First, I do not believe the FCC has the legal authority to regulate the internet. It will take an act of Congress to give them the authority. And I'm not convinced I want the FCC doing so. I don't trust them.

I also don't know how I feel about Net Neutrality, but I'm coming to some conclusions.

I do believe we need some regulation. I believe that the policies of a particular provider should be transparent. No hidden throttling, for instance. If I chose to sign up with a provider that throttles YouTube, as long as it's very clear (before I sign on the dotted line) that's what they do, then I entered into the agreement with full disclosure.

I think, however, that those companies who have what amounts to a monopoly should be forced to adhere to net neutrality. In Apple Valley, there is only one cable provider -- no competition. Thus, they have a monopoly on high speed internet. Because I have no other choice, then they should be regulated to play fair.

However, I don't like that I have no choice. I have to wonder what is going to happen about that. Innovation happens when providers actually need to compete for customers. When a provider has a locked in customer base, they can be jerks and you just have to put up with it.

So... I guess I'd like to see that fixed. Get rid of the monopolies. Without monopolies, we wouldn't need other forms of regulation, as the market would self-regulate just fine.

Yet again, the police in this country have attacked the Constitution, making arrests for the following crimes:

-Exercising free speech
-Exercising freedom of association

The constitution CLEARLY protects these acts, and yet the Pittsburgh police and the FBI are taking it unto themselves to arrest people for engaging in these horrendous crimes.

Please, write your members of Congress.

In the linked article, columnist Ben Stein discusses the cost of raising a child and half-wonders why birth rates amongst the upper middle class has been dropping.

The article is ridiculous to the point of being insulting.

He talks about parents slaving to send children to various prestige schools, starting with private grade school all the way to the $70k / year ivy league colleges. I have to ask a simple question: what parents send their kids to these schools? And I'm left thinking that at least in part, the answer is "those parents unwilling to take a personal hand in raising their kids."

A child's success in school will be directly related to the interest the parent takes in the child's education. This is true regardless of the school chosen.

He also talks about how the kids today all have a huge sense of entitlement, then wonders why his son is an aberration to this observation. Toot your own horn very often? Children learn that sense of entitlement from their parents. If you don't want your child to grow up feeling like the world owes them everything, then you start at home by teaching the value of things. You teach them that if you work hard, you reap the benefits. You work for the things you want.

There are reasons why the birth rate amongst educated women has been declining. It's called "taking responsibility for your decisions." Educated people learn that it's unwise to have children before you can afford them. Educated people also can look at world population figures and understand that 5-child families are a bad idea. Educated people can also do basic math. 5 kids going through college means 0 kids going through even a decent college such as St. Olaf or Carleton.

In all fairness, the Mr. Stein was being tongue-in-cheek, but I felt that his article fell very flat. Maybe he was just trying to get us all to think. Okay, that's fine. Think about what? Is there a problem we should think about? I don't see it. I don't see his point. Maybe he was too subtle for me.

In the article, a muslim woman in small claims court refused to remove her naqib, which is the head covering some muslim women wear that only allows the eyes to be seen. The judge told her, "I need to see your entire face so I can judge for myself whether you're telling the truth or lying." Because the woman refused to do so, the judge dismissed her case.

I think I agree, somewhat reluctantly, with the judge. Modern society runs into several issues with head coverings of this nature. If a muslim woman is going to refuse to let herself be seen or identified, then she probably needs to remain hidden permanently behind a man. If she's going to act as an independent person, doing things such as renting and driving cars, then she needs to assume that at some point she is going to need to clearly identify herself as herself.

And this means the person who is asking to see who she is needs to SEE WHO SHE IS. That is, remove the headgear.

It is unreasonable to assume that privacy for such an incident is going to be available. It is equally unreasonable to assume only women will ask for that proof. The rest of society can not be expected to make special consideration for her beliefs. That can only go so far.

If she were there strictly to add supporting information to a case, perhaps there's some leeway. But as this specific case hinged entirely on her testimony, it is unfair to expect to be able to hide from the judge and from the legal opponent.

I respect her right to belief what she wants. But in this case, she wanted other people to be bound by her beliefs. And that's not fair to them.

The woman referenced in the article ran a hate blog on Blogger.com, which is owned by Google. A New York Supreme Court judge ordered Google to provide the identity of the blogger, which Google did. Google was in the right -- they fought it until they couldn't anymore.

The blogger is now upset. Poor thing. Personally, I don't think the Web should be anonymous. If you have a web site or send email, I should be able to figure out who you are. So tough toenails, chicky.

But that's just my opinion.

The article is written by a Republican. It's fairly moderate, but of course, it's pushing on the Democrats. But that's fine, he's not trying to hide anything.

However, the article is trying to suggest that the reason there is anti-government anger is because of the Democrats. I beg to differ. I think 8 years of Bush has a lot to do why people are angry at the government. 8 years of Bush. 8 years of war we never should have started in the first place. An economy in shambles.

And the only Republican answer to any of this: cut taxes to the bone, but don't touch the military! That is, spend a lot of money overseas, but none of it at home. Oh, and let's drive up the federal debt so that we're spending even more money servicing that debt.

Yes, people are angry. They want solutions. Congress hasn't yet provided them, so there is frustration. But it's the Republicans that made the mess. Accept the blame, guys.

In the linked story, two ranking individuals from a Florida high school are facing possible jail time for violating a court order. The court order forbids the school district from promoting religion during school events. That is, the court order reaffirms the Constitution.

What gets me: how members of the religious right just refuse to understand a very simple thing. They don't have the right to cram their religion down the throats of everyone else.

I don't care what your beliefs are. I really don't. I just don't want you, either subtly or overtly, telling me what beliefs I should follow. Furthermore, it's a mistake to assume that just because most of the people you know are Christian that everyone is.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why can't the religious right leave the rest of us alone?

I presume if she has resigned as governor, this means she's stepping out of politics entirely. If she's seeking higher office, then she should have remained in office to get more experience.

The job of governor is to run the state government as outlined by the legislature. This is important work, and one doesn't become perfect at it after just a few years. If nothing else, Palin is a charismatic governor who could have helped to draw more business into Alaska, further expanding the standard of living of everyone living there.

Her decision to resign will always leave all of us wonder what she's running from. People resign from public office for one of these reasons:

-The results of a scandal
-To take another job
-Because they are tired

In this case, it's not number 2. And the other reasons are big "don't vote for her again" flags.

But Palin has confirmed -- again -- how out of touch the Republican Party is. This is the woman the party wanted in the #2 position for our entire country. And with McCain's age, a person very well placed to become the leader of the free world.

But she can't even last an entire first term as governor.

What frustrates me is how much antipathy is thrown around. Everyone who posts something makes sure to talk badly about one faction or another. The liberals, of course, are painted as having absolutely no fiscal policy what-so-ever. The Republicans are all heartless bastards.

The liberals all want the rich to pay more taxes in order to continue to spend, spend, spend. Well, that's the cliche and it's not entirely untrue.

The rich want the poor to starve. Again, a cliche that's not entirely untrue.

Me? Fiscally I tend to be conservative. I do NOT believe we should raise taxes. Ever. PERIOD. Government should continue to exist on what it earns. Increased government revenue should come naturally. Taxes are based on property values or salaries. As those increase, so do government revenues.

Fees, however, should increase annually at the previous year's accepted inflation rate. This means that in real money, any particular fee will cost the same from year to year.

As for the budget. Annual budgets should be determined based on lean years in the cycle. During those years that we have a surplus, the surplus can be spent on capital improvements. Small surpluses can be spent, carried over for larger capital improvements next year, or used to pay down debt.

This makes sense. Why doesn't it work that way? I don't have a clue.

But raising taxes is not the solution to making up a shortage. Cut spending. Taxes should never go up. The state brings in enough money. Live within the means.

Why is it okay for the US, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Great Britain, France, Israel and even South Africa to have nuclear weapons, but it's condemned when anyone else has them?

I can understand why it's okay for us to have nukes, because of course, we'd never use them. Oh wait, let's back up for a minute on that one.

It's okay for Russia to have nukes, cause they're our friends and would never use their power to invade other countries. Oh wait, we need to back up on that one too.

Okay, well, it's okay for Pakistan to have them because they're quite a stable country with little conflict and no threat of takeover by someone like the Taliban. Oh. Hmm. I guess that doesn't quite hold up either.

Look, I understand that if I lived in South Korea or Japan, I'd probably be nervous if I knew the North Koreans had the technology to lob nukes at us. But I'm left wondering -- when was the last time the North Koreans engaged in imperialistic acts? When was the last time they attacked a neighbor?

Well, some people would point to the Korean war. I'd encourage those people to read a little bit more history before pointing too many fingers. Start with the First Sino-Japanese war, which ended in 1895.

The truth is simple: North Korea has reasons to be nervous. The country has a history of being stuck in the middle of wars fought between other countries. They couldn't possibly invade another country (with the exception of South Korea) with any chance of success. Russia and China would both pound them into dust, and the US would protect Japan. On the flip side, history suggests the Koreans should expect further conflict on their home territory.

The 8 years under the Bush administration did little to ease their fears. Bush proved to the entire world that the US will happily invade other countries if we don't like the ruling administration, and we don't need much of an excuse to do it. And Bush was certainly threatening the same in Iran and NK. He stood up and shouted quite loudly, "Be afraid of us!"

Can we blame them for being afraid? I don't think so.

I don't particularly like that NK has nukes. But how many of the countries currently condemning them are stepping up to the plate and saying, "We'll protect you from Imperialistic goals of your enemies" ? No one is guaranteeing NK's sovereignty into eternity.

History has taught the North Koreans one very simple lesson: if you're weak, you'll be trampled. No one wants to be trampled.

Ford has a plan for rolling out more fuel efficient vehicles. Like the Taurus SHO with a 3.5 liter turbocharged V6.

Hello?

I'm sure that car will get at least 15 MPG. Maybe even 18.

As far as I'm concerned, you don't get to call a passenger vehicle "fuel efficient" unless you're getting at least 30 MPG, and I'm not particularly impressed with that number.

Now, in all fairness, Ford has other vehicles in their future lineup. I'm not sure why it's a future lineup, but there you have it.

Toyota debuted their Prius prototype in 1995. The car was seen on American roads by 2001. My 2007 model gets 50 MPG. No American company even has a prototype that touches my Prius.

WTF?

This is why the US has no chance to lead the world in moving us OFF the petroleum-based economy. And it's why Ford, Chevy and Chrysler all deserve to fail.

Piracy will stop when it doesn't work. And it needs to be high risk for the pirates. That is, everyone who attempts piracy needs to die in the attempt. Continued attempts will simply be cases of evolution in action.

Arm the ships with sufficient firepower to make this happen. How hard is it?

Why am I not surprised? Let me share my most recent experience with Chrysler. I believe it illustrates why the company is in such dire straits. Well, part of the reason, anyway.

Two years ago when I was car shopping, I had done my research. I chose my criteria and turned to my favorite source: Consumer Reports. My criteria were simple:

1. Must get positive reviews from Consumer Reports in most categories. (More on that in a moment.)

2. Must get "decent" gas mileage.

3. Must be "affordable". I was somewhat flexible on what that meant, but $30k was certainly above my upper limit.

4. Must seat four with some level of comfort. Bonus if I can bring a dog or two as well.

I then went through CR. Depending on the definition of #2, the available choices were exceedingly small. Why trust CR so much? Because there was no way I could ever review the cars with the level of professionalism they can. You have to use some criteria to make an intelligent decision, after all. CR gave me a way to weight what was important, with reliability being a big deal for me.

By the time I showed up at the Chrysler dealership to service Kat's van, I'd already decided I was probably going to get the Prius. However, I really thought it was only fair if I gave the American producers a chance. So I talked to a salesman and asked what he wanted to sell me. I made sure he knew I was looking at the Prius.

What did he show me? The Chrysler 300, a car with EPA rated milage of 15 MPG.

Folks, that's lower than my Cherokee. 25 MPG was my rock bottom milage I'd qualify as "halfway decent", and 35 was really the number I was thinking about. The Prius, in comparison, gets 50 MPG.

What kind of moron is told by a potential customer, "I'm thinking about a Prius," and then shows a car that gets 15 MPG?

Well, there are answers to that question. I have no idea if they're good answers. But the potential answers are:

1. The sales dweeb really is a moron.

2. The sales dweeb was secretly a Toyota salesman in disguise.

3. Or the real answer: Chrysler didn't make cars that got decent milage. They were too busy selling their crap cars right out of the 50s.

Maybe that worked out okay for Chrysler in the past. But that's short-sighted. The writing has been on the wall since the 70s, and yet the company wasn't remotely prepared for the trend.

And THAT is why they are now filing for bankruptcy protection. Don't blame the economy. Blame their own shortsightedness.

I'm just going to quote one portion of the article:

"I'm putting principle at the top of the list,"

Except that would require he had principles.

It's not a pretty story I linked. What's surprising is that this doesn't happen a lot more often.

I think a huge number of kids suffer from bullies in one form or another. I did, both at home and while waiting for the school bus in kindergarten. For me, it didn't tend to happen too much at school cause I've always been bigger than average and able to take care of myself. I dealt with random bullies in school, but not as any sort of steady thing. So the bullying I got was at home. And it mostly stopped when I was 12 years old and taught the bully a good lesson: I'd grown up and could fight better than expected.

Yes, it took violence. Even then, it didn't stop, but it got better.

The schools talk about all these anti-bullying programs. And I bet the programs don't help one iota. Why? Because bullies don't care. The only thing that stops the bullies is getting beat up. They don't care if someone says, "That's not nice, don't do that." That just makes them smile inside, I think. They don't care if teacher yells at them.

What they care about is that there is someone smaller and weaker than they are, and they're going to make that person miserable in attempt for the bully to feel better.

And the only way to stop it is for the bully to get his ass kicked. Badly. By the victim (or victims, if needed). And if that doesn't do it, beat him again and again, worse and worse. Until it stops.

Bullying shouldn't be tolerated. But if the schools can't stop it (and they can't), then the kids need to do it. As far as I'm concerned, chronic bulliers are rabid dogs. Either they stop or they get put down.

Not very politically correct? Suck it up. If your kid is being a bully, I hope he gets his ass kicked. Repeatedly, until he amends his behavior. And if you tolerate his bully behavior, then I hope you get what you deserve, too.