RattlerGator

I have moved the blog to a new site and look to

be keeping it there although the transition has not

been as smooth as I had hoped. Posting a

YouTube video worked fairly easily over here

(or so I thought) before the move and I’m going

 to test it in the post as a means of trying to

determine why it isn’t initially working easily

over at the new site. This is part of the spice of

life, I guess. [Another part is working through

your difficulties and finding your errors -- that I

have done with respect to the videos, thank you

 kindly -- and those two videos may as well be

the lasts posts on this board for now; see you on

the other site]

Florida A&M University “Rattler Strike”

 

University of Florida “Orange and Blue”

 

 

A PROBABLE MOVE TO A NEW WEBSITE FOR THIS BLOG

In an attempt to modernize and streamline my blog, and with some exasperated prompting from the good folks at Pajamas Media, I’m in the early stages of finalizing a move of this blog to a new web address. It may, in fact, be sooner rather than later. Here is the new website address:

http://rattlergator.typepad.com/

Things aren’t necessarily clean and tidy, I’m currently having problems importing any of my old posts to the new site, and I still have quite a bit to figure out, but I can already tell that my personal approval of the potential at the new site has pretty much sealed the deal. I’m announcing this now because I may not post here for the next week or two while I force myself to learn the ropes at the new site and my trial period is still operational at the new site.

If you go check it out, you’ll see the barebones setup but you will also notice that I’m going to allow comments there – just to see how it goes. Of course, many websites allow for comments and no one takes advantage of the opportunity . . . at all. It’s a part of blogging that I’ve previously stayed away from for many reasons – most prominently, the old software I was using on this site (plus -- Steven Den Beste didn't use the dadgum things and that was good enough for me).

So, enough of that. I’ll be keeping the englishandwhite.com website and hopefully evolving it into a straight business page. Check out the new blog page if you would, please, and give me some feedback if you are so moved. Here are some basic points of emphasis associated with this change:

[1] If you have subscribed to my RSS feed, you will have to subscribe to the new one as I will be dropping the tool I’ve used to generate feeds here (they are automated at the new site);

[2] There is a change in e-mail address at the new site

[3] Have patience with the kid, there will probably be quite a bit of tweaking over the next few months as I learn how to play with the new TypePad toy.

I started blogging Memorial Day weekend, 2004. This seems like an appropriate time, approaching Memorial Day weekend, 2006, to move on the next phase of my blogging experience.

Wish me good luck, okay?

 

DISSCUSSING THE CONTENTIOUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS C.O.P.E. ACT

Julia Johnson, Chair of the Video Access Alliance and a force in Florida government for years now, recently testified at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce before their subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in support of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006 (introduced as H.R. 5252). This bill is shaping up to be a huge congressional battle with the so-called “public interest” groups on the left lining up against the bill. In my brief review, the strongest argument in support of the bill was by Sonia Arrison:

The Internet, and the technologies that developed around it, has thrived precisely because of minimal government regulation. The idea that bureaucratic control of the old telcos spurred the growth of the thriving communications infrastructure we see today is palpably ridiculous.

New technologies driving the current economy were created in a world outside of the one where red tape was squeezing the air out of the telecom companies. While government was spinning its wheels trying to "create" competition between telecom companies, capital investment was fleeing the telecom sector and moving to more promising, less regulated places, like voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.

That’s a very strong point. Earlier in the piece she dismissed a claim made by Gigi Sohn that "without regulation, the vital Internet we know today would never have developed." Arrison wasn’t falling for it:

That's a laughable reinterpretation of history akin to Al Gore's insinuation that he created the Internet, and a twist of the facts worthy of George Orwell's "1984."

Removing the cloak to make plain what this battle is really all about, Arrison makes this point:

Under the guise of a principle called network neutrality--the idea that network owners should remain neutral with respect to the content they carry – pro-regulation forces are trying to increase their control over the information superhighway. Joining those who want greater government control of the Net are some content companies, like Google and Yahoo, which are currently engaged in a business struggle with companies such as Verizon and AT&T, which want to charge more for greater use of their broadband networks.

Google + Yahoo vs. AT&T + Verizon; now this is starting to make some sense. Arrison has a very persuasive point, though, and she closes with a flourish:

Companies should be allowed to choose the business model that works best in a market economy. History shows that a heavy regulatory regime such as the forced-access mandates under the 1996 Telecom Act was a disaster and put Americans at a disadvantage by slowing the deployment of high-speed Internet services. Those damaging regulations have been addressed through a combination of Federal Communications Commission actions, court decisions and technological changes, and the time is now to start treating telecommunications firms like any other technology company, not the other way around.

If Silicon Valley's technology companies take a deep breath and clearly consider their options, they will see that negotiating in the marketplace is eminently more preferable than submitting to government micromanagement. Some peoples' fantasies aside, it would be a serious strategic error to invite the bureaucratic regime into technology negotiations.

I’m convinced. Johnson’s firm listed these documents, I assume, in support of her position:

·        Internet Innovation Alliance
Complete Minority Ed Board Packet
[3.4 MB PDF]

·        Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (March 2006)
Measuring the Divide: African Americans' Access to the Online Universe
[3.3 MB PDF]

·        Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (February 2006)
African Americans and Broadband Communications
[156.0 KB PDF]

·        Telephia (January 2006)
Cell Phone Usage Highest Among African-American And Hispanic Consumers, According To Telephia
[43.6 KB PDF]

·        Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 13 (January 2006)
"In Delay There Is No Penalty": The Consumer Welfare Cost of Franchise Reform Delay
[181.3 KB PDF]

·        Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 13 (January 2006)
State-By-State Breakdown of the Consumer Welfare Cost of Franchise Reform Delay
[138.0 KB PDF]

·        Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 21 (July 2005)
Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry Structure and Convergence
[325.8 KB PDF]

·        Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 21 (September 2005)
The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households
[391.8 KB PDF]

·        A New Future for Telecommunications Policy (November 2005)
Learning from Past Mistakes
[300.0 KB PDF]

·        The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute (October 2005)
Trends and Impact of Broadband in the Latino Community
[684.5 KB PDF]

·        GAO (March 2004)
Subscriber Rates and Competition in the Cable Television Industry
[270.1 KB PDF]

Reports seem to indicate there will be serious opposition in the United States Senate and the COPE Act of 2006 as presently constituted will likely be modified. Let the battle commence and may the least regulatory position prevail.

 

ASSESSING IRANIAN STRATEGY

Marc Schulman at American Future has a great post up citing a blog (Kosmoblog) which culled the information from a submission originally posted at Stratfor that (conceptually) sets a table still not acknowledged by many Americans:

In 1979, when the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini deposed the Shah of Iran, Iran was the center of revolutionary Islamism. It both stood against the United States and positioned itself as the standard-bearer for radical Islamist youth. It was Iran, through its creation, Hezbollah, that pioneered suicide bombings. It championed the principle of revolutionary Islamism against both collaborationist states like Saudi Arabia and secular revolutionaries like Yasser Arafat. It positioned Shi'ism as the protector of the faith and the hope of the future.

Since 1979 we (meaning, the world) have had an ongoing battle in the Islamic community of nations of who can be the most “radical” mickey-fickey on the block. In an American music context, this is something similar to the kind of stupidity easily observed in the rap world dispute of East Coast vs. West Coast – and just about as substantive (a mile wide, an inch deep).

However, given the continuing media revolution that just keeps evolving and evolving, any activity capable of projecting itself in such a manner that it is, in fact, perceived to be a “mile wide” is, by modern definition, a serious force.

The Iranians always saw al Qaeda as an outgrowth of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and therefore, through Shiite and Iranian eyes, never trusted it. Iran certainly didn't want al Qaeda to usurp the position of primary challenger to the West. Under any circumstances, it did not want al Qaeda to flourish. It was caught in a challenge. First, it had to reduce al Qaeda's influence, or concede that the Sunnis had taken the banner from Khomeini's revolution. Second, Iran had to reclaim its place. Third, it had to do this without undermining its geopolitical interests.

Now, if you’re doing a bit of thinking here and remembering Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, it is clear (is it not?) that side-by-side neighbors engaging in this kind of death spiral competition was a supremely dangerous situation where American interests are concerned, correctamundo?

Correctamundo.

Because of Iranian competition with Pakistan (via their Taliban surrogates in Afghanistan) to the East and Iraq on their western border, they had to make certain pragmatic alliances since 1979 (think Iran-Contra “scandal,” etc.) that caused them to be questioned as collaborators in the radical Islamic world. Iran, still engaged in a tricky long-term play for influence. Here is how they dealt with that perceived transgression:

Thus, the selection of the new president was, in retrospect, carefully engineered. After President Mohammed Khatami's term, all moderates were excluded from the electoral process by decree, and the election came down to a struggle between former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — an heir to Khomeini's tradition, but also an heir to the tactical pragmatism of the 1980s and 1990s — and Ahmadinejad, the clearest descendent of the Khomeini revolution that there was in Iran, and someone who in many ways had avoided the worst taints of compromise.

Ahmadinejad was set loose to reclaim Iran's position in the Muslim world. Since Iran had collaborated with Israel during the 1980s, and since Iranian money in Lebanon had mingled with Israeli money, the first thing he had to do was to reassert Iran's anti-Zionist credentials. He did that by threatening Israel's existence and denying the Holocaust. Whether he believed what he was saying is immaterial. Ahmadinejad used the Holocaust issue to do two things: First, he established himself as intellectually both anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, taking the far flank among Islamic leaders; and second, he signaled a massive breach with Khatami's approach.

This, of course, created a problem for the Europeans who had been all-too-willing to play the role of punk ass surrender monkey so that they could triangulate (read: crap on) America. This was achieved by setting the United States apart from [1] the Islamic world, and [2] the E.U. When the Iranians decided (for political reasons) that they had to piss on Europe, too, our cultural betters across-the-way suddenly had their “uh oh” moment and had to back away from Iran. This, naturally, resulted in the rise of Iranian street credibility in the radical Islamic world and a growing conclusion that seems inescable:

In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be ended. Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make provocative moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be able to live with that as well.

Or so they think. But, clearly, dealing with only one state dedicated to the pursuit of leadership in the radical Islamic community is far, far better than having to come to terms with two of them engaged in this race who not only are neighbors but are also supremely antagonistic toward one another.

The Bush Administration decision to press the battle in Iraq was a wise decision because it was the least bad decision among all possibilities.

 

YOUR HISTORY AND YOUR BOOKMARKS

Gerard Van der Leun has a long essay up on his site which includes this great paragraph:

The History of your browser tells me where you have been, but your Bookmarks tell me who you are. Mark Twain remarked, “You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is.” Bookmarks are the corn pone from which your 'pinions are baked, but if you have the kind of soul that has run "Clear History" on your life your 'pinions are not likely to have any foundation in the long history of Freedom but only to yearn towards a Utopian tomorrow that never knows.

And rarely learns.

And is an easily bored adrenalin-freak.

Does this describe someone within your circle of acquaintances?

 

VDH ON USG FOREIGN POLICY

Victor Davis Hanson asks his readers to consider the “context” when thinking through and analyzing American foreign policy under the Bush Administration post 9-11. His nations of interest? Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Hanson is of the opinion that:

After September 11, there were only seven sovereign countries in the Middle East that posed a real danger to the policies and, in some cases, the security of the United States — Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Ignoring the hysteria about the Sunni Triangle in Iraq, if we look at these states empirically, have they become more or less a threat in the last five years?

He then outlines what we seem to know about those seven nations today and he summarizes a favorable comparison. However, he does notice an apparent failure in the public relations communications coming from the administration:

What is lacking has been a consistently spirited defense, both unapologetic and humble at the same time, of our efforts since September 11.

First, the United States was not cynical in its efforts: no oil was stolen; no hegemony was established; and democrats, not dictators, were promoted. We were appealing directly to the people of the Middle East, not negotiating with Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein about their futures. No other oil-importing country in the world would have tried to pressure the Saudis to reform at a time of global petroleum shortages — not France, not China, not India.

Second, there were never good choices after September 11 [RattlerGator: this true point is repeatedly glossed over by the bitch-and-moan crowd].

Three, by the standard of Grenada, Panama, and the Balkans, our losses were costly. But . . . [RattlerGator: this is a poorly stated point because it uses the wrong conflicts for comparison, the very problem consciously committed by the left]

Four, the strategy was not wholly military or political, much less characterized by preemption or unilateralism. Iraq was not the blueprint for endless military action to come, but the high-stakes gambit that offered real hope of bringing about associated change from Pakistan to Tripolis once Saddam was gone and a constitutional government established in its place.

Five, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As we approach year five, there has been no subsequent attack on the United States. An entire intellectual industry has emerged to educate the West about radical Islamic fascism, something mostly lacking prior to September 11. Our enemies in al Qaeda are either dead, arrested, in hiding, or losing in Iraq, and the embrace of radical Islam through the Middle East at least now carries the consequence of fear of an unpredictable reaction on the part of the United States.

I happen to believe the “failure” to communicate this message has been less of a lapse in judgment and more of a decision to allow for the shaping of the 2006 federal elections battlefield.

These next few months will tell the tale.

 

MRS. INSTAPUNDIT SCORES!

In a column posted today on TCS Daily, Dr. Helen Smith (wife of Glenn Reynolds, the one and only Instapundit) sang the praises of Shelby Steele for his new book, White Guilt : How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Dr. Smith wrote:

Today's political left, according to Steele, has shifted from the old left approach of individual freedom, principles and responsibility, to the new left of dissociation. This new dissociated left has turned against democratic principles and instead engages in a victim mentality for blacks that keeps them on the plantation. The left's deal is that they will keep throwing out a few bones like affirmative action, as long as blacks will allow themselves to be reduced to their race and the left can take moral authority for "helping" them. As Steele points out, this is a deal with the devil. It results in the impotence of the left in solving social problems and less freedom and autonomy for blacks. How can social problems be solved by telling people that they remain victims because of their race (or gender, for that matter?)

To pick an example from my own profession, if psychologists spent their time telling their patients they were victims of mental illness (or racism etc.) and that they could only get better by coming to therapy, how could the patient ever develop autonomy, skills, and the ability to solve their own problems? It is the same with the race card on the part of the left -- victimhood will keep blacks maintained in the status quo, always looking to the left for validation and to enforce their "rights." But the same democratic principles that Martin Luther King used to discipline this country in the 60's are the same ones that will enable African Americans to become truly free and to continue to develop the personal responsibility and skills needed to solve the social problems that have plagued blacks in America for some time now.

Obviously, I second that emotion. Brick by brick, the foundation of that victimology plantation is going to be torn down.

Site maintenance is ongoing and should be completed within the next 24-72 hours.

 

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE: DAY 60 OF 60

Well, well, well. The state media is scared that Jeb just might pull off his effort to amend the Florida Constitutional so as to allow for an expansion of school vouchers after all. The possibility of extending the session one day is also on the table. This could be an action-filled day up here on Florida’s Capitol Hill.

Here are links from the Palm Beach Post on the action from yesterday:

·        A third of state property insurance market at risk 

·        Davis vows education improvement

·        Legislature 2006: Developments from day 59, May 4

·        Sweeping education changes OK’d

·        Marlins’ subsidy hung up in Senate

·        Bills sent to the governor Thursday

·        Legislature OKs oversight of vouchers

·        Citizens’ reform likely to be painful

·        Child-care advocates worried about shortfalls in budget

For today, these links will provide you the best way of following all of the remaining action.

Video feeds:

It’s still a better bet to go to the Florida Senate homepage and click on the live feed for the chamber you want to view. However, these also should work:

Senate -- Florida Channel 2;

House -- Florida Channel 3;

News aggregators:

Fort Report

Sayfie Review

Blogs:

St. Pete Times -- The Buzz;

Orlando Sentinel -- Central Florida Political Pulse;

Palm Beach Post -- Q: The Florida Politics Blog.

Things look better today for the Republican agenda and Jeb is showing that he is still a factor in state government.

If you’re going to try and track one bill – this is the bill you want to monitor: SJR 2170. Here is the history of the joint resolution, as of this morning:

S2170    JOINT RESOLUTION/CS/CS/CS by Education Appropriations;

Education;  Judiciary; Judiciary  (Similar H 1573, Compare 1ST ENG/H 0447, H 0467,  CS/S 1150)  Education; constitutional amendment to provide that every child deserves  equal opportunity to obtain high quality educ., regardless of his or her  family’s income, religion, or race & to provide that students in pre-k  through college who have disabilities or are economically disadvantaged,  or meet other legislatively specified criteria, may participate, as  provided by law, in edu