Russ Feingold

Russ Feingold was on Meet the Press this morning. He did an excellent job presenting his position on the Iraq war and on the Impeachable offenses that he feels the Administration has committed.

Even though he stated that this Administration has, in his opinion, committed impeachable offenses, to begin impeachment proceedings against this President may not be the best thing for this country. It was a good arguement and he convinced me. But, censuring the President, and having the President admit his mistakes was a better way to move forward.

This is the kind of leader that this country needs.

Chicago Tribune

So, after years and years of writing letters to the editor I have finally been published in The Chicago Tribune.

I was incensed (I sound like Grandpa Simpson) at a letter writer whining about Garison Keiller who had written an Op-Ed about how horrible of a job that the current administration is doing.

Mourning in America

I had the pleasure (is that the word) of watching the Ann Coulter interview on the Today show this past week. At least the media is starting to hold her accountable for her heinous comments.

But, not everybody will do so. In today's New York Times John Tierney has an Op-Ed about how private people go public with their pain to help influence policy. The article feels like backhanded support to Ann Coulter and her position. I can live with that, but he combines two very separate issues in his article and tries to mold them from the same clay.

The first is all of these Laws, named after victims that get passed on a state level. Mr. Tierney thinks they are bad for our country. I will be honest, I agree with him. I feel that the content of the Laws may actually be a good thing, but naming them after victims is a cheap political ploy in which both parties participate.

The second issue he writes about has to do with the family member's response to the war in Iraq and the "war on terror." Soldier's family members have every right to speak out on political issues dealing with these two wars. They have family members who have sacrificed their lives at the request of our President. Their loss is very different from the loss of a family who had a spouse or child killed or molested by a criminal here in the U.S. As more and more information comes out about the war in Iraq and how we ended up there, these people may believe they have sacrificed their spouses and children for a lie perpetrated by our President. They may have other reasons for speaking out.

All Americans have a right to speak out about the war and our current policies. John Tierney and Ann Coulter don't like that these family members get so much air time to voice their beliefs. It is difficult for conservatives to slander and denigrate them because these people have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country. And, of course, Ann Coulter and John Tierney don't want to talk about policy or the issues these "victims" are bringing up.

If conservatives feel so strongly about our President and the war in Iraq, then their children (18-25) should enlist in the Armed Forces right now. This is where I think conservatives get frustrated because most won't send their children to fight this war, but criticize the rest of the country for not backing the war. They lose their argument on moral and idealistic grounds if they are not ready to send their children to fight this war. How can we back President Bush’s request for shared sacrifice, if all people aren't willing to enlist their children in this war. I understand people not wanting to enlist, if they disagree with the President and this war, but to support this war and not agree to pay more taxes (to finance it) or enlist your children (to fight it), makes you a hypocrite.

Democracy on the Web

Adam Cohen recently wrote about the "democratic ethic that may be about to end" in the Editorial Observer at The New York Times referring to the Internet. It's interesting that the one letter printed in response was from Mike McCurry, who is chairman of Hands off the Internet. Hands Off the Internet is a lobbying group for major telecommunication corporations to spin this situation in their favor. It's telling that the New York Times choose to print this one letter without informing the public what this group is actually doing. They are funding a PR campaign with huge media buys to spin the coverage of this issue in their favor. Was this letter printed because Mike McCurry wrote it and is the groups chairman?

I feel that it is very sad that a former member of President Clinton's staff is actually engaged in this activity. In his letter he writes, "broadband providers are required to offer services at no charge". This is not true. Every consumer who wants to gain access to broadband channels pays a significant amount of money to do so. In the late 90s and early 2000s, telecommunication companies invested heavily in laying fiber optic cable to increase broadband access. Consumers did not purchase broadband access at the rate predicted and this is one of the factors that lead to the dot.com bust in 2001. This "Hands Off the Internet" PR campaign and the actions by the Telecoms is just another way to generate new revenue streams. There is nothing wrong with companies attempting new revenue streams, but should we as a society allow it.

The New York Times can publish Op-Eds and Editorials about this issue, but it might be a good idea to publish an investigative piece on the Telecoms, their investments in infrastructure and their other tactics on stifling competition among smaller entries into telecom, cable and internet access. Back in 1984, all of the baby bells were broken up because of a monopoly. It's interesting that these regional bells and the new long distance companies this break-up produced have all merged back together again into AT&T, Verizon, Bell South, Quest, Sprint, Cingular and T-Mobile even though we have since added cellular service, internet access, and TV/Cable over phone lines in addition to traditional landline phone service.

Or, is The New York Times Company in favor of the Telecoms charging for access? It might benefit the Times because access to smaller blogs and other news outlets might be cut off. Arther Sulzberger, Jr, The New York Times Company Chairman is speaking at a Web 2.0 conference in November and is actively involved in creating new revenue streams for the Times as a whole.