On Net Neutrality and Democracy !!

I just saw an hour long report on Net Neutrality and the future of media by Bill Moyers on PBS. It is excellent specifically because the documentary we were working on dealt with many of the issues that Bill Moyers addressed!! For those of you who don't understand what Net Neutrality is and how it will impact your life, this is a great place to start!! Further, he had two authors on the show that are excellent: Mark Cooper and Eric Klineberg.

WATCH & LISTEN

Go here to watch the report and click on image that looks like this:

The Net at Risk

Check out the live discussion online.

Mike McCurry, co-chairman of Hands off the Internet, a coalition of telecommunication-related businesses, and Ben Scott, policy director of the nonpartisan public interest organization Free Press, which advocates in favor of net neutrality, and representative of SaveTheInternet.com, will respond to the program, each other, and to viewers' comments. Citizens Class on The Net at Risk.

The future of the Internet is up for grabs. Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively eliminated net neutrality rules, which ensured that every content creator on the Internet-from big-time media concerns to backroom bloggers-had equal opportunity to make their voice heard. Now, large and powerful corporations are lobbying Washington to turn the World Wide Web into what critics call a "toll road," threatening the equitability that has come to define global democracy's newest forum. Yet the public knows little about what's happening behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.

Some activists describe the ongoing debate this way: A small number of mega-media giants owns much of the content and controls the delivery of content on radio and television and in the press; if we let them take control of the Internet as well, immune from government regulation, who will pay the price? Their opponents say that the best way to encourage Internet innovation and technological advances is to let the market-not the federal government-determine the shape of the system.

"The genius of the Internet was that it made the First Amendment a living document again for millions of Americans," says Robert McChesney, a media scholar and activist and co-author of OUR MEDIA, NOT THEIRS. "The decisions that we're going be making ... are probably going to set our entire communication system, and, really, our entire society, on a course that it won't be able to change for generations."

With the MOYERS ON AMERICA series, we inaugurate Citizens Class, an extensive, interactive curriculum designed to encourage and facilitate public discourse on the issues raised in the series. The workshop features multimedia discussions, reference materials on the key perspectives presented in the program, and questions for further reflection-all designed to stimulate deep and thoughtful community dialogue. Interested? Check it out. In search of specific information? Just browsing? Select topics below to explore a range of issues, from the new digital divide, voices from the debate over net neutrality, to ways to find out who owns your local media.

• The New Digital Divide
• Net Neutrality
• Community Connections
• Big, Bigger, Biggest Media

NET NEUTRALITY

The debate is hot, the language heady, the metaphors many. Op-ed pages alternately bemoan "The End of the Internet" or curse "Net Neutrality Nonsense." Allegations fly about the stifling of free speech, the holding back of progress and corporate hegemony. Indeed, network neutrality has become something of a cause celebre in the digital world, pitting a slew of high-profile Internet content providers and consumer-advocacy groups against major phone and cable companies, and federal lawmakers against each other.

But what exactly is net neutrality, and why does it seem to have everyone from Google and Yahoo! to Verizon and AT&T concerned? In a nutshell, the issue involves the transmission of data over broadband networks (e.g. DSL or cable internet services). As the number of sites on the Internet continues to grow and the quality of data becomes more sophisticated-encompassing video and audio files and other multimedia applications-broadband service providers (generally cable and phone companies) are seeking to regulate how material flows to users through their increasingly taxed networks. For most large providers, this has come down to one general desire: They could establish a tiered system of content delivery in which companies with data-heavy content can pay a fee to the providers in return for "special treatment" in transmission. An analogy: For those companies that pay the fee, their content would breeze through the fast-pass lane at the toll bridge, reaching users more quickly; those who don't pay will be stuck in the crowded, slow-moving line, and users will have to wait longer for their content to load.

So why "neutrality?" Because since the Internet's inception, everyone, every site, regardless of the data load, has been given equal-i.e., neutral-treatment by providers, their content transmitted at equal speed. Net neutrality advocates argue that changing this system will give unfair advantage to deep-pocketed content providers, while start-ups, small businesses, and nonprofits who can't pay the piper will be unduly punished. The telecom proponents of the tiered system insist that they need these new fees (in addition to those paid by their users) to recoup the costs of updating their networks to handle all the new data-heavy content. Many also object to the additional government regulation and involvement that would be necessary to enforce net neutrality.

Neutrality supporters worry that without regulation, there's no guarantee that some traffic would move over the net at all. In other words, neutrality supporters say that only with regulation would internet users be guaranteed access to whatever they want to read, listen to, or watch online, and that without regulation, large telecom companies could block or censor things they don't like without consequence.

This past summer, Congress took up the issue. Following a huge lobbying campaign by both sides, including millions spent by the cable and phone corporations, the House voted down an amendment to the Act that would have made the Federal Communications Commission responsible for enforcing neutrality. In the Senate, a similar amendment was defeated in committee, but net neutrality legislators managed to table a vote on the telecommunications bill indefinitely in hopes that they can somehow force the issue back to the forefront.

Some lawmakers have said they are sympathetic to the cable and phone conglomerates' assertions that regulating the Internet isn't necessary. "A lot of us believe that we don't have a problem today," says Rep. Fred Upton, Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, (R-MI). "And we're not going to overly regulate a product ... which might stifle the entrepreneurship and the progress we want to make in the future."

But other legislators are concerned about the implications of changing the longstanding Internet standard of neutrality, especially as the public becomes more aware and the battle heats up. The telephone and cable firms are proposing "the rules of monopolists, the rules of duopolists," says Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who led the fight in the House for net neutrality. "We have to go back to the rules which created the Internet."

What's more, the companies that deliver internet connections to most homes are increasingly in the business of generating content, as well, so supporters of neutrality worry that they'll be in a position to privilege their own content over competitors. For example, if AT&T decided to start its own online auction site, neutrality supporters say, the firm's customers might find themselves unable to use eBay — unless Congress protects net neutrality. Media watchers are worried that the Internet will follow the path of other media — where deregulation led to consolidation - and some would say — to fewer voices being heard. (Find out more about media consolidation.)

Find out more about the implications of pending legislation and the history of net neutrality-and let us hear your voice-in the MOYERS ON AMERICA Net Neutrality Citizens Class.

The word "HISPANIC" !!!

I am chatting with the Berkley PhD Linguist and I am still fuming. Today I got into a heated "discussion"with a friend about the word "hispanic" because I invited him to event where "hispanic" constituted part of the organisation's name. In his opinion, he hates "fake and ignorant people" who call themselves "hispanic" but don't speak Spanish!! I guess I am more pissed he could not just shut his mouth long enough to mingle with business owners and community leaders and enjoy a nice glass of wine without having to invoke his bullshit, replayed speech about how he knows more than everyone else soley because he has traveled all over the world and speaks Spanish. I don't know who is more dumb, Richard Nixon for creating the label, or my stubborn friend for not understanding Richard Nixon's stupidity and the limitations of the definition! If the word offends the sensibilities of educated, Spanish-speaking people not born in the United States then maybe the word should be deleted from job applications, census bureau forms, and all government documents in the United States. Yes, checking a box on any government form is preposterous when you are provided a box denoting a racial (color) "label", a box denoting an ethnic (culture) "label", and a box denoting a language (language, part of culture but different) "label". It makes absolutely NO SENSE -- I already knew that!! In short, my friend renamed the organisation to his liking and decided NOT to attend the function: National Association of Spanish Surnamed Brown People who have MBAs!

So I called the Berkley linguist and he claims that:

Hispanic was a term created by the Nixon administration and means any person of a Spanish speaking origin. It does not refer to a country and does not mean from the Spanish Empire, either. It means of a background where Spanish is spoken. What you call yourself is your choice. What others call you isn't!

Personally, I don't label myself Hispanic (language/culture), nor do I label myself Latino ( large region). I am simply American (nation). What I choose to read behind closed doors, how I choose to express myself among my family, the music I choose to listen to and the language I speak among friends is not the business of the federal government, nor the Nixon administration, or any other administration. However, if there were enough boxes on the forms to accurately describe my origin, there would have to be a box for my nationality (American), a box for the languages I speak (Spanish and English), a box for my culture (a culture where Spanish is spoken, located in the North American continent, not in Central America, not in South America, not in the Caribbean, and not in Spain), a box describing the color of my skin (brown in the summer and yellow in the winter with perpetual black circles over my eyelids and under my eyes!!!), and finally, a box describing my feminist inclinations!!

Alas, I also called in Wikipedia.....

Hispanic (Spanish Hispano, from Latin Hispānus, adjective from Hispānia, "Iberian Peninsula") is a term denoting a derivation from Spain, its people and culture. It follows the same style of use as Anglo, which indicates a derivation of England and the English. Thus, the Spanish-American War in Spanish is known as Guerra Hispano-Estadounidense, the "Spanish-German Treaty" is Tratado Hispano-Alemán, and "Spanish America" is Hispanoamérica.

As used in the United States, Hispanic is one of several terms of ethnicity employed to categorize any person, of any racial background, of any country and of any religion who has at least one ancestor from the people of Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America, whether or not the person has Spanish ancestry. It is therefore not a racial term, although as used in the United States it often carries racial connotations. The term was first adopted in the United States by the administration of Richard Nixon^[1] and has since been used as a broad form of classification in the U.S. census, in local and federal employment, and numerous business market researches.

In Spain, Spanish-speaking Latin America and most countries outside the United States, Hispanic/Hispano is not commonly employed as a term for ethnicity; however, this can be implied depending on the context. When used in this manner, in Spanish-speaking Latin America an Hispano is commonly regarded to be any person whose ancestry stems, in whole or in part, from the people of Spain — to the contrast of the non-Hispanic (ie. non-Spanish descended) population. In this sense, when speaking of a nation's Hispanic population, those who are implied are Spaniards, criollos, mestizos, and mulattos, to the exclusion of indigenous Amerindians, unmixed descendants of black African slaves or other peoples from later migrations without any Spanish lineage who today reside in any of the Hispanic nations, regardless of whether they now use Spanish as their first and only language. In contrast, a non-Spanish-speaking Mayan Amerindian from Mexico, for example, who lives in the U.S. would be considered Hispanic as the term is officially defined and commonly understood there. North Americans often confuse the words "Hispanic" and "mestizo", therefore assuming that all Latin Americans are dark-skinned with black hair and brown or black eyes. There are, however, many fair-skinned, blue-eyed, blonde Hispanics who are not mestizo.

"Hispanic" as a U.S. ethnic label

In the United States, some people consider "Hispanic" to be too general as a label, while others consider it offensive, often preferring to use the term "Latino", which is viewed as a self-chosen label. The preference of "Latino" over "Hispanic" is partly because it more clearly indicates that those it is referring to are the people from Latin America (including Brazil) and not Spain. Different labels prevail in different regions, as well. In places like Arizona and California, the Chicanos are proud of their personal association and their participation in the agricultural movement of the 1960s with César Chávez, that brought attention to the needs of the farm workers. Usually younger Hispanics will not refer to themselves as such, however.

It is important to remember that the majority of "Hispanics" do not identify as "Hispanic" or "Latino," but with their national origin, i.e. Mexican-American. And, it is debatable that Latino is any less self-imposed than Hispanic. The label, Hispanic, was the result of efforts by a Hispanic New Mexican senator, Montoya, who wanted a label that could be used to quantify the Spanish-speaking population for the US Census. The label Hispanic was chosen in part because in New Mexico, well-to-do people of Spanish descent such as Montoya referred to themselves as Hispanos, and the transliteration of Hispano is Hispanic. Thus, while Latino is more popular in some urban areas, Hispanic is more popular in some parts of the southwest.

Previously Hispanics were commonly referred to as "Spanish-Americans", "Spanish-speaking Americans", and "Spanish-surnamed Americans". These terms, however, proved even more misleading or inaccurate since:

• Most U.S. Hispanics were not born in Spain, nor were most born to recent Spanish nationals;
• Although most U.S. Hispanics speak Spanish, not all do, and though most Spanish-speaking people are Hispanic, not all are (e.g., many U.S. Hispanics by the fourth generation no longer speak Spanish, while there are some non-Hispanics of the Southwestern United States that may be fluent in the language), and;
• Although most Hispanics have a Spanish surname, not all do, and while most Spanish-surnamed people are Hispanic, not all are (e.g., there are tens of millions of Spanish-surnamed Filipinos, but very few, only about 3.5%, would qualify as Hispanic by ancestry).
• Many Catalans and Basques refuse to identify themselves as Hispanic in the US census, especially those who have Catalan and Basque as mother tongues.
• The term "Spanish" to denote a person from or of descent from a Latin American country is incorrect, as "Spanish" means a person who is from Spain.

The term "Spanish American", however, is still currently in use by many of those who, while not of recent descent from a Spanish national, have continued to practice and view Spanish culture and identity as dominant in their lives. In this usage it emphasized ancestral history and identity, and is not meant to indicate citizenship of the 'old country'.

What Makes You NOT a Buddhist - Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse

Book Review

Synopsis:

Moving away from conventional presentations of Buddhist teachings, Rinpoche challenges readers to make sure they know what they're talking about before they claim to be a Buddhist. With wit and irony, he urges us to move beyond the superficial trappings of Buddhism - beyond a romance with beads, incense, and exotic people in robes - straight to the heart of what the Buddha taught. He throws down the gauntlet to the Buddhist world, challenging common misconceptions, stereotypes, and fantasies. In essence, this book explains what a Buddhist really is.

Can you accept that all things are impermanent and that there is no essential substance or concept that is permanent? Can you accept that all emotions bring pain and suffering and that there is no emotion that is purely pleasurable? Can you accept that all phenomena are illusory and empty? Can you accept that enlightenment is beyond concepts; that it's not a perfect blissful heaven, but instead a release from delusion? Rinpoche encourages us to examine our most fundamental assumptions and beliefs, and he inspires us to explore the authentic Buddhist path based on these traditional four seals of Buddhism.

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche is one of the most innovative and creative young Tibetan Lamas teaching today. The film director of critically acclaimed movies The Cup and Travellers and Magicians, this provocative teacher is widely known and admired in the West.

Extract from the book:

CAUSES AND CONDITIONS: THE EGG IS COOKED AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT

When Siddhartha spoke of “all assembled things,” he was referring to more than just obvious perceptible phenomena such as DNA, your dog, the Eiffel Tower, eggs, and sperm. Mind, time, memory, and God are also assembled. And each assembled component in turn depends on several layers of assembly. Similarly, when he taught impermanence, he went beyond conventional thinking about “the end,” such as the notion that death happens once and then it’s over. Death is continuous from the moment of birth, from the moment of creation. Each change is a form of death, and therefore each birth contains the death of something else. Consider cooking a hen’s egg. Without constant change, the cooking of an egg cannot occur. The cooked-egg result requires some fundamental causes and conditions. Obviously you need an egg, a pot of water, and some sort of heating element. And then there are some not-so-essential causes and conditions, such as a kitchen, lights, an egg timer, a hand to put the egg into the pot. Another important condition is absence of interruption, such as a power outage or a goat walking in and overturning the pot. Furthermore, each condition—the hen, for example—requires another set of causes and conditions. It needs another hen to lay an egg so that it can be born, a safe place for this to happen, and food to help it grow. The chicken feed has to be grown somewhere and must make its way into the chicken. We can keep breaking down the indispensable and dispensable requirements all the way to the subatomic level, with an ever-increasing number of forms, shapes, functions, and labels.

When all the innumerable causes and conditions come together, and there is no obstacle or interruption, the result is inevitable. Many misunderstand this to be fate or luck, but we still do have the power to have an effect on conditions, at least in the beginning. But at a certain point, even if we pray that the egg won’t cook, it will be cooked.

Like the egg, all phenomena are the product of myriad components, and therefore they are variable. Nearly all of these myriad components are beyond our control, and for that reason they defy our expectations. The least-promising presidential candidate might win the election and then lead the country to contentment and prosperity The candidate you campaign for might win and then lea4 the country to economic and social ruin, making your life miserable. You may think liberal, left-wing politics are enlightened politics, but they may actually be the cause of fascism and skinheads by being complacent or even promoting tolerance of the intolerant. Or by protecting the individual rights of those whose sole purpose is to destroy other people’s individual rights. The same unpredictability applies to all forms, feelings, perceptions, traditions, love, trust, mistrust, skepticism—even the relationships between spiritual masters and disciples, and between men and their gods.

All of these phenomena are impermanent. Take skepticism, for example. There was once a Canadian man who was the very embodiment of a skeptic. He enjoyed attending Buddhist teachings so that he could argue with the teachers. He was actually quite well versed in Buddhist philosophy, so his arguments were strong. He relished the opportunity to quote the Buddhist teaching that the Buddha’s words must be analyzed and not taken for granted. A few years later, and he is now the devoted follower of a famous psychic channeler. The ultimate skeptic sits before his singing guru with tears running like rivers from his eyes, devoted to an entity who has not a scrap of logic to offer. Faith or devotion has a general connotation of being unwavering, but like skepticism and like all compounded phenomena, is impermanent.

Whether you pride yourself on your religion or on not belonging to any religion, faith plays an important role in your existence. Even “not believing” requires faith—total, blind faith in your own logic or reason based on your ever-changing feelings. So it is no surprise when what used to seem so convincing no longer persuades us. The illogical nature of faith is not subtle at all; in fact it is among the most assembled and interdependent of phenomena. Faith can be triggered by the right look at the right time in the right place. Your faith may depend on superficial compatibility. Let’s say that you are a misogynist and you meet a person who is preaching hatred against women. You will find that person powerful, you will agree with him, and you will have some faith in him. Something as inconsequential as a shared love of anchovies might add to your devotion. Or perhaps a person or institution has the ability to lessen your fear of the unknown. Other factors such as the family, country, or society you are born into are all part of the assembly of elements that come together as what we call faith.

Citizens of many Buddhist-ruled countries, such as Bhutan, Korea, Japan, and Thailand, are blindly committed to the Buddhist doctrine. On the other hand, many young people in those countries become disillusioned with Buddhism because there is not enough information and too many distractions for the phenomena of faith to stick, and they end up following another faith, or following their own reason.

When we learn to see the assembled parts of all things and situations, we learn to cultivate forgiveness, understanding, open-mindedness, and fearlessness. … Fear and anxiety are the dominant psychological states of the human mind. Behind the fear lies a constant longing to be certain. We are afraid of the unknown. The mind’s craving for confirmation is rooted in our fear of impermanence.

Fearlessness is generated when you can appreciate uncertainty, when you have faith in the impossibility of these interconnected components remaining static and permanent. You will find yourself, in a very true sense, preparing for the worst while allowing for the best. You become dignified and majestic…. By knowing that something is lying in wait for you just around the bend, by accepting that countless potentialities exist from this moment forward, you acquire the sill of pervasive awareness and foresight like that of gifted general, not paranoid, but prepared. … The recognition of impermanence is key to freedom from fear of remaining forever stuck in a situation, habit, or pattern.