First Joey Chestnut took the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating crown in Brooklyn in July and in Chattanooga on Sunday he gobbled up 103 Krystal hamburgers in eight minutes. Details here.
I can't explain how he did it. I remember at around age 10 thinking it was a staggering feat to eat a dozen Krystals in fifteen minutes. Joey's win means he scarfed 12 per minute.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Poltical Views Tennessee Style
A new Tennessee political blog, TennViews, has just started gathering the views and opinions with a progressive stance, and it's one which you should put on your regular reading list. I've also added it to my blogroll.
I hope you take time to go there, and a post from Saturday on the state's open meeting laws from Knox County Commissioner Mark Harmon is a fine place to begin. Late last week, a state legislative committee voted to propose a change in the open meetings laws which sadly makes it far easier for elected officials to gather, deliberate and decide issues in secret.
Harmon writes:
"Let me state as firmly as I can that the Open Meetings Act DOES NOT need to be weakened by adding a provision that only a quorum can violate it. In the aftermath of the abuses that took place this year in Knox County we should be looking to strengthen the Open Meetings Act, not weaken it."
-----
"The public does not object to commissioners arguing with one another, attempting to persuade one another, and compromising with one another. The public only rightly insists these acts be done in public sessions and meetings.
Your committee has heard vast overstatements that commissioners no longer can talk to one another or cannot attend the same events as district mates. Nonsense. The current act’s prohibition is on deliberation. If commissioners need to deliberate, they can do so in regular or special meetings or properly announced workshops."
Will Tennessee's political leaders take the progressive stand to keep meetings open to the public or we will race backwards to seek dark corners of secrecy?
More here.
I hope you take time to go there, and a post from Saturday on the state's open meeting laws from Knox County Commissioner Mark Harmon is a fine place to begin. Late last week, a state legislative committee voted to propose a change in the open meetings laws which sadly makes it far easier for elected officials to gather, deliberate and decide issues in secret.
Harmon writes:
"Let me state as firmly as I can that the Open Meetings Act DOES NOT need to be weakened by adding a provision that only a quorum can violate it. In the aftermath of the abuses that took place this year in Knox County we should be looking to strengthen the Open Meetings Act, not weaken it."
-----
"The public does not object to commissioners arguing with one another, attempting to persuade one another, and compromising with one another. The public only rightly insists these acts be done in public sessions and meetings.
Your committee has heard vast overstatements that commissioners no longer can talk to one another or cannot attend the same events as district mates. Nonsense. The current act’s prohibition is on deliberation. If commissioners need to deliberate, they can do so in regular or special meetings or properly announced workshops."
Will Tennessee's political leaders take the progressive stand to keep meetings open to the public or we will race backwards to seek dark corners of secrecy?
More here.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Mountain Makins Festival Begins
If you are in the East Tennessee area this weekend, you should visit one of the best fall festivals in the nation - the 32nd Annual Mountain Makins Festival is jam-packed with fun and is held every year in Morristown, the creation of our community's cultural arts hub, The Rose Center.
From their website (which has all the details about the event): Mountain Makins a folk life/crafts festival celebrating the traditions of Appalachia through traditional music and dance, storytelling, regional authors, fine art, juried crafts, skilled demonstrations, a variety of delicious food, children's activities and more. The festival takes place inside and outside the Rose Center, an 1892 school building which is now an historical museum and cultural arts center.
Of course another reason to attend is that I will be there on Saturday and Sunday as emcee for one of the music stages. I have been most fortunate to have been invited to participate again as emcee, and am truly honored to be a part of this annual event.
The Rose Center is one of - if not the most - vital parts of our community. Not only do they provide a wide array of arts events, music, and other cultural programs, their facility is used for everything from weddings to tai chi classes, business seminars to cooking classes.
Admission for the weekend is a mere 4 dollars per day for adults.
From their website (which has all the details about the event): Mountain Makins a folk life/crafts festival celebrating the traditions of Appalachia through traditional music and dance, storytelling, regional authors, fine art, juried crafts, skilled demonstrations, a variety of delicious food, children's activities and more. The festival takes place inside and outside the Rose Center, an 1892 school building which is now an historical museum and cultural arts center.
Of course another reason to attend is that I will be there on Saturday and Sunday as emcee for one of the music stages. I have been most fortunate to have been invited to participate again as emcee, and am truly honored to be a part of this annual event.
The Rose Center is one of - if not the most - vital parts of our community. Not only do they provide a wide array of arts events, music, and other cultural programs, their facility is used for everything from weddings to tai chi classes, business seminars to cooking classes.
Admission for the weekend is a mere 4 dollars per day for adults.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Italy's Anti-Internet Plan
The landscape of the internet and those who, like myself, write and maintain blogs, continue to challenge and confuse and apparently frighten many people. It is not simple to explain all that the Web and the bloggers are doing and want to do. I expect we will see more of the efforts like those being considered now in Italy to require all who post info on the Web to have a license.
Ginger at MCB wrote of this today and has several links to read on the Italian plan:
"Recently, Italian lawmakers once again took aim at modern life, introducing an incredibly broad law that would effectively require all bloggers, and even users of social networks, to register with the state. Even a harmless blog about a favourite football squad or a teenager grousing about life’s unfairness would be subject to government oversight, and even taxation – even if it’s not a commercial website“.
Keeping government out of self-publishing will continue to be problematic for several reasons - current publishing and other media businesses don't like losing control of content; government as well as service providers are fearful of losing tax dollars and other income; and most importantly, the wide-open freedom of speech and sharing of information has been and always will be a source of worry for many in authority. The mostly open quality of the internet today almost daily fends off attempts to tame it.
Requiring certificates or licenses of internet users may well be a long-term struggle.
Ginger at MCB wrote of this today and has several links to read on the Italian plan:
"Recently, Italian lawmakers once again took aim at modern life, introducing an incredibly broad law that would effectively require all bloggers, and even users of social networks, to register with the state. Even a harmless blog about a favourite football squad or a teenager grousing about life’s unfairness would be subject to government oversight, and even taxation – even if it’s not a commercial website“.
Keeping government out of self-publishing will continue to be problematic for several reasons - current publishing and other media businesses don't like losing control of content; government as well as service providers are fearful of losing tax dollars and other income; and most importantly, the wide-open freedom of speech and sharing of information has been and always will be a source of worry for many in authority. The mostly open quality of the internet today almost daily fends off attempts to tame it.
Requiring certificates or licenses of internet users may well be a long-term struggle.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Open Government Committee Fails to Deliver
The legislative committee organized to strengthen the Open Meetings laws have instead gone in the opposite direction. They approved a plan to increase the number of elected officials who can meet, debate and create public policy away from any public view or oversight.
The committee members who voted to increase how many officials can meet secretly to conduct business include state legislators, the new school board chief for the state, some attorneys, a Knox Co. Commissioner and a newspaper publisher. A full list of those who voted for and against this terrible failure of open government is here.
So representatives of city, county, and state government and public schools and even some in the news business have made a clear declaration of how they think - that there is no need for public meetings at all.
The state committee will meet again in mid-November. I urge you to contact your state representatives and tell them this committee has failed and their decisions are bad for Tennessee.
Link to State Representatives and State Senators emails.
UPDATE:
The chairman of the Open Government committee, Democrat Ulysses Jones, has issued a statement defending the action suggested by his committee (via Volunteer Voters):
"I believe this recommendation is a necessary change in order to allow elected officials to adequately do their jobs,” said Jones. “Elected leaders cannot be effective legislators if they are afraid of talking policy and issue with each other for fear of lawsuit.”
Current Tennessee Law (T.C.A. 8-44-102) states that when two or more “members, with the authority to make decisions for recommendations to a public body” are together and discussing policy, that the public has the right to be present. Under the approved recommendation, two or more members would be replaced with a “quorum of members.”
“Thirty-seven other states currently use the quorum process to define meetings as public and open,” said Jones. “What we have now is far more confusing, but with this change the process of having open meetings can be much more black and white.”
My response to his argument is this: when two or more members of the same governing body are discussing policy, they are making decisions and talking about issues which directly affect the public. Such discussions need to be held in a public forum, and part of the public record. And what is it in the current law quoted above that is 'confusing' to elected officials?
The committee members who voted to increase how many officials can meet secretly to conduct business include state legislators, the new school board chief for the state, some attorneys, a Knox Co. Commissioner and a newspaper publisher. A full list of those who voted for and against this terrible failure of open government is here.
So representatives of city, county, and state government and public schools and even some in the news business have made a clear declaration of how they think - that there is no need for public meetings at all.
The state committee will meet again in mid-November. I urge you to contact your state representatives and tell them this committee has failed and their decisions are bad for Tennessee.
Link to State Representatives and State Senators emails.
UPDATE:
The chairman of the Open Government committee, Democrat Ulysses Jones, has issued a statement defending the action suggested by his committee (via Volunteer Voters):
"I believe this recommendation is a necessary change in order to allow elected officials to adequately do their jobs,” said Jones. “Elected leaders cannot be effective legislators if they are afraid of talking policy and issue with each other for fear of lawsuit.”
Current Tennessee Law (T.C.A. 8-44-102) states that when two or more “members, with the authority to make decisions for recommendations to a public body” are together and discussing policy, that the public has the right to be present. Under the approved recommendation, two or more members would be replaced with a “quorum of members.”
“Thirty-seven other states currently use the quorum process to define meetings as public and open,” said Jones. “What we have now is far more confusing, but with this change the process of having open meetings can be much more black and white.”
My response to his argument is this: when two or more members of the same governing body are discussing policy, they are making decisions and talking about issues which directly affect the public. Such discussions need to be held in a public forum, and part of the public record. And what is it in the current law quoted above that is 'confusing' to elected officials?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Phoenix Newspaper at Center of Free Press Debate
Maricopa County in Arizona is in the news again, this time for a Grand Jury subpoena issued by County Attorney Andrew Thomas, who had convened a Grand Jury to investigate the Phoenix New Times newspaper because they had published the address of Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpairo. The attorney also demanded the internet addresses of every person who had accessed the paper's website dating back to 2004 and information detailing what websites those visitors had accessed prior to visiting the one for the newspaper.
Late last week, two New Times founders were arrested and jailed for publishing the info on the sheriff, even though his home address appears on numerous government websites, all open to public view. Someone has a lot of explaining to do on this abuse of the court powers:
"Phoenix New Times.... was threatened with felony prosecution for publishing Sheriff Arpaio's address on its website in 2004. After an adjoining jurisdiction declined to press charges, Arpaio's political ally, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, convened a grand jury to "investigate" charges the paper broke the law when it published Sheriff Arpaio's address.
Last week, Phoenix New Times' founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were arrested and jailed after the paper published a story about the grand jury and subpoenas they had received that demanded detailed Internet records of any person who had visited the newspaper's website since 2004, as well as all notes and records from any reporter who had written about the sheriff in the preceding three years.
After Larkin and Lacey were arrested an outpouring of shock and anger accompanied widespread media coverage of the case. The response created a groundswell of support for New Times. The charges were dropped less than 24 hours later after Thomas admitted that his office had made "serious missteps" in the case.
"The actions of Mr. Thomas and Sheriff Arpaio in this case are beyond outrageous," said AAN Executive Director Richard Karpel. "They abused their offices by engaging in Gestapo-like tactics designed to silence a newspaper that has been highly critical of them in the past."
Rightfully, this mess started a firestorm of complaints and now the entire Grand Jury case is being investigated as news organizations are suing for access to those Grand Jury documents:
"Thomas has "no objection" to unsealing the grand jury material and will support the media outlets' motion, spokesman Mike Scerbo said. He declined to elaborate, citing the legal restrictions on discussing grand jury matters.
Superior Court Presiding Criminal Judge Anna M. Baca scheduled a hearing Wednesday on the media outlets' request.
Late last week, two New Times founders were arrested and jailed for publishing the info on the sheriff, even though his home address appears on numerous government websites, all open to public view. Someone has a lot of explaining to do on this abuse of the court powers:
"Phoenix New Times.... was threatened with felony prosecution for publishing Sheriff Arpaio's address on its website in 2004. After an adjoining jurisdiction declined to press charges, Arpaio's political ally, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, convened a grand jury to "investigate" charges the paper broke the law when it published Sheriff Arpaio's address.
Last week, Phoenix New Times' founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were arrested and jailed after the paper published a story about the grand jury and subpoenas they had received that demanded detailed Internet records of any person who had visited the newspaper's website since 2004, as well as all notes and records from any reporter who had written about the sheriff in the preceding three years.
After Larkin and Lacey were arrested an outpouring of shock and anger accompanied widespread media coverage of the case. The response created a groundswell of support for New Times. The charges were dropped less than 24 hours later after Thomas admitted that his office had made "serious missteps" in the case.
"The actions of Mr. Thomas and Sheriff Arpaio in this case are beyond outrageous," said AAN Executive Director Richard Karpel. "They abused their offices by engaging in Gestapo-like tactics designed to silence a newspaper that has been highly critical of them in the past."
Rightfully, this mess started a firestorm of complaints and now the entire Grand Jury case is being investigated as news organizations are suing for access to those Grand Jury documents:
"Thomas has "no objection" to unsealing the grand jury material and will support the media outlets' motion, spokesman Mike Scerbo said. He declined to elaborate, citing the legal restrictions on discussing grand jury matters.
Superior Court Presiding Criminal Judge Anna M. Baca scheduled a hearing Wednesday on the media outlets' request.
"That record will provide a full accounting of what has happened to date, and will enable the public to judge for itself whether the officials have acted appropriately, and whether the grand jury process has been abused," attorney David Bodney wrote in the media outlets' motion.
Though the subpoena covered multiple articles on Arpaio, Thomas has said the investigation was triggered by New Times' publication of Arpaio's home address.
State law prohibits online publication of personal identification of law enforcement officers. New Times reported Arpaio's address in a 2004 story, published both online and in print, on Arpaio's real estate holdings.
Thomas announced he wasn't aware of how a special prosecutor he'd appointed was conducting the investigation, that key aspects of the investigation were mishandled and that he was dropping the case and dismissing the special prosecutor.
The former special prosecutor, Dennis Wilenchik, did not immediately respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment Monday.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Camera Obscura - A Monday Vampire Roundup
Halloween approaches and since vampires ruled the movie box office this weekend, why not start your Monday with vampires?
The vampire movie "30 Days of Night" opened this weekend and claimed the top spot in box office dollars. Based on a comic book, the story is about an Alaskan town which is about to endure a month without daylight. Something which happens in Alaska, so why, I wonder, did vampires never settle there long ago? Maybe it's the cold.
Josh Hartnett is your hero in the movie, but the real star is the leader of the vampire pack, Danny Huston. As for the Washington Post writes:
"And while Hartnett and Melissa George (as his estranged wife) make functionally appealing characters, the real star of "30 Days" is Danny Huston. As the animalistic leader of the pack, he's as disturbing as he is compelling, a feral creature with all senses at full capacity. If there's an action figure, I'm ordering one."
Newscoma also watched the movie and has a review too:
"If you dig horror movies, go see it for Huston’s performance and the way the movie is shot when the monsters are on the screen."
I like vampire movies, meaning they do not scare me. I enjoy them. A movie which scares me is something like "Steel Magnolias". The thought of having to watch that movie makes me shiver with revulsion.
And this leads to a question for all of you -- what is your favorite vampire movie? Who has done the best job onscreen of being a vamp? A quick search for 'vampire' at IMDB reveals thousands of movies to pick from.
Here are some of my choices.
Dracula (1931) -- Tod Browning's movie remains the vampire icon of movies. Bela Lugosi's face, voice and costume are still known around the world. He even inspired a character for Sesame Street and a box of cereal. The movie, stilted somewhat by today's standard, still has fantastic scenes.
Horror of Dracula (1958) -- British mega-star Christopher Lee made a fantastic Count Dracula, though he surely tired of the role and the work offered by Hammer Films. But this first one is still a great movie, and Lee knows how to scare you.
Blade and Blade 2 (1998, 2002) -- Wesley Snipes is both vamp and vamp hunter, and these first two movies are mighty fine. The opening "blood rave" party in the first movie is a jaw-dropping nightmare of vampires in a club scene. The third Blade movie is a joke. The first two, however, are fine fun.
Fearless Vampire Killers; or Pardon Me But Your Teeth Are In My Neck (1967) -- Director Roman Polanski's horror-comedy is a must-see. Gorgeous location shooting, packed with excellent characters both funny and scary, the movie is moody and dark and funny all at once. Polanski also plays part of a bumbling vampire hunter team, and Ferdy Mayne is like the sleaziest Goth of all time.
Now just for laughs in recent years, it is hard to top the very awful Wes Craven movie "Dracula 3000". It's on a spaceship and you get to see such performers as Coolio and Tiny Lister as vampires. That makes for some cringe-inducing comedy.
And since I am a massive fan of the TV show "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", I must mention just how much fun it is to watch Spike and Dru as vampire villains. They really shine in Season Two.
What are your choices?
The vampire movie "30 Days of Night" opened this weekend and claimed the top spot in box office dollars. Based on a comic book, the story is about an Alaskan town which is about to endure a month without daylight. Something which happens in Alaska, so why, I wonder, did vampires never settle there long ago? Maybe it's the cold.
Josh Hartnett is your hero in the movie, but the real star is the leader of the vampire pack, Danny Huston. As for the Washington Post writes:
"And while Hartnett and Melissa George (as his estranged wife) make functionally appealing characters, the real star of "30 Days" is Danny Huston. As the animalistic leader of the pack, he's as disturbing as he is compelling, a feral creature with all senses at full capacity. If there's an action figure, I'm ordering one."
Newscoma also watched the movie and has a review too:
"If you dig horror movies, go see it for Huston’s performance and the way the movie is shot when the monsters are on the screen."
I like vampire movies, meaning they do not scare me. I enjoy them. A movie which scares me is something like "Steel Magnolias". The thought of having to watch that movie makes me shiver with revulsion.
And this leads to a question for all of you -- what is your favorite vampire movie? Who has done the best job onscreen of being a vamp? A quick search for 'vampire' at IMDB reveals thousands of movies to pick from.
Here are some of my choices.
Dracula (1931) -- Tod Browning's movie remains the vampire icon of movies. Bela Lugosi's face, voice and costume are still known around the world. He even inspired a character for Sesame Street and a box of cereal. The movie, stilted somewhat by today's standard, still has fantastic scenes.
Horror of Dracula (1958) -- British mega-star Christopher Lee made a fantastic Count Dracula, though he surely tired of the role and the work offered by Hammer Films. But this first one is still a great movie, and Lee knows how to scare you.
Blade and Blade 2 (1998, 2002) -- Wesley Snipes is both vamp and vamp hunter, and these first two movies are mighty fine. The opening "blood rave" party in the first movie is a jaw-dropping nightmare of vampires in a club scene. The third Blade movie is a joke. The first two, however, are fine fun.
Fearless Vampire Killers; or Pardon Me But Your Teeth Are In My Neck (1967) -- Director Roman Polanski's horror-comedy is a must-see. Gorgeous location shooting, packed with excellent characters both funny and scary, the movie is moody and dark and funny all at once. Polanski also plays part of a bumbling vampire hunter team, and Ferdy Mayne is like the sleaziest Goth of all time.
Now just for laughs in recent years, it is hard to top the very awful Wes Craven movie "Dracula 3000". It's on a spaceship and you get to see such performers as Coolio and Tiny Lister as vampires. That makes for some cringe-inducing comedy.
And since I am a massive fan of the TV show "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", I must mention just how much fun it is to watch Spike and Dru as vampire villains. They really shine in Season Two.
What are your choices?
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Halloween 2007
For an oh-so-brief-time each year, I get the chance to present my Halloween mast for this old Cup of Joe.
A brand spankin' new Camera Obscura of movies and DVDs will be posted later today (sorry, make that on Sunday afternoon!!), so come back for that.
In the meantime, a Halloween-ish offering:
THE CONQUEROR WORM
A brand spankin' new Camera Obscura of movies and DVDs will be posted later today (sorry, make that on Sunday afternoon!!), so come back for that.
In the meantime, a Halloween-ish offering:
THE CONQUEROR WORM
Lo! ’t is a gala night
Within the lonesome latter years!
An angel throng, bewinged, bedight
in veils, and drowned in tears,
Sit in a theatre, to see
A play of hopes and fears,
While the orchestra breathes fitfully
The music of the spheres.
Mimes, in the form of God on high,
Mutter and mumble low,
And hither and thither fly—
Mere puppets they, who come and go
At bidding of vast formless things
That shift the scenery to and fro,
Flapping from out their Condor wings
Invisible Wo!
That motley drama—oh, be sure
It shall not be forgot!
With its Phantom chased for evermore
By a crowd that seize it not,
Through a circle that ever returneth in
To the self-same spot,
And much of Madness, and more of Sin,
And Horror the soul of the plot.
But see, amid the mimic rout,
A crawling shape intrude!
A blood-red thing that writhes from out
The scenic solitude!
It writhes!—it writhes!—with mortal pangs
The mimes become its food,
And seraphs sob at vermin fangs
In human gore imbued.
Out—out are the lights—out all!
And, over each quivering form,
The curtain, a funeral pall,
Comes down with the rush of a storm,
While the angels, all pallid and wan,
Uprising, unveiling, affirm
That the play is the tragedy, “Man,”
And its hero, the Conqueror Worm.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Register to Win Some Free CDs
There's still time to register to win one of several free CDs of Number One Rock hits - all the details on the CDs and how to register to win are here at this post.
Winners will be announced tomorrow before noon.
UPDATE: We have winners!
The 90s Rock CD goes to Ivy.
The Modern Rock CD goes to Alloyd4.
The Hard Rock CD goes to LeBlanc.
Thanks to all for playing!
Winners will be announced tomorrow before noon.
UPDATE: We have winners!
The 90s Rock CD goes to Ivy.
The Modern Rock CD goes to Alloyd4.
The Hard Rock CD goes to LeBlanc.
Thanks to all for playing!
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Colbert - The Presidential Campaign
A blast of Truthiness hit the mostly lackluster 2008 presidential race last night - Stephen Colbert is running for president. As a Republican. And a Democrat. In South Carolina. His announcement was made last night during his report on the '08 race:
In today's Washington Post, candidate Colbert said:
"It will be a success for me if at the Republican or Democratic convention, someone stands up and says, 'The great state of South Carolina, home of the finest peaches, home of the finest shrimp, casts one delegate for Stephen Colbert.' "
In today's Washington Post, candidate Colbert said:
"It will be a success for me if at the Republican or Democratic convention, someone stands up and says, 'The great state of South Carolina, home of the finest peaches, home of the finest shrimp, casts one delegate for Stephen Colbert.' "
The Porn Star and The State Trooper, Part 2
Since May of this year, Googlers have landed on this page by the thousands to learn about East Tennessee porn actress Barbie Cummings and her encounter with THP Trooper Randy Moss. Yes the jokes pile up all on their own with such names and the infamy of that roadside encounter.
Yesterday, a grand jury indicted Moss on official misconduct charges, who left the THP shortly after the allegations of his sexual roadside attraction hit the internet and the media. (Videotaping their highway romance exists ... you can seek it if you wish.) In today's edition of the Knoxville News Sentinel, reporter Matt Lakin had some pun-filled moments in getting us all up to date on Barbie (real name is Justis Ellen) and Randy:
"Cummings’s Web site drew more than 200,000 hits in the days afterward and recently won the title of East Tennessee’s best blog in an annual News Sentinel poll — even though the blog went down months ago.
If the porn (I mean former porn) star's blog ranked as the Best ET Blog, then I must ponder on just how much porn need be added to this blog to entice readers. Does just writing the word porn, porn, porn titillate Google's search engines enough to seize attention? Probably. And if net-surfers arrive here and find no hot pictures of Barbie Cummings, will they angrily leave, crying out "There's No Justis?"
Your jokes may vary.
UPDATE: My shameless wordplay is obvious.
Yesterday, a grand jury indicted Moss on official misconduct charges, who left the THP shortly after the allegations of his sexual roadside attraction hit the internet and the media. (Videotaping their highway romance exists ... you can seek it if you wish.) In today's edition of the Knoxville News Sentinel, reporter Matt Lakin had some pun-filled moments in getting us all up to date on Barbie (real name is Justis Ellen) and Randy:
"Cummings’s Web site drew more than 200,000 hits in the days afterward and recently won the title of East Tennessee’s best blog in an annual News Sentinel poll — even though the blog went down months ago.
Cummings started a new blog this month. She says she’s quit the porn industry, settled down with a boyfriend and has become pregnant.
She wrote that she’s studying nursing and looking forward to becoming a mother.
“I have come a long way,” she wrote. “I wouldn’t say I have ‘improved’ or changed for the ‘better’. I have no regrets in life, and if I could, I would do everything over again!”
If the porn (I mean former porn) star's blog ranked as the Best ET Blog, then I must ponder on just how much porn need be added to this blog to entice readers. Does just writing the word porn, porn, porn titillate Google's search engines enough to seize attention? Probably. And if net-surfers arrive here and find no hot pictures of Barbie Cummings, will they angrily leave, crying out "There's No Justis?"
Your jokes may vary.
UPDATE: My shameless wordplay is obvious.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Vote For Limited Ban on Internet Tax Passes
This afternoon the House voted 405 - 2 to keep a ban on internet taxation, but only for 4 years, and the bill still has to go the the Senate for approval. TN Senator Lamar Alexander is pushing a bill that keeps the ban in place for 4 years, then allows for cities and states to start piling on taxes.
Michael Silence notes the news here.
Some states, like Texas, already have a tax on internet access, which the new legislation keeps intact. The cost for Texas residents? 25 dollars a month tacked on to the price to access the Web.
Meanwhile, the US Treasury Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce say a permanent ban needs to be the priority:
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez issued a statement today calling on Congress to make permanent the moratorium on Internet access taxes and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. ...
UPDATE: I received the following press statement from Senator Alexander's office this afternoon:
"WASHINGTON- U.S. Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) issued the following response to the vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to approve a four-year extension of a moratorium on state and local taxes on Internet access. The first tax ban was passed in 1998 and the current moratorium is set to expire on Nov. 1. This extension exempts some states that approved taxes prior to the original enactment.
Michael Silence notes the news here.
Some states, like Texas, already have a tax on internet access, which the new legislation keeps intact. The cost for Texas residents? 25 dollars a month tacked on to the price to access the Web.
Meanwhile, the US Treasury Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce say a permanent ban needs to be the priority:
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez issued a statement today calling on Congress to make permanent the moratorium on Internet access taxes and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. ...
"Although we recognize that a temporary extension is better than letting the moratorium expire, we are extremely disappointed that the legislation does not extend permanently the moratorium on Internet access taxes and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The Internet is an innovative force that opens up the vast potential economic and social benefits of electronic commerce.
"Preventing the taxation of Internet access and keeping the Internet free of multiple or discriminatory taxes will help sustain an environment for innovation, help ensure that consumers continue to have affordable access to the Internet, and strengthen the foundations of electronic commerce as a vital and growing part of our economy."
UPDATE: I received the following press statement from Senator Alexander's office this afternoon:
"WASHINGTON- U.S. Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) issued the following response to the vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to approve a four-year extension of a moratorium on state and local taxes on Internet access. The first tax ban was passed in 1998 and the current moratorium is set to expire on Nov. 1. This extension exempts some states that approved taxes prior to the original enactment.
“By extending the Internet tax moratorium four years, the House of Representatives has protected internet users. The Senate should follow suit with a temporary extension of the moratorium before the current moratorium expires on November 1. We’ve said from the start that a permanent ban is not good public policy. Rather, Congress should periodically look at this law to make sure it keeps pace with new technologies. Since the moratorium was enacted in 1998, we’ve extended it twice while changing the law substantially to meet changing technology.”
Monday, October 15, 2007
More On Internet Taxation
Some in Congress, such as Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, are looking for ways to allow cities and counties and states to start charging you new taxes for accessing the internet. I mentioned this last week along with my objections and questions about such legislation.
There was a state legislative effort earlier this year (fortunately defeated) to allow telephone companies to bypass local franchise agreements for offering cable television and alter the law for a single state application for service, which I wrote about as well.
And given the push for internet taxation, it is worth recalling that if that telephone companies get their way when they push their legislation again, cities and counties will lose income. As I said before: "If the state does approve the end of locally created franchise agreements, then cities and counties will be looking for new ways to replace that lost income - more taxation."
Also, I received some emails about whether or not Tennessee taxed internet access. So I point out this post from Les Jones on that topic from 2004, when the state eliminated internet access taxes.
So some suggestions for those favoring taxing internet access to create revenue for cities and counties - do not allow the franchise laws to be changed, and look instead to the potential income such already established agreements could bring. It makes no sense to me to always charge the end-user higher and higher fees. Consistent and open competition for service is the way to go. Seeking new ways to tax an ever-expanding technology will harm both expansion and competition.
There was a state legislative effort earlier this year (fortunately defeated) to allow telephone companies to bypass local franchise agreements for offering cable television and alter the law for a single state application for service, which I wrote about as well.
And given the push for internet taxation, it is worth recalling that if that telephone companies get their way when they push their legislation again, cities and counties will lose income. As I said before: "If the state does approve the end of locally created franchise agreements, then cities and counties will be looking for new ways to replace that lost income - more taxation."
Also, I received some emails about whether or not Tennessee taxed internet access. So I point out this post from Les Jones on that topic from 2004, when the state eliminated internet access taxes.
So some suggestions for those favoring taxing internet access to create revenue for cities and counties - do not allow the franchise laws to be changed, and look instead to the potential income such already established agreements could bring. It makes no sense to me to always charge the end-user higher and higher fees. Consistent and open competition for service is the way to go. Seeking new ways to tax an ever-expanding technology will harm both expansion and competition.
Illegal Wiretaps Started Before 9-11?
Allegations are emerging now that the NSA, authorized by the White House, began using warrantless surveillance programs months and months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 2001. The program was widespread and threats were leveled at phone companies who did not comply. A report in the Washington Post says:
"[Former Qwest CEO Joseph] Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.
Wired Magazine has more, noting others who have made the same claims about the date when these programs actually began. The information completely undercuts claims by the president that warrantless wiretaps are vital to a war on terrorism, since he began authorizing prior to the terrorist attacks.
Does this explain why the White House is pushing hard for full immunity for those telecoms who allowed for the illegal eavesdropping?
UPDATE: Kevin Drum writes:
"Unlike, say, MoveOn ads or Rush Limbaugh shows, this really does seem like a worthy object of congressional investigation, doesn't it?"
"[Former Qwest CEO Joseph] Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.
The allegations could affect the debate on Capitol Hill over whether telecoms sued for disclosing customers' phone records and other data to the government after the Sept. 11 attacks should be given legal immunity, even if they did not have court authorization to do so.
Spokesmen for the Justice Department, the NSA, the White House and the director of national intelligence declined to comment, citing the ongoing legal case against Nacchio and the classified nature of the NSA's activities. Federal filings in the appeal have not yet been disclosed.
Wired Magazine has more, noting others who have made the same claims about the date when these programs actually began. The information completely undercuts claims by the president that warrantless wiretaps are vital to a war on terrorism, since he began authorizing prior to the terrorist attacks.
Does this explain why the White House is pushing hard for full immunity for those telecoms who allowed for the illegal eavesdropping?
UPDATE: Kevin Drum writes:
"Unlike, say, MoveOn ads or Rush Limbaugh shows, this really does seem like a worthy object of congressional investigation, doesn't it?"
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Insect Spies and RoboBugs
Is it strange enough for you yet? If not, check out this Washington Post report on the uses and fears of spying insects.
"No agency admits to having deployed insect-size spy drones. But a number of U.S. government and private entities acknowledge they are trying. Some federally funded teams are even growing live insects with computer chips in them, with the goal of mounting spyware on their bodies and controlling their flight muscles remotely."
I have to add this question: Are cameras and camera phones somehow unworkable now? 'Cause someone could just take a picture, ya know?
Schools like Vanderbilt, Caltech and Harvard are working on this sci-fi movie ... I mean New Frontier of Science. More info and more strange comments and rumors at PopSciBlog.
"No agency admits to having deployed insect-size spy drones. But a number of U.S. government and private entities acknowledge they are trying. Some federally funded teams are even growing live insects with computer chips in them, with the goal of mounting spyware on their bodies and controlling their flight muscles remotely."
I have to add this question: Are cameras and camera phones somehow unworkable now? 'Cause someone could just take a picture, ya know?
Schools like Vanderbilt, Caltech and Harvard are working on this sci-fi movie ... I mean New Frontier of Science. More info and more strange comments and rumors at PopSciBlog.
Friday, October 12, 2007
More Free NumberOnes CDs
Readers responded so strongly to the contest earlier this year for free CDs of Number One hits, we're doing another giveaway.This time, readers can enter to win a copy of NumberOnes in the genres of Hard Rock, Modern Rock and 90s Rock from Universal Music. All discs are in Eco-Friendly packaging, so you won't need a chainsaw to open the CDs!
To enter for the giveaway, just leave a comment on this post and make sure to include your email. Also, mention which disc you would like to win. Winners will be announced next Friday at noon, so be sure and enter before then! Winners will be selected in a random drawing from all entries.
The musicians featured on these discs include Blue Oyster Cult, Golden Earing, The Cranberries, Collective Soul, Deep Purple, Live, Robyn Hitchcock,Sum 41, Smash Mouth, The Wallflowers and many, many more.
The track listing for the Hard Rock disc is here.
Track listings for Modern Rock here.
Track listing for 90s Rock here.
So leave a comment and show your love for free Rock and Roll!
Update: WE HAVE WINNERS!!!!!!!!
The 90s Rock CD goes to Ivy.
The Modern Rock CD goes to Alloyd4.
The Hard Rock CD goes to LeBlanc.
Many thanks for taking the time to enter this contest and congrats to the winners!
Gore's Peace Prize Win Brings Attacks
As sure as night follows day, the indignant hostility of many in Tennessee and nationwide followed the announcement that former Vice President Al Gore shared a win of this year's Nobel Peace Prize with a U.N. Panel on Climate Change. And as this day continues, the hate-talk will spread across the typical sources on talk radio and on TV and in newspapers and blogs. Time to hate, hate, hate!
Folks sure do hate Al Gore and the U.N. Some really hate Gore, like TN State Rep. Stacey Campfield. And the TN Center for Policy Research continues to hate Gore, as if it were part of their DNA: "Handing a Nobel Prize to Al Gore, a proven hypocrite on the issue of climate change, would be an injustice to the many people bravely fighting for peace and freedom throughout the world,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson."
Some folks hate the Nobel Committee.
Some folks hate the idea of Climate Change as either a reality or a fantasy-hoax.
Comments left on this article of the win from the Knoxville News Sentinel reveal how deep the hate goes, and how it spreads to connect to almost any topic imaginable.
ACK at Volunteer Voters has a roundup of reactions, some happy, many not.
I suppose it is important to some to have a specific person to hate, to blame for all evils of the world, to be the emblem of all things wrong. Perhaps the hate serves as some soothing balm for all the things that irritate.
Folks sure do hate Al Gore and the U.N. Some really hate Gore, like TN State Rep. Stacey Campfield. And the TN Center for Policy Research continues to hate Gore, as if it were part of their DNA: "Handing a Nobel Prize to Al Gore, a proven hypocrite on the issue of climate change, would be an injustice to the many people bravely fighting for peace and freedom throughout the world,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson."
Some folks hate the Nobel Committee.
Some folks hate the idea of Climate Change as either a reality or a fantasy-hoax.
Comments left on this article of the win from the Knoxville News Sentinel reveal how deep the hate goes, and how it spreads to connect to almost any topic imaginable.
ACK at Volunteer Voters has a roundup of reactions, some happy, many not.
I suppose it is important to some to have a specific person to hate, to blame for all evils of the world, to be the emblem of all things wrong. Perhaps the hate serves as some soothing balm for all the things that irritate.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Death at TN Juvenile Facilty Ruled Homicide
The Chad Youth Enhancement Center in Middle Tennessee has seen continuing reports of abuse of its juvenile clients and now a death there has been ruled a homicide. The company which operates the for-profit facility is King, based in Prussia, PA and also has 110 'behavioral health' facilities in 33 states.
Tennessee medical examiner Bruce Levy says a 17-year-old from Philadelphia, PA died this summer from strangulation after a fight with two staffers at Chad. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:
"Tennessee child-welfare officials have already cited Chad over the confrontation, saying the facility's workers needlessly provoked Leach.
"Chad said it had a "nurturing and positive environment," but would hire more staff."
Tennessee medical examiner Bruce Levy says a 17-year-old from Philadelphia, PA died this summer from strangulation after a fight with two staffers at Chad. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:
"Tennessee child-welfare officials have already cited Chad over the confrontation, saying the facility's workers needlessly provoked Leach.
The officials said a Chad staffer should have given Leach space to calm down June 2 when Leach had retreated to a dorm after a fight with another resident.
Instead, the staffer, Randall D. Rae, 22, ordered Leach to leave the dorm, and Leach attacked him, according to investigators. The two struggled for a period. At some point, Rae turned his grip on Leach over to another aide, Milton G. Francis, 31.
Police said the aides had told them that they put Leach face-down on the floor with his hands pulled behind his back in a restraint method taught as part of routine Chad procedure. Neither Rae nor Francis could be reached for comment.
The procedure is known as the "Handle With Care" system. According to the instruction manual at use at Chad, the system is "an incredibly effective and safe restraint method."
Investigators will present evidence of this case to a Grand Jury. Meanwhile, officials with Chad say:"Chad said it had a "nurturing and positive environment," but would hire more staff."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Government Hungers for Internet Taxation
If you use the internet for any reason - from shopping to reading to connecting with friends and family - the current debate of internet access taxation is aimed at you. Unless Congress takes action, a ban on taxing your access to the internet will expire on Nov. 1.
With the tax ban in place, the economic growth and the spread of internet access has been phenomenal. Access has changed the way we communicate and do business, changed politics, changed education, and more changes will come as well. The technology too has been changing.
Some state government leaders are complaining that the boom of sales on the internet has meant a loss of tax dollars for such states. Yet, wherever Americans shop, the money they spend will still make its way into a tax revenue stream. Here's a reality check: A slower growth on spending and taxation by states places a bigger burden on state governments to spend more wisely and to prioritize spending. Residents, business and government will benefit from that.
Some in Congress are pushing for a permanent ban on internet access taxation. And some fear what effects that might have, since as yet unknown technologies may develop and avoid even more current tax structures. I keep sensing this philosophy that All Things Must Be Taxed is deeply ingrained in many government offices. A constant and effective oversight of government spending and the tracking and eliminating of wasteful spending is just one way to insure government has the funds it needs for vital services. Simply adding a new tax discourages such efforts.
Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander has a bill now which would keep the ban in place for 4 years, but then open the way for every city, county and state to then begin taxing internet access, especially on bundled services. Sen. Alexander says that 4-year period will allow time for Congress to create legislation appropriate to the technology.
Some info from Sen. Alexander's website:
"In short, Carper-Alexander legislation improves the existing moratorium by closing tax loopholes and clarifying the definition of “Internet access” to better protect essential goods and services provided by state and local governments.
The Carper-Alexander bill alters the definition of tax-free, “Internet access” to ensure that a consumer’s connection to the Internet, including email and instant messaging, remains tax-free. At the same time, the bill closes a loophole in the original 1998 moratorium that could allow an Internet Service Provider to bundle Internet access with other services and make them all tax-free.
This loophole is important because it could harm the traditional tax base of state and local governments. In 2004, the last time Congress extended the ban, Congress exempted voice-over-Internet-protocol services from the moratorium because of fears that states and localities could lose billions of dollars in revenue as telephone services migrated to the Internet.
As the Internet continues to grow and more services migrate to the Internet, Sens. Carper and Alexander said it makes sense to close that loophole and define “Internet access” exclusively as the connection between a consumer and the Internet Service provider. Such clarity will continue to ensure that Internet access is tax free, while also ensuring state and local governments do not have to come up with new – and potentially more burdensome – sources of revenue to pay for teachers, firefighters and health care services.
“Our bill would ensure that consumers continue to enjoy tax-free access to the Internet, including email and instant-messaging,” said Sen. Carper. “In the meantime, we fix many problems with the current law so that as future services, such as cable television, migrate to the Internet, we don’t completely erode the tax base of state and local governments.”
We should not undermine the ability of governors and mayors to pay for goods and services that everyone depends on. A temporary extension, as we have in our bill, will allow us to keep Internet access tax free, while giving Congress more time to understand the Internet’s evolution and what it means for state and local governments.”
“This is a common sense compromise that would extend the moratorium for another four years without blowing a hole in the budgets of state and local governments,” Sen. Alexander said. “A permanent moratorium would create a massive federal unfunded mandate, which members of Congress have repeatedly promised not to do. When the federal government starts restricting Tennessee’s ability to raise revenue that means increased tuition, higher sales tax on food and even a state income tax are just around the corner.”
I note again the concept here is on increasing tax revenues, not on keeping spending limited. Unknown costs are certainly troubling to states and cities - which again says to me that future leaders need to be even more informed and active in seeking ways to limit government growth and not just assume that government must continue to grow.
Another perspective from the National Review Online:
"This new Internet-access tax could do real damage to the U.S. economy, which is finally starting to get its feet back under itself from the tech implosion of 2000-01. In this nascent recovery, growth is again being propelled by technology and knowledge-based industries. At the very heart of this critical debate is the question of whether the Internet should be treated as a tax- and regulation-free form of commerce, or should be converted into a new cash cow for government officials to fund favored programs.
Sen. John McCain and others have decided to stop Lamar and his small band of tax-the-Internet cronies, and have introduced a compromise to address all of the legitimate concerns outlined by the state and local groups regarding their existing tax base for telecommunication services. The McCain compromise will extend the expired moratorium on Internet-access taxes for four years, phase out taxes on Digital Subscriber Lines ("DSL") that states had illegally started to collect, and address concerns about the treatment of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). The compromise will bring the necessary votes to finally pass an Internet-tax moratorium out of the Senate.
In 1998, Congress wisely declared the Internet a tax-free zone by establishing a moratorium on Internet-access charges. An "access charge" is just the government's polite way of adopting a new tax. The idea was to prevent the government from causing infant-crib death of this new consumer technology. After all, as Justice John Marshall once observed, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." By all accounts, the Internet-tax moratorium has been a resounding success. In 1985, about one in six American families and businesses had access to the web, now three in four do.
Moreover, e-commerce is the new frontier of business enterprise. International Data Corporation recently estimated that the Internet economy in 2003 reached $2.8 trillion. In the U.S. alone, e-commerce accounted for $500 billion in business activity and employed 2.3 million Americans. The Internet sector of the economy is growing at 12 percent per year compounded. E-commerce, in short, is to the early 21st century what the steam engine was to early-20th-century economic development. Meanwhile, the telecommunications sector of the economy now stands ready to invest billions to upgrade the nation's communications networks and make high-speed (or broadband) Internet access available to all American homes and small businesses, as it is for large corporations today.
All of this is to say, if ever a public policy has worked precisely as hoped, it is the Internet-tax moratorium.
Opponents of the ban on Internet taxes believe that this policy deprives state and local governments who need the money to fund vital public services. Lamar Alexander has absurdly labeled the federal ban on the Internet-access taxes an "unfunded mandate on states." But an unfunded mandate is a requirement by the federal government for the states and localities to spend money. This policy doesn't even deny states and cities a traditional revenue source. Most important, the growth of the Internet and the information economy has been an enormous net positive fiscal development for the states. In the 1990s, as the Internet economy soared, state and local revenues grew at a rate three times the pace of inflation. By the end of the 1990s states and local government coffers were overflowing; it wasn't until the tech bubble burst that government revenues sank.
The proposal by Senator Alexander, along with co-sponsors Kay Bailey Hutchinson and George Voinovich, to allow fees levied on Internet usage seems maddeningly misguided politically given that in just six months voters will decide on which party controls the U.S. House, the Senate, and of course the White House. It makes little sense for Republicans to run for re-election as the party that initiated the nation's first ever tax on the 74 percent of American households who use the Internet."
Another perspective from the Clarksville newspaper says taxation is the only sane response to the internet economy. In my mind, such opinion is reckless and hostile to those who make our economy work.
Your opinion may vary.
With the tax ban in place, the economic growth and the spread of internet access has been phenomenal. Access has changed the way we communicate and do business, changed politics, changed education, and more changes will come as well. The technology too has been changing.
Some state government leaders are complaining that the boom of sales on the internet has meant a loss of tax dollars for such states. Yet, wherever Americans shop, the money they spend will still make its way into a tax revenue stream. Here's a reality check: A slower growth on spending and taxation by states places a bigger burden on state governments to spend more wisely and to prioritize spending. Residents, business and government will benefit from that.
Some in Congress are pushing for a permanent ban on internet access taxation. And some fear what effects that might have, since as yet unknown technologies may develop and avoid even more current tax structures. I keep sensing this philosophy that All Things Must Be Taxed is deeply ingrained in many government offices. A constant and effective oversight of government spending and the tracking and eliminating of wasteful spending is just one way to insure government has the funds it needs for vital services. Simply adding a new tax discourages such efforts.
Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander has a bill now which would keep the ban in place for 4 years, but then open the way for every city, county and state to then begin taxing internet access, especially on bundled services. Sen. Alexander says that 4-year period will allow time for Congress to create legislation appropriate to the technology.
Some info from Sen. Alexander's website:
"In short, Carper-Alexander legislation improves the existing moratorium by closing tax loopholes and clarifying the definition of “Internet access” to better protect essential goods and services provided by state and local governments.
The Carper-Alexander bill alters the definition of tax-free, “Internet access” to ensure that a consumer’s connection to the Internet, including email and instant messaging, remains tax-free. At the same time, the bill closes a loophole in the original 1998 moratorium that could allow an Internet Service Provider to bundle Internet access with other services and make them all tax-free.
This loophole is important because it could harm the traditional tax base of state and local governments. In 2004, the last time Congress extended the ban, Congress exempted voice-over-Internet-protocol services from the moratorium because of fears that states and localities could lose billions of dollars in revenue as telephone services migrated to the Internet.
As the Internet continues to grow and more services migrate to the Internet, Sens. Carper and Alexander said it makes sense to close that loophole and define “Internet access” exclusively as the connection between a consumer and the Internet Service provider. Such clarity will continue to ensure that Internet access is tax free, while also ensuring state and local governments do not have to come up with new – and potentially more burdensome – sources of revenue to pay for teachers, firefighters and health care services.
“Our bill would ensure that consumers continue to enjoy tax-free access to the Internet, including email and instant-messaging,” said Sen. Carper. “In the meantime, we fix many problems with the current law so that as future services, such as cable television, migrate to the Internet, we don’t completely erode the tax base of state and local governments.”
We should not undermine the ability of governors and mayors to pay for goods and services that everyone depends on. A temporary extension, as we have in our bill, will allow us to keep Internet access tax free, while giving Congress more time to understand the Internet’s evolution and what it means for state and local governments.”
“This is a common sense compromise that would extend the moratorium for another four years without blowing a hole in the budgets of state and local governments,” Sen. Alexander said. “A permanent moratorium would create a massive federal unfunded mandate, which members of Congress have repeatedly promised not to do. When the federal government starts restricting Tennessee’s ability to raise revenue that means increased tuition, higher sales tax on food and even a state income tax are just around the corner.”
I note again the concept here is on increasing tax revenues, not on keeping spending limited. Unknown costs are certainly troubling to states and cities - which again says to me that future leaders need to be even more informed and active in seeking ways to limit government growth and not just assume that government must continue to grow.
Another perspective from the National Review Online:
"This new Internet-access tax could do real damage to the U.S. economy, which is finally starting to get its feet back under itself from the tech implosion of 2000-01. In this nascent recovery, growth is again being propelled by technology and knowledge-based industries. At the very heart of this critical debate is the question of whether the Internet should be treated as a tax- and regulation-free form of commerce, or should be converted into a new cash cow for government officials to fund favored programs.
Sen. John McCain and others have decided to stop Lamar and his small band of tax-the-Internet cronies, and have introduced a compromise to address all of the legitimate concerns outlined by the state and local groups regarding their existing tax base for telecommunication services. The McCain compromise will extend the expired moratorium on Internet-access taxes for four years, phase out taxes on Digital Subscriber Lines ("DSL") that states had illegally started to collect, and address concerns about the treatment of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). The compromise will bring the necessary votes to finally pass an Internet-tax moratorium out of the Senate.
In 1998, Congress wisely declared the Internet a tax-free zone by establishing a moratorium on Internet-access charges. An "access charge" is just the government's polite way of adopting a new tax. The idea was to prevent the government from causing infant-crib death of this new consumer technology. After all, as Justice John Marshall once observed, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." By all accounts, the Internet-tax moratorium has been a resounding success. In 1985, about one in six American families and businesses had access to the web, now three in four do.
Moreover, e-commerce is the new frontier of business enterprise. International Data Corporation recently estimated that the Internet economy in 2003 reached $2.8 trillion. In the U.S. alone, e-commerce accounted for $500 billion in business activity and employed 2.3 million Americans. The Internet sector of the economy is growing at 12 percent per year compounded. E-commerce, in short, is to the early 21st century what the steam engine was to early-20th-century economic development. Meanwhile, the telecommunications sector of the economy now stands ready to invest billions to upgrade the nation's communications networks and make high-speed (or broadband) Internet access available to all American homes and small businesses, as it is for large corporations today.
All of this is to say, if ever a public policy has worked precisely as hoped, it is the Internet-tax moratorium.
Opponents of the ban on Internet taxes believe that this policy deprives state and local governments who need the money to fund vital public services. Lamar Alexander has absurdly labeled the federal ban on the Internet-access taxes an "unfunded mandate on states." But an unfunded mandate is a requirement by the federal government for the states and localities to spend money. This policy doesn't even deny states and cities a traditional revenue source. Most important, the growth of the Internet and the information economy has been an enormous net positive fiscal development for the states. In the 1990s, as the Internet economy soared, state and local revenues grew at a rate three times the pace of inflation. By the end of the 1990s states and local government coffers were overflowing; it wasn't until the tech bubble burst that government revenues sank.
The proposal by Senator Alexander, along with co-sponsors Kay Bailey Hutchinson and George Voinovich, to allow fees levied on Internet usage seems maddeningly misguided politically given that in just six months voters will decide on which party controls the U.S. House, the Senate, and of course the White House. It makes little sense for Republicans to run for re-election as the party that initiated the nation's first ever tax on the 74 percent of American households who use the Internet."
Another perspective from the Clarksville newspaper says taxation is the only sane response to the internet economy. In my mind, such opinion is reckless and hostile to those who make our economy work.
Your opinion may vary.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
"Nobodies": John Bowe on Modern Slavery
Slave labor is sadly alive and well - and not in some distant third world nation. It thrives in the U.S., puts food and clothing in local stores and restaurants, all documented in journalist John Bowe's new book "Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy" from Random House.
The facts are grim and depressing, and Bowe's book of investigative reporting is nearly impossible to put down once you begin reading. Bowe starts with events in Florida, where companies rely on modern indentured servants to provide products for major companies like PepsiCo, Taco Bell, Tropicana and many more. Herded into hellish camps and manipulated with brutality by labor contractors, one known as El Diablo, human life is worth little. Providing products for sale trumps all other concerns.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, the John Pickle Company, which makes pressure tanks for oil companies and power plants, workers from India arrived only to have their documents confiscated, forced to live inside a factory building and work for three dollars an hour.
In Saipan, the U.S. Commonwealth, workers make clothing for national retail chains like The Gap and Target - yet free from all U.S. labor standards and immigration controls. Labels are allowed to read MADE IN THE USA, thanks to congressional efforts from Tom DeLay. Most of the workers are women, who earn three dollars an hour and are urged to trade sex for green cards.
Bowe's book is scathing, telling true stories of how much the U.S. economy has melded with brutal labor camps, exempt from law enforcement standards and operate with the local and national officials all ignoring the sometimes deadly camps.
You can read an excerpt from Bowe's book here. Bowe is interviewed by Doug Krizner here.
For most readers, "Nobodies" will astonish and terrify. It not only tells the stories of those forced to work in constant fear and poverty, but also reveals how items we consume daily come from such labor.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)