What concerns me is not that a journalist might be sympathetic with one side or the other:
"because Goodman's coverage was sympathetic to the protesters, it was fine to consider her a protester too. "
...but rather that our government and law enforcement, in the form of Ladd Erickson and the police, would take one side or the other.
Her job is to report the situation to the public, which she is clearly doing, whether biased or not. Law enforcement's job should be to keep the peace as the protesters demonstrate, and make sure innocent citizens and journalists remains safe, even if the protesters or pipeline security detail break laws.
"a marginally interesting story by Eichenwald about how a Russian government connected news website, Sputnik, misread an email leaked via Wikileaks from Hillary Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal to campaign chief John Podesta."
Stop. We're already waaaay beyond the comprehension level of the electorate. Especially those that need to understand this story. Sad.
Isn't it funny how so-called "trade deals" like TTIP or TPP have Corporate Sovereignty clauses, that allow multi-national companies to knock-back nations' regulations when it impedes their business...and we get hurt.
But when states of the Union pass true protectionism laws, there is no similar Sovereignty protections...and we get hurt.
- Google would be subject to the same stupid state laws - Google is currently suffering with the high cost of deploying fiber, is less keen on expanding the fiber footprint, and is shifting towards wireless last-mile technologies
Some sectors of the economy are what are called Natural Monopolies. These sectors are defined by barriers to entry and cost advantages to incumbency and scale. Telecoms fits tidily into the category. If you don't understand Natural Monopoly, then you're not qualified to enter this discussion.
In a Natural Monopoly, a free market is distorted not by regulations, but by the price control of the incumbents. Most new entrants are scared off by the price control power of the incumbent.
Any new entrants in telecom must dig ditches, or pay to use the incumbent's poles. You need permission to dig into hundreds of properties and rights-of-way, then you have the cost to dig and lay cable. They you need to connect each house, pay for marketing, and only then can you collect some revenue from your first customers. Meanwhile, the incumbent (with a lower cost basis, amortized long ago), simply drops price below the new entrant, and kills them off, then buys up the assets for pennies on the dollar. Thanks.
The reason you are wrong is because regs aren't the only things that can distort a free market. Naturally occurring things do, too. Sometimes, regs can bring us CLOSER to a free market, not farther. It's hard for absolutists to understand.
"U.S. and Italian officials are now weighing the option of a “Step 1” deal to lock in elements that can be finalized by December, possibly including joint testing regimes and mutually agreed upon standards for cars, pharmaceuticals and medical devices."
Once again, these are not Free Trade deals. They are regulation simplification deals, and corporate sovereignty deals. As Techdirt has written, they bind the hands of our elected leaders, and empower multinational corporations.
We basically already have free trade. What are the normal impediments to free trade? - bans or blockades - quota - tariffs - price fixes - subsidy or domestic favoritism
So, if a so-called "Free Trade" deal does not focus on reducing one of the above, it is NOT a Free Trade deal. It is probably more of a "Regulation Equalization Deal", or such...but that doesn't sound as good.
Smart people, and in particular economists, are universally in favor of free trade, because we've seen the math that shows that it floats all boats. Free Trade has a good brand, for good reason.
Regulatory Equalization, OTOH, could be good or bad. But what we usually get from it, in practice, is the worst of any national quality standards, or the lightest of any national regulations.
Corporate Sovereignty, OTOH (I have three hands) is most definitely bad for the citizens. It takes power from our elected officials, and gives it to corporations.
"Using this logic America should completely dismantle it's entire Military out of fear of another country invading us because they are frustrated with us having a military."
Reasons there is no similarity: - The US gov't does not have an imaginary leash in its military. The Commander in Chief and congress can effect swift and important changes in deployment, engagement, organization, and rules.
- Releasing our very, very weak control of the Internet to a neutral party to stave off fragmentation does not open our nation up to invasion.
A better analogy would be control of the ENTIRE Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The USA, with its strong navy, could CLAIM control and all rights to the Oceans. Of course, if we did, other countries and individuals would ignore those claims, and respond with similar stupid claims of their own. Instead, a better choice is to claim and control only near our shores, and allow the oceans to be no country's actual property, but rather agree to a set of Maritime laws and guidelines for navigation, safety, and resources.
No. Don't contribute to the false equivalence meme.
A wall on the MX border is obviously stupid. It is physically unbuildable on any reasonable budget. He claims MX will pay, but they won't. And it will be completely ineffective as undocumented peeps just enter here on tourist visas, and overstay...as they mostly do now.
Clinton's position from this article is not good, is certainly hawkish, but it is not so blatantly stupid. And to understand the intricacies of "the cyber" is not something we would expect of the candidates - although we would hope she has advisers who understand. And Clinton hasn't made this "not smart" position the main pillar of her campaign.
There is no equivalence between Trump's blatantly stupid, incessant windmill tilting, and Clinton's imperfect one-time statement about over-zealous cyber-retaliation.
"We have to use up physical weapons in order to have a need to replenish them."
For the M-I complex, things aren't so dire as that. They can sell us more modern weapons. They just need to show how the old weapons are outdated. We'll get sales pitches for ultra-mega-project weapons like Star Wars, or a nuclear arsenal which we never intend to use. We get new fighter planes that run years late and billions over budget.
Also, they don't need to use the weapons to clear space for the new ones. You can just recycle them for scrap, sell them to allies, sell them to enemies-with-benefits, or -better still- you can sell them to some yokel Sheriff to use on American civilians.
"Elsevier's business model has been compared to a restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients..."
...takes them to another customer's house and kitchen,
"...do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill from the "restaurant".
Otherwise, the analogy gives Elsevier credit for the restaurant facility, but the peer review process is done by other Profs located at other universities. Elsevier is just a market...that charges like it were the supplier.
- It's like if a real estate agent sold your house, then kept all the money.
- It's like if Uber arranged for drivers with cars to do business with passengers, but after a driver gave one ride, Uber owns her car and she's not allowed to use it anymore.
- It's like if the NASDAQ hosted your trades and equity sells, but then owns your stock, and gives you a cut of the dividends.
- It's like if the RIAA companies produced your record, but then had you by the nutsack, owned your music, and extracted every penny they could from it, while giving the artist a pittance or nothing at all...hey wait, it IS like that.