya's capital appeared as quiet as any dictator would wish.

But this is an illusion. Petrol and food prices have trebled; entire towns outside Tripoli have been torn apart by fighting between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces. In the suburbs of the city, especially in the Noufreen district, militias fought for 24 hours on Sunday with machine guns and pistols, a battle the Gadaffi forces won. In the end, the exodus of expatriates will do far more than street warfare to bring down the regime.

I was told that at least 30,000 Turks, who make up the bulk of the Libyan construction and engineering industry, have now fled the capital, along with tens of thousands of other foreign workers. On my own aircraft out of Tripoli, an evacuation flight to Europe, there were Polish, German, Japanese and Italian businessmen, all of whom told me they had closed down major companies in the past week. Worse still for Gaddafi, the oil, chemical and uranium fields of Libya lie to the south of "liberated" Benghazi. Gaddafi's hungry capital controls only water resources, so a temporary division of Libya, which may have entered Gaddafi's mind, would not be sustainable. Libyans and expatriates I spoke to yesterday said they thought he was clinically insane, but they expressed more anger at his son, Saif al-Islam. "We thought Saif was the new light, the 'liberal'", a Libyan businessman sad to me. "Now we realise he is crazier and more cruel than his father."

The panic that has now taken hold in what is left of Gaddafi's Libya was all too evident at the airport. In the crush of people fighting for tickets, one man, witnessed by an evacuated Tokyo car-dealer, was beaten so viciously on the head that "his face fell apart".

Talking to Libyans in Tripoli and expatriates at the airport, it is clear that neither tanks nor armour were used in the streets of Tripoli. Air attacks targeted Benghazi and other towns, but not the capital. Yet all spoke of a wave of looting and arson by Libyans who believed that with the fall of Benghazi, Gaddafi was finished and the country open to anarchy.

The centre of the city was largely closed up. All foreign offices have been shut including overseas airlines, and every bakery I saw was shuttered. Rumours abound that members of Gaddafi's family are trying to flee abroad. Although William Hague's ramblings about Gaddafi's flight to Venezuela have been disproved, I spoke to a number of Libyans who believed that Burkina Faso might be his only viable retreat. Two nights ago, a Libyan private jet approached Beirut airport with a request to land but was refused permission when the crew declined to identify their eight passengers. And last night, a Libyan Arab Airlines flight reported by Al Jazeera to be carrying Gaddafi's daughter, Aisha, was refused permission to land in Malta.

Gaddafi is blamed by Shia Muslims in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran for the murder of Imam Moussa Sadr, a supposedly charismatic divine who unwisely accepted an invitation to visit Gaddafi in 1978 and, after an apparent argument about money, was never seen again. Nor was a Lebanese journalist accompanying him on the trip.

While dark humour has never been a strong quality in Libyans, there was one moment at Tripoli airport yesterday which proved it does exist. An incoming passenger from a Libyan Arab Airlines flight at the front of an immigration queue bellowed out: "And long life to our great leader Muammar Gaddafi." Then he burst into laughter – and the immigration officers did the same.

 Subscribe in a reader

The FCC, Net Neutrality and the Future Enrons of the Internet - Derek Lazzaro

America’s largest Internet service providers, which own most of the network backbone, have decided that Internet content providers such as YouTube are using too much bandwidth, and becoming too rich, and now the ISPs are demanding a bigger piece of the pie. Amid surprisingly little public debate, the ISPs have engaged in a focused campaign to lobby Congress and win court cases with the goal of stripping the government of any meaningful authority to regulate their price structures or data-routing policies.

The question that remains is whether the government will have the authority, or even the will, to regulate the ISPs and the future of the Internet. If Republicans in the House of Representatives have their way, the battle will be over before it ever really begins, with the ISPs emerging as undisputed victors.

The House voted early Saturday morning to pass H.R. 1, the federal budget bill for 2011. The bill included an amendment, H.AMDT.80, sponsored by Oregon Republican Greg Walden, which defunds any attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to regulate ISPs. The amendment was approved by a vote of 244 to 181, along party lines.

The vote on Rep. Walden’s amendment is the latest in a string of skirmishes over the regulation of the Internet. In December 2010, the FCC passed a set of rules giving itself limited authority to regulate Internet service providers. The FCC rules were an attempt at compromise, and they specifically deregulated wireless Internet providers, which are increasingly important. Some consumer groups said they were toothless, and several ISPs even cautiously supported the rules. 

But Rep. Walden’s amendment will block the implementation of those rules if the budget passes the Senate and is signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Philosophically, Walden and the ISPs pushing for deregulation are following in the footsteps of Enron, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, JPMorgan and the rest of the modern financial services industry.

Enron, the disgraced and defunct energy trading firm, lobbied for the deregulation of the U.S. energy market, and argued that the company should be allowed to enter into private agreements to sell energy and create complex derivatives based on speculative investment positions.

Similarly, Wall Street firms demanded and were granted unlimited freedom to create unregulated private contracts which evolved into “toxic assets,” including collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps, which nearly destroyed the global economy in 2008.
Now, the ISPs are demanding the right to enter into private agreements with anyone who connects to the Internet, from any location in the world, on any pipeline. These private agreements would not only apply to the direct customers of the ISPs, but would include any parties identified by the ISPs as special users. The agreements could also allow ISPs to slow or block data traffic that the providers deemed to be burdensome or unacceptable. 

For years, the largest owners of the Internet’s infrastructure, including Verizon and Comcast, have lobbied strenuously against almost all regulations, saying that private companies must be free to set prices and route Internet data traffic based on market conditions. 

Both companies have also turned to the courts, suing to strip the FCC of the authority to regulate the Internet. They have also argued that they should have the right to slow or even block data that interferes with their priority traffic. Some ISPs, including Comcast and Level 3 Communications, have engaged in semipublic battles over the flow of data traffic. And some ISPs have considered the possibility of a “metered” Internet, where consumers would be charged based on their daily usage.

More extreme possibilities have been explored, including surcharges for individual Web pages, higher prices for video streams, on-demand payments for various features, and the “deep inspection” of customer data streams to prioritize traffic.

Consumer advocacy groups, some media companies and the FCC have pushed for various forms of regulation, saying that consumers must be protected from price gouging and the quasi-monopolistic telecommunications market, in which most consumers have only a handful of choices for Internet access.

Both sides of the debate have laid claim to the phase network neutrality. Internet service providers have said neutrality is defined by the ability of private companies to structure their services according to market conditions. Consumer groups have defined network neutrality in terms akin to the “common carrier” concept applied to telephone companies since 1934, saying that consumers should be able to pay for an open pipeline, without worrying about surcharges or interruptions based on disputes between pipeline providers.

In truth, this issue is not simple, and both sides have some valid points.

Three primary arguments are made by the champions of the free market and deregulation. First, they say, it is expensive to run a large Internet backbone, and new technologies such as YouTube are dramatically increasing pipeline requirements. Second, some data traffic is more important or time-sensitive, and ISPs, not government regulators, are best positioned to assign priorities to data traffic. Third, the government cannot be trusted to regulate the Internet, and any government regulation could lead down a slippery slope of government censorship and control.

Certainly, these arguments should not be dismissed too quickly. Internet backbones are very expensive. Some network applications, such as video games and videoconferencing, do need special priority to function properly. And recent headlines from China to Egypt have proved that governments will manipulate the Internet to the detriment of their own peoples.
On the other hand, it’s important for the debate to be grounded in reality, and the U.S. Internet system, as it exists today, is anything but a free market. 

The sponsor of H.AMDT.80, Rep. Walden, might need a refresher on that point. In a release cited by The Washington Post, he said, “We all want an open and thriving Internet. That Internet exists today. Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a mouse thanks to our historical hands-off approach. ...”

Republicans and libertarians may claim that the Internet evolved in a perfect free market, but that is wrong at best, and a lie at worst, when one is considering the ISP backbone. Indeed, the U.S. ISP system has more in common with traditional monopolistic utility companies than a free market.

The facts are clear. A very small number of companies control the critical hubs and cross-country lines within the United States. Most U.S. consumers have only one to four choices of broadband providers for their homes or businesses. And the ISP system itself grew out of government-sponsored university and military projects, and it has always been governed by quasi-governmental organizations such as ICANN.

Moreover, huge multinational conglomerates have successfully lobbied to restrict many consumer freedoms on the Internet. The music, film and software industries have spent countless millions to ensure that consumers, content providers and even ISPs must follow complex and extremely restrictive copyright and trademark laws. 

In short, the Internet has done just fine despite already being regulated, and there is no reason to think it could not thrive with a few additional reasonable rules applied to the business practices of the large ISPs.

So, what should be done?

The debate, assuming there is still room for one, should start with a look at the incentives built into the system. How can society incentivize private companies to provide fast, reliable Internet service to consumers and businesses? That seems like a simple enough proposition.
One possibility is a 21st century version of the Glass-Steagall Act. Under such a system, ISPs would be allowed to have only “one” customer: a client who would connect directly to them for Internet access. The ISP would be allowed to charge any reasonable price for this network connection, with the price being based on the speed of the connection or the amount of data transferred. But the ISP would be blocked from owning any media companies. And the ISP would also be blocked from imposing any surcharges based on individual usage preferences (e.g. which website or video the user was viewing). In other words, the ISP would be forced to function like the telephone companies of the 20th century. They would supply the line. The customer would “fill” it. How could this possibly be fair? Well, again, the ISPs are effectively monopolies, and perhaps should be treated as such. Let them do one thing, and one thing well.

Another possibility is to set up different rules for average Internet consumers and large companies such as Google. Under this vision, consumers would be protected by the FCC or some other government regulator. Large companies, such as Verizon and Google, would be free to enter into whatever complex private agreements they choose. Ideally, such a system would include some sort of regulator that could ensure that markets were marginally competitive, much as the TV networks were regulated in the 20th century. The danger of this system is that it would resemble the banking system right before the collapse of the economy in 2008, but it might be a more stable model when applied to the Internet than to money.
A final possibility is that the Democrat-backed FCC rules might not be so bad after all, at least as a starting point.

According to a Washington Post story, the FCC has said its rules are designed to protect consumers, and may not apply to the largest Internet pipelines, which are already governed by secret, private “peering” contracts. (Data traveling across the Internet almost always passes through several “peered” networks before terminating in the homes and businesses of consumers.)

Congressional Democrats have also offered reasonable defenses of the FCC rules, with Rep. Edward Markey issuing the following statement: “The [FCC] rules make three simple promises. One, to consumers: that we can visit any website we want using any service we want on any device we want. Two, for innovators: that they can create tools without getting permission from the government or the company that the consumers use to get online. Three: that we put a cop on beat, to make sure that both sides are doing what they’re supposed to and to be a neutral arbitrator. That’s all they do.” I think Rep. Markey is oversimplifying it a bit, but the rules could be massaged until they were that good.

In any case, as of this week, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted against any government regulation of the Internet backbone. This is a mistake, and it is a position driven by dirty money, blind ideology, or both. For his part, Walden has said that his next action will be pushing for a joint resolution permanently blocking the FCC’s Internet rules. (The Congressional Review Act of 1996 allows Congress to overturn rules and regulations issued by the executive branch.)

On the other hand, it would be foolish to give the FCC unlimited authority to muck up the freedom of the Internet. I think—I hope—we are smart enough to find a compromise solution.
Derek Lazzaro is an attorney and university administrator in Los Angeles. He studies and writes about free speech issues, U.S. national security, the 2008 financial crisis, real estate, and technology.
Illustration from Mr. T in DC

Unverified Misreporting on Libya

America's media, Britain's state-controlled BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera are spreading unverified or false reports on Libya's uprising.

On February 25, writer Madhi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle East/Central Asian specialist, based on reliable in-country contacts, headlined an important article, "Libya: Is Washington Pushing for Civil War to Justify a US-NATO Military Intervention?"

Access it through the following link:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23375

For greater readership, this article covers key information in it. Its entirety explains much about what's ongoing - what major media accounts misreport or suppress, especially television reaching large audiences, presenting distorted managed news. It shouldn't surprise. Representing powerful interests, carefully filtered sanitized reporting substitutes for the real kind.

Gaddafi indisputably is despotic, governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," and spawning "an entire hierarchy of corrupt officials," disdainful of popular interests.

Nonetheless, something is "(r)otten in the so-called 'Jamahiriya' (state of the masses) of Libya." Popular anger is justified and real. At issue is whether it's spontaneous or externally generated, and, if so, by whom and for what reasons.

Western powers, especially America, gladly support despots. They only fall into disfavor by forgetting who's boss. Mubarak forgot. So did Gaddafi, long targeted for removal despite rapprochement with America and Western nations. As a result, in-country reports lack credibility without verifiable proof. Much of it is lacking.

At issue is removing an outlier while keeping his regime intact, one friendly to Washington and Western interests. Acquiescence assures support for the world's most ruthless tyrants. Straying gets them in trouble. Gaddafi strayed, leaving him vulnerable for removal.

Comparing Yugoslavia to Libya

In the 1990s, "pack (or) advocacy journalism" substituted for the real kind, including by promoting the 1999 US-led NATO war of aggression to complete Yugoslavia's long-planned balkanization, characterized as "humanitarian intervention," the same theme repeated now.

From March 24 - June 10, 1999, daily attacks were relentless. Around 600 aircraft flew about 3,000 sorties, dropping thousands of tons of ordinance as well as hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles. Its ferocity to that time was unprecedented. Large numbers were killed, injured or displaced. Vast destruction was inflicted. Two million people lost their livelihoods, many their homes and communities, and for most their futures under military occupation.

Diana Johnstone's "Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions" remains the definitive Balkan wars history, explaining what Western media reports suppressed. For America and European powers, it was about deterring Slobodan Milosevic's "Greater Serbia" ambitions, a gross mischaracterization about 1990s events, culminating in naked aggression.

Libyan turmoil appears headed for a similar resolution, driven by unverified misreporting of events on the ground. In Yugoslavia, it was about removing Milosevic for a more accommodative replacement. In Libya, Gaddafi appears headed for the same fate, again by raw force, Washington's alternate "diplomacy," the same kind used to "liberate" Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying both countries, causing millions of deaths as well as vast devastation and despair.

Libyan Analysis in Bullet Points

-- Unlike Tunisia, Egypt, and other regional allies, "upsetting (Libya's) established order is a US and EU objective," by replacing one despot with another.

-- the West "seek('s) to capitalize on the revolt" for new leadership it controls.

-- Heavy weapons are coming in.

-- Destabilizing Libya affects its vast energy reserves and neighboring states, perhaps the entire region.

-- Tensions among Libyan factions complicate matters further, including between Gaddafi's son, Saif Al-Islam, "and his father's circle of older ministers. Libyan ministers are generally divided amongst those (close to Said) and" member's of the "old guard."

-- Other tensions exist between Gaddafi and his sons, perhaps one generation against another, each with its own ideas incompatible with the other.

-- Gaddafi spent years purging opposition. Even so, "little loyalty is felt for (him) and his family." Fear alone gives them power. Now it's gone, denunciation of his regime openly stated. "Aref Sharif, the head of Libyan Air Force," renounced him. Ministers and ambassadors resigned, some going abroad. "Defections are snowballing amongst the military and government." Yet what's ongoing may differ significantly from unverified or willful major media misreporting, including by Al Jazeera.

-- Authentic opposition is real, but not organized. It's "been encouraged and prompted from outside Libya through social media networks, international news stations, and events in the rest of the Arab World." As a result, major media reports are suspect. Accept nothing from them at face value.

-- Internal opposition leadership comes "from within the regime itself." However, corrupt officials aren't populists. They oppose Gaddafi but not tyranny, corruption, and other trappings of power and privilege. Some of them, in fact, wish "to save themselves, while others" want to "strengthen their positions." It's also possible or likely that they've allied with Western powers for their own self-interest.

-- Major media reports, including by Al Jazeera, "about Libyan jets firing on protesters in Tripoli and the major cities are unverified and questionable....No visual evidence of the jet attacks has been shown." Gaddafi, in fact, controls cities reported to be occupied by opponents. Moreover, some accounts of violence are spurious. Stories are invented to "justify no-fly zones," perhaps heading for war led by America and NATO.

-- Corporate and Western interests in Libya, not despotism, explain what's ongoing. They're fueling civil war to replace one despot with another, one they control. "Chaos in the Arab World has been viewed as beneficial (to) Washington, Tel Aviv," and other Western powers. Balkanization may be planned, similar to Yugoslavia, culminating as explained above - "liberation" for control, not democracy America won't tolerate, including at home. If it happens, regional destabilization may follow, leaders everywhere wondering who's next.

-- Henry Kissinger once said: "to be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." If balkanization is planned, friends and foes alike may be targeted if thought unreliable. Libya's chaos also affects Europe and global energy issues, including price, for oil heading over $100 a barrel and maybe much higher, threatening fragile economies with deeper crisis.

-- Washington wanted Gaddafi replaced for years. Former NATO commander General Wesley Clark once included Libya among future targeted countries besides Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Divide, conquer and control, a game way pre-dating modern America.

-- Libya conducted secret negotiations with Washington in 2001. Formal rapprochement followed, but doing business with imperial powers is dangerous, and in Gaddafi's case perhaps fatal with no safe haven if civil war or NATO ousts him. Either "provides the best cover" for controlling Libya's "energy sector and to appropriate (its) vast wealth."

-- Libyans should be wary. America and Western powers play hardball against popular interests throughout the region.

-- "Actions of opposition to Gaddafi are strong, but there is no strong organized 'opposition movement.' The two are different." Moreover, no opposition force wants democracy.

-- Serious discussion suggests a Yugoslav-type "humanitarian intervention." A "no-fly" zone is mentioned, an act of war if imposed, giving Western powers the right to intervene militarily the way Iraq was bombed in the 1990s. Invasion and occupation, in fact, could follow to replace the already weakened regime. Libya's assets would be plundered, its people left with one despot replacing another.

A Final Comment

For decades, Gaddafi denied Libyans democratic freedoms. Imperial occupation, however, is worse, creating nightmarish conditions for Iraqis, Afghans, and others experiencing US-style rule, exceeding the worst of regional despots' harshness, making some look benign by comparison.

Under more populist leaders than Gaddafi and internal opposition forces, mobilized resistance may prevent it, but not easily or quickly. Libyans must now liberate themselves, independent of Western powers wanting to exploit them for their own self-interest.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

 Subscribe in a reader

Hungry Beast returns to ABC1

Hungry Beast returns to ABC1

The team from Hungry Beast is back. Once again, the show will challenge audiences with a mix of the unexpected and the unconventional - this year sharpening its focus with episodes themed around specific issues facing the world today. The new series launches Wednesday 23 March, 9.30pm on ABC1.

Over 12 weeks, Hungry Beast viewers will see investigative journalism, deeply moving explorations of what it is to be human, stories from way out of left-field and graphic delights you won’t find anywhere else on TV.

Episode One explores Captivity – from life in prison and people trapped in their own bodies, to the weird effects of captivity on animals and an entire nation held captive by one man. Upcoming themes include Secrets, Waste, Faking It and Download.

Monique Schafter, Dan Ilic, Kirsten Drysdale and Nick Hayden will front the show this season, while regular segments, including Kirk Docker’s close up Voxpops, Follow The Money and The Beast File, will return.

ABC TV’s Head of Arts and Entertainment, Amanda Duthie, says the series will build on its unique approach to current affairs. “Hungry Beast is a show that takes risks – in the stories they chose and the manner in which they tell them. By bringing together the serious, the unusual and the light-hearted, it will continue to resonate with audiences, in particular the under-40s.”

Hungry Beast, launched in 2009 after ABC1 and Zapruder’s other films, recruited young people from around Australia to create a TV program that looked at topical issues with a fresh perspective. The brief: to break out of the standard news cycle and tell us something we don’t know.

In 2010, the second series reached new heights. Nominated for a rare double - an AFI and a Walkley - its stories were seen on screen and online by millions of people around the globe. It was the second most watched program on the ABC for 18-39s. 

“In 2009 and 2010, Hungry Beast showed that journalism can evolve in new and exciting directions. Newcomers 18 months ago, the Hungry Beast team are now making names for themselves in the industry. Watch out in 2011” says Executive Producer, Andrew Denton.

Hungry Beast will screen Wednesdays at 9.30pm on ABC1, repeated Thursdays at 1015pm on ABC2 and available on iview.

So what got you hungry about The Beast? Did you have a favourite story from the past two seasons?  You can find some of the best Hungry Beast stories on the website.

 Subscribe in a reader