Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
BrandonTO416

The Politics of Development

Recommended Posts

^I mentioned that dropping voter participation, which is a nationwide phenomenon, is particularly bad in Tennessee this year after looking at these vote counts. I'm a fact based person, and the numbers are eye opening for anyone. It certainly explains a lot of what is going on in the state.

 

Blame can be assigned to various reasons, but its a multitude of reasons. Its worth more of a discussion than addressing a radicalized individual who has absolutely no desire to rationally discuss politics or the issues at hand, and offers nothing but insults and pivots to nonsense with every single post. Why engage with that?

 

In so far as reasons for the lower vote turnout, you can say that the more strict voter registration requirements can affect it, but I do blame the Tennessee Democrats and a mid-term election that nationally had a lot of issues as much as anyone else. If you don't stand up for your base, you don't run candidates your base can get excited about, you don't have a chance in politics. Again, facts show that only a few years back Bredesen was winning more votes in this state, more votes actually than Haslam has received with his two elections.

 

In so far as these other issues, since this state is in a Republican moment or Republican age, it is possible to get around the extreme elements of that party and get things done. Haslam isn't on the far right of his party. While I don't support him and didn't vote for him, he's still a guy that can reach across the aisle on issues to get things done, and if he needs to ignore some of the extreme elements of his party to get things like transit initiatives accomplished, I'm sure that can happen. It isn't the end of the road for development in the state...

 

What I hope Haslam accomplishes with his second term, starting with this next year's budget:

 

1) Pull back the extreme voices that ban forms of transit so that the next time something is proposed it doesn't face the insane opposition at the legislative level.

 

2) Fund Medicaid expansion and get the hospitals in this state funded for the work they do. Not funding medicaid just bankrupts hospitals - unnecessarily - when they provide emergency care to patients that can't pay, and it helps patients get the followup post-ER care they need for ongoing health. This is a no brainer, and as much as anyone wants to oppose the ACA its law and its helping out when its enabled to do what its supposed to do.

 

3) Keep his caucus from taking advantage of the Amendment 1 passing during an exceptionally low turnout year where evangelicals were activated by their churches to make a higher proportion of the vote, and keep them from essentially banning abortion in this state. Any extreme laws will ultimately be overturned by the federal courts if they're passed, and it doesn't help Tennessee grow with the times. People from states around us who have had suppression on this issue are coming into Tennessee already. Before you know it, coat hangers and travel to Illinois or Mexico will be here before you know it if this nonsense keeps up...

 

We need rational, adult conversations to move forward. And the GOP is going to have to suppress this radical element within to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Back to the built environment for a minute. When I read "The Politics Of Development" I consider scenarios such as "I will vote your way on that sign ordinance if you vote my way on the zoning change I need..."

 

Within Metro Davidson County regardless of party affiliation, it comes down to neighborhood versus neighborhood, income demographic versus income demographic, economic interest versus economic interest, and yes....ego versus ego.

 

 

There has also been divides in religious circles as well. One church will accept alcohol served while others will try to stop an arena from being built because they will serve alcohol. (Dr. Bill Sherman anyone?)

 

This is the politics of development I was hoping to see intellectual debate on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^An adult conversation can happen, and if people ignore the nonsense they can carry on without it.

 

For example, on this voter participation thing I fully respect and understand many people in the Republican fold - a party I'm not a member of and never will be - genuinely just want to verify that voters are who they are and make the process more secure. I'm liberal, but I don't agree with a lot of what liberal personalities in the media say about it just being solely about vote suppression.

 

But at the same time, if you're going to require ID, why not make receiving a state ID free of charge as a standard policy? It makes sense if a citizen of this state can prove their residency with bills and statements and etc. that the state can afford to print off a free ID card for anyone who wants one at any license/testing location or other state office. Poor people deserve representation as much as anyone else, and it is the equivalent of a poll tax for them.

 

Also, for the sake of fairness, why not allow people with legitimate ID to register the same day they vote? Many states properly implement these policies and have no problems doing so. It is a choice politicians make to not allow easy access to the ballot box. A matter of fact, requiring ID actually makes same day registration possible. This is an issue that multiple political views can come together on, I haven't met a Democrat yet that thinks people who aren't legal to vote to be allowed a vote, so it isn't like there's much disagreement.

 

This would help boost voter participation and allow more voices to be heard. Personally I've never been one of these people that is upset to be asked for ID. But its these other things that give the impression these new voter ID laws are just vote suppression, and clearly vote participation is down in Tennessee big time after the ID laws here have passed. Some percentage is certainly related to the new voter reform laws here and its unhealthy for democracy.

Edited by BrandonTO416
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor’s office surveys neighborhood needs

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson/2014/11/06/mayors-office-surveys-neighborhood-needs/18615923/

 

Here is the website where you can fill out the survey. Mass Transit, sidewalks, and beautifulcation efforts will be at the top of my list.

 

www.nashville.gov/Mayors-Office/Priorities/Neighborhoods/Leadership-Training-Forum-Survey.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ted Cruz Says Net Neutrality Is 'Obamacare For The Internet'
 
 

 
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) came out swinging after President Barack Obama wholeheartedly endorsed new internet regulations Monday morning.
 
Cruz, who is mulling a run for president in 2016, compared the entire concept of "net neutrality" — which posits that internet companies should not be allowed to speed or slow down their services for certain users — to Obama's much-maligned healthcare reform.
 
'"Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government," Cruz wrote on Twitter.
 
 
 
 
 
...proof that there is no fearing Ted Cruz. Overwhelming vast majorities of Americans of all political stripes - unless you're a large, wealthy corporate donor with financial interests at stake - think net neutrality is a great thing.
 
Only days after the GOP win, this is where voices in that party are headed? The new majority, elected by the lowest turnout in modern history of any midterm election, won't last long. I look forward to two years of stalemates and vetos against radical agendas of the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fmj,

Maybe the only person I have ever heard of who doesn't worl for Comcast or att who is anti net neutrality. Really bizarre to be so in favor of legislation that will harm you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's okay, Samson - most people against Net Neutrality haven't the slightest idea what they're against. Besides - not sure exactly what his response was intended to mean... he could be for NN for all we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest

I also disagree with the FCC regulating the Internet ..... this guys nails it

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/

 

 

 

I Want More Competition

Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why do we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all, and a coercive one at that, to take over? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs and all we got is a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's some nice misinformation that is designed to rile a particular political base. The government wouldn't "take over" - not in the least. Provisions would be put in place to keep the internet a place for ANYONE (in the US, at least) to do ANYTHING - literally it's the most freedom-inducing idea the US has had in decades. Further, the idea of making an ISP part of a utility provider (e.g., Chattanooga's EPB) is pretty genius, especially given that the big 4 in ISPs currently pay most local governments to keep competition out (really Capitalist of 'em, eh?). See also the clearly credentialed Marsha Blackburn.

 

EDIT: further - equating NN to anything else the government has done beyond something like EEOC is fallacious because the whole concept is to literally say "ISPs cannot regulate the content of the internet because they disagree with what IP address xxx.xx.xx.xxx is accessing on wire they lease since they paid to be the only provider within 150 miles."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, FMDJ is really excited about the prospect of having to pay money to access urbanplanet.org

Edited by BnaBreaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If you think Forbes is conservative then we will continue to talk past each other....

Here is another perspective (yes this is conservative) that provided an apple to apple with other services....

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/10/obama-announces-wants-yet-internet-regulation/

 

Tiering allows innovation and progress....applying dated telecom regulation to the internet will on stifle innovation. 

And the red herring is that I somehow support Comcast, ATT etc... nothing could be further from the truth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Do you like that, really? Because your snide remark seems to say that you do not like it. lol

The quote is on point because.....read slowly now.... you seem to think the the FCC regulating the internet is a GOOD idea...obviously the quote illustrates that the the government is not very good at managing ANYTHING...... honestly we could use any government program as an example of heavy-handed management

 

Maybe you could actually state something useful that supports your viewpoint instead of blathering about.... 

I like how Nashville bounds quote has nothing to do with anything. Simply meant to scare. That's the conservative way as of late.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that there are many ways that we could trim the fat of the government and make it run smoother, and that government is by no means the best answer to every problem.  That being said though, I think government might...MIGHT do better at managing things with more efficiency, and we might...MIGHT stand a better chance at reaching a compromise, if so many of those working in government these days weren't constantly ranting about it's supposed evils, and/or actively working to render it impotent, if not destroy it altogether.  Just a thought.  Don't kill me folks. 

 

In regards to the current net neutrality discussion, I guess there's a lot I need to learn about the legislation itself, because I was under the impression that it's main goal was merely to preserve the status quo for the internet in terms of access.  What am I missing here?  Why is that a bad thing?  Maybe I'm crazy, but I quite like having free and unlimited access to the entire internet, and would consider it an overall negative if websites such as this one were put into the 'slow lane' simply because they don't/can't pay a premium to, or aren't owned by, whatever media giant is providing your internet service.  What is it I have backward?  Surely I have something wrong here.  I can't imagine those of you who oppose it would do so if it was exactly how I have it painted in my head...so, please.  Educate me!

Edited by BnaBreaker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Forbes is conservative then we will continue to talk past each other....

Here is another perspective (yes this is conservative) that provided an apple to apple with other services....

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/10/obama-announces-wants-yet-internet-regulation/

 

Tiering allows innovation and progress....applying dated telecom regulation to the internet will on stifle innovation. 

And the red herring is that I somehow support Comcast, ATT etc... nothing could be further from the truth...

 

 

In what way would 'tiering' allow for innovation and progress?  I've never heard anyone make that claim before other than the cable companies and their lobbyists.  I'm genuinely curious what that line of logic you're drawing here if you're willing to explain what you mean. 

 

As I'm trying to imagine how you might conceive that tiering would spur innovation, the only thing that I can come up with is that paid fast lanes would increase the barriers to entry, which in turn would encourage greater investment into the entrenched players (i.e. greater value as a result of greater stability due to fortified market dominance) which could lead to larger R&D budgets.  Not exactly reminiscent of the internet we've come to know and love but innovation nonetheless, I suppose.   Also, paid fast lanes could be a boon for larger venture funds who want to become new entrants in a given internet market and now have a greater advantage over smaller venture funds and upstarts without comparable resources.  In short, the only people who I can see benefiting from fast lanes are the cable companies, certain existing internet giants, and funds with tons of cash, but I would be glad to learn if there are others that I am leaving off the list. 

 

Most importantly, I think it's crucial we remember that Obama and Big Government aren't the ones trying to change the regulations here.  The cable companies are the ones trying to change the rules.  Those wishing to add common carrier protections are only doing so in response to the significant efforts made on behalf of and paid for by the cable companies for the simple purpose of increasing their bottom lines. 

 

I also think it's hard to argue that net neutrality would stifle innovation on the internet considering it's simply keeping the internet the same as it's always been, which has obviously allowed for a lot of innovation, and all those innovators who built and continue to build the internet overwhelmingly support net neutrality.  If net neutrality were going to kill innovation on the internet, you would think that those innovators would be the ones loudly opposing it, but strangely enough the ones who stand to make the most money if net neutrality becomes a thing of the past are the ones working the hardest to keep the FCC out of it.  Go figure. 

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Two points -

I can agree that the government is necessary to operate 'some' programs - despite its inefficiencies. While we should strive to minimize the general paralysis that an unaccountable bureaucracy provides we should seek to minimize the governments sphere of control.

 

The government stifles it does not innovate. This article is a good illustration of the problem with too much government oversight.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

 

Everyone (I think) wants a reliable access point to the internet. But we also want an internet that continues to transform. ....anyone that remembers Bell prior to the break-up knows of which I speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

RJ

 

Consider the Freemium model of application distribution and marketing. That is an example of a tiered model working for everyone. 

 

​And it is not keeping the internet as it has always been..... having the the FCC reclassify internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act is huge change. If you have a few weeks you can peruse the regulations http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/20.15

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RJ

 

Consider the Freemium model of application distribution and marketing. That is an example of a tiered model working for everyone. 

 

​And it is not keeping the internet as it has always been..... having the the FCC reclassify internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act is huge change. If you have a few weeks you can peruse the regulations http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/20.15

 

I'm familiar with the freemium model and understand why the cable companies think that's a good idea (i.e. because they make more money), but what I don't understand is why you think it's a good idea and who you think will benefit other than cable companies, entrenched internet giants and big-money venture funds.  That's the question.  How you expect to personally benefit might be a good example.  What do you expect anyone to gain from this freemium model other than having an internet that drives web traffic to the companies with the deepest pockets at the expense (and page-loading time) of everyone else? 

 

Regarding the FCC reclassification, again, the only reason that people are pushing for that reclassification is because the cable companies are trying to change rules thereby changing the way the internet has operated since it's inception. I don't know what specific problems you see with Title II reclassification, but if you could give some examples of complaints or concerns, I think that could be informative.  I too wish that creating new regulations to protect the internet weren't necessary, and it in fact wouldn't be a problem if the cable companies weren't trying to change the game in the first place.  So why support their cause?

 

As I see it, it basically comes down to this: If you think the internet works pretty well as is, and you don't want it to change, then you support net neutrality.  If you want the cable companies to restructure the system and create tiers of priority service with faster access to the websites who can afford to pay a premium and slower access to the websites that can't, then you oppose net neutrality.  I truly don't understand why anyone would oppose net neutrality so please feel free to provide all the insight you've got time to share.  In all sincerity, I have yet to wrap my head around what the anti-net neutrality crowd is hoping to achieve. 

Edited by ruraljuror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it really is a strange position to take.

"Restricting access to the internet will increase innovation!"

Google has said ending NN will actually inhibit innovation: https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/s/net-neutrality?utm_medium=social&utm_source=googleplus&utm_campaign=netneutrality

NB, why do you want to end NN? I guess that is my question. Because ending it seems to hurt almost everyone except the established players with cash, as was said above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Samsonh,

I have answered that exact question multiple-times. Have you even read my posts? You act as if I am advocating for change....? I am advocating for the status quo.... no FCC oversight. It is you and the other NN advocates asking the FCC to regulate.

I do not want to end the existing state of affairs regarding the way the internet is operated. BUT there is currently no FCC overlord regulating the internet - that is the FCC is not in charge of internet serves - but that is about to CHANGE if you follow Obama's proposal... again it would be helpful if you actually read what I post before commenting. Then you can address specific points to agree/disagree with.

 

Currently if an provider wants to tier service offerings they can, however I know of only 2 cases where that has occurred. In the vast majority of locations consumers have multiple choices of service providers (cable, DSL, Satellite, WiMax, Cellular, etc...) so there are actually choices (and I would like more choices). What if ATT tiered services but charged less that Comcast for service.... What if ATT tired service prioritization but bundled a 4G hotspot to sweeten the deal for the more expensive tiers? We have no clues how the market will innovate...after all the consumer can choose their restriction. Maybe I do not care about Netflix but I am an avid gamer....maybe I can select a service that is customized to me...

If you are interested here is another viewpoint that this is all a money grab.....once the FCC regulates there is a new 16+% tax that we will all have to pay for service.... nice huh.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concern with net neutrality is isp's charging content providers, like Comcast holding Netflix hostage until they paid them millions. The main concern isn't comcast having different tiers. Is that really what you are arguing?

The tax will never happen. Plain and simple. They can exempt Internet service from the tax, which is what would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That is but one part of the federal power grab. That is the 'juice' that everyone if fixated on. Do you think Comcast subscribers who use netflix would not raise hell in such an eventuality? Or alternatively maybe Netflix feels that Comcast subscribers are better customers (read: monetized) and thus they agree to pay Comcast for priority service delivery over say Vudu.... who wins and who loses in this scenario ?? The consumer has the power. It is apple to apple with Turner Networks having to negotiate carriage rates with each individual cable / Satellite provider . What you are seeing now is the the providers are able to negotiate lower rates on individual channels instead of having the content providers 'force' consumers to 'pay' (through carriage fees) for channels that they will never watch. I really think you guys need to do more thinking on this matter.

The tax will never happen?? Well sure, because the government NEVER places onerous 'fees' (taxes) on services to fund social engineering programs. Not very well thought out on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comcast subscribers did raise hell. Nothing was accomplished and now Netflix is eating the cost. It wasn't Netflix's idea to pay Comcast the fee.

 

The consumer doesn't have the power because those company pay massive campaign funds to local politicians to keep other companies out. That's why TDS stops before Marsha Blackburn's district (her contributors are ATT & Comcast). Your competition argument is lacking a bit.

 

 

 In the vast majority of locations consumers have multiple choices of service providers (cable, DSL, Satellite, WiMax, Cellular, etc...) so there are actually choices (and I would like more choices)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-11/obama-rules-protect-startups-connecting-gadgets-to-web.html

 

A nice summary of the argument I am making. And yes Comcast customers were furious, but Netflix had no bargaining power. So Netflix ate the cost and then Netflix customers will eat that cost. And then you have the issue of a company like Comcast both owning a content provider and being the delivery system as well. I think we are definitely thinking through this issue. As I said, I have yet to meet a relatively tech savvy person(even a conservative), who is anti NN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.