Nader behind in fund-raising - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

"The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported this afternoon that he had raised $321,700 by the end of February, including $40,200 from his own pocket and a quarter of his total take from California residents."

Seems like prudent planning to me as, the real fight isn't likely to get under way for a few months. It also is a useful statement that speaks to the OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money being spent by the R & D parties at a time when we are all looking to tighten our belts if not being forced to do so. One shouldn't need to spend that kind of money to be a part of the process. Speaking of that, one certainly shouldn't be required to prove voter support based on dollars raised. The fact that the word democracy has become somehow interchangeable with capitalism is perverse. How is it that people who can't afford to send money to a campaign no longer have the right to support a candidate and have it count? (speaking of minimum donations per state to qualify for matching funds)


I went here for information on public funding of presidential elections, this is where the disappointment began. First is the fact that the only instances in which the word 'Independent' is used is when referring to expenditures not candidates. Each section stated time and again 'party candidate', 'major party candidates' as well a 'minor' and 'new' party candidates. No where is there a section for or direct information on 'Independent Candidates'. One small section titled 'Eligibility for Public Funds' finds itself parked fully halfway down this page titled 'Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure', carefully placed after 7 other sections that only refer to parties, committees and conventions. No where on this official government site for information does it make clear the standards and requirements for independent candidates. It does note that this page is intended for students, public information and reporters not candidates or committees, and that those groups should consult chapter 11 campaign laws. (no handy link provided)
This same government provided site finds a page titled 'Chapter 1: Primary Matching Funds' that notes "18. The requirement that candidates be affiliated with a political party has raised constitutional questions. Some have argued that it discriminates against independent candidates. For a discussion of this issue, see Chapter 2." Again, this is the only remark on independent candidates.

This 'Chapter 2' finds that "eligible candidates" are, by definition, the nominees "of a political party for President and Vice President."11 and that '11' is noted as 26 U.S.C. Sec.9002(4). It goes on:

Thus, on its face, the statute would appear to preclude public funding for independent candidates. On the other hand, Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16): a political party is "an association, committee, or organization which nominates a candidate for election to any Federal office whose name appears on the election ballot as the candidate of such association, committee, or organization."
Applying this definition in Advisory Opinion (AO) 1980-3, the Commission determined that the Citizens Party would qualify as a political party once it received verification from any state that a candidate would appear on the ballot as a nominee of the party. Subsequently, in AO 1980-56, the Commission concluded that Barry Commoner, the Citizens Party's Presidential nominee, could qualify for post-election funding as a new party candidate even if he was not listed as the party's nominee on some states' ballots. The Commission noted that Mr. Commoner was registered with the FEC as a candidate of the Citizens Party, and that the statute required only that the candidate (not the party) receive five percent of the vote to qualify for public funds. Similarly, in AO 1980-96, the Commission confirmed that the various organizations sponsoring John Anderson's candidacy would qualify as political parties for purposes of the public funding rules. Therefore, Mr. Anderson, as the nominee of these parties, could qualify for post-general election funding if he received more than five percent of the vote.12
Although the Anderson opinion did not address the issue, some Commissioners felt that he should have been declared eligible for funding as an independent candidate. Commissioners John Warren McGarry and Frank P. Reiche filed separate statements supporting such a finding. Mr. Reiche argued that the Anderson campaign was "dedicated to the election of an independent candidate" and should not have been required to "cloak [itself] with the appearance of political party formality" to qualify for public funding. Both Commissioners cited legislative history and the U.S. Circuit Court's opinion in Buckley v. Valeo to support their case. The Circuit Court stated that independent candidates should be subject to the same eligibility requirements as other candidates:
If these provisions would in fact operate to prevent independents from obtaining public funding, no matter what their showing, or if they would require that independents go to the trouble of creating election party machinery in order to obtain public funding, then they would raise serious constitutional questions. . . . But the statute does not command that interpretation.13

In 1981, the Commission formally asked Congress to consider clarifying whether an independent candidate could qualify for general election funding.14 In trying to find the verdict, opinion or decision I did find more questions :

3. In Buckley v. Valeo, the circuit court opinion suggested that failure to fund independent candidates could raise constitutional questions. 519 F.2d 821, 887 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The Supreme Court, in its subsequent decision, did not explicitly rule on this issue.
4. Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16).


Lets see if I can find more... Should it BE his hard????

The above article refers to "(The Commission's 1993 legislative recommendations are included in this report as Appendix 2.)" as a "more complete discussion", no where on that page does the word independent appear. On the public info page it was noted that they fall back to the definition of candidate found in 26 U..SC Sec.9002(4) please note this is different than the definition cite noted just above as 4.

H.R. 2817 in it's current incarnation's summary in part says "6/21/2007--Introduced.
Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to set forth specified expenditure limitations for House of Representatives general elections.
Permits additional expenditures by eligible major party, third party, and independent candidates."

Here are the details pertaining to independent candidates from the bill detail page:

`(2) ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE DESCRIBED-
`(A) IN GENERAL- In this section, an `eligible candidate' is a major party, third party, or independent candidate in a House of Representatives general election who presents to the Commission petitions containing the signatures of individuals eligible to vote in the election (as verified by the Commission), except that the highest funded candidate in the election may not be an eligible candidate for purposes of this section.

But this page really only refers to 'house of representatives general election' and only eludes to presidential elections when discussing numbers of backers compared to previous elections excluding presidential elections. This bill is still active, but I am not sure if it is pertinent to my search.

I've been working on this for hours now, with no real results. I'm going to give it a break now... if anyone can end my misery and send me a link to pertinent information regarding the current congressionally acceptable definition of "Independent Candidate" as it pertains to public campaign funding well....I'll visit your site three times a day until the elections are over.

Telecom Money in Congress

"Lawmakers who favor granting immunity to telecom companies for participating in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program receive more money from the telecom industry than those who oppose immunity. That's the finding from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington-based organization that researches money's influence on politics. This article was originally published in Capital Eye, the money-in-politics newsletter of CRP, and is reprinted with permission. "

"The 68 senators who voted to grant immunity collected an average of $21,200 from telephone utility companies, compared to $13,000 collected by the 29 who voted 'no' collected an average of $13,000."

"In 2007, the telephone utility industry spent at least $31.4 million lobbying Congress."

Phone Companies Want to Be Off the Hook
By Lindsay Renick Mayer"


And Then:

Should telecommunication companies receive retroactive immunity for their role in helping the government eavesdrop on American phone calls and e-mails? As Congress and President Bush duel over the answer to that question, NOW on PBS interviews a whistleblower with exclusive insight into the role played by one of those companies.Klein tells David Brancaccio about the "secret room" set up by the National Security Agency inside his AT&T office in San Francisco. He also describes in remarkable detail—with documents to back him up—how wires were split and extra equipment was brought in to essentially suck up and store emails from all over the country. Klein claims this activity is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, yet the White House continues to press Congress not only for authorization to continue surveillance but also for legal immunity for cooperating telecom companies.

Program Resources» Video»Audio [mp3, 48kbps]:Stream, Download, Podcast »Print»
Related Links:
Wired: Whistle-Blower's Evidence, UncutWired: Wiretap Whistle-Blower's Account [pdf]Wired: Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room
CNN: House Defies Bush on Surveillance Bill

More From NOW: Wiretap Whistleblower, Candidate Positions on Surveillance, Telecom Money in Congress, Protecting Your Privacy, Feedback Forum, Transcript -->
Related Reports: For Your Eyes OnlyAbout Mark Klein, Breaking the Story
Topic Search: Topic Search: Civil Liberties & Technology

Le monde selon Monsanto - The World according to Monsanto

Le monde selon Monsanto - Arte - Mardi 11 mars 2008
Uploaded by gmlerock

Nader means Change - For Real

Nader will run for president

Feb 24: Ralph Nader announces his third bid for the White House while speaking with NBC’s Tim Russert of “Meet the Press”.

Why Not? Hillary grew up as a Corporate attorney for WalMart of all places, WALMART! Yeah yeah, working for the poor's favorite store but look at what Walmart has done from a legal, or attorney's view point! If any corporation is going to be able to take advantage of her Walmart will be the one. Walmart has one of the worst records for a company it's size as far as it's employees are concerned, you know, The People. She is a corporate attorney.

Why Not? Barack grew up in Hawaii. So what you say? Lovely people with values. Yes, except Barack didn't spend much time with The People. He lived in a large expensive house and went to private schools. There is a huge wasteland of toxic goo under the Great Lakes causing low birth weights and excessive still births in the Chicago area...gosh I wonder why we haven't heard more about this? Personal gain trumps The People I guess.

Why Not? John tells us he is disgusted by the status quo in campaigning, lobbyists are bad he says. But only if he doesn't need a private jet ride somewhere I suppose. That makes him an ok guy, doesn't it? It was only PAX tv I guess, they are religious how can that be bad? Well, when the owner of Pax (before it was Pax quite yet, it was Paxon Communications then) was buying up all of the local stations (hey, isn't there an FCC rule about that?) he could get his hands on, he ran into a little trouble. He asked his friend John (in person, turns out despite John's denial http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022308C.shtml ) to write a letter to the FCC on his behalf. Not only did John do this for him, he did it twice, the second to the employees as opposed to the head when his initial letter to him got no response. The head of the agency wrote back to John letting him know he had crossed the line and his letter was "highly unusual". A subsequent review by the FCC General Counsel's Office determined that McCain had violated the commission's ex parte rules. But here is the kicker, the part we should all be paying attention to: Five days after McCain's second letter, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to approve the deal. The commission also imposed a condition prohibiting Cornerstone from "proselytizing." Cornerstone would not agree to those terms, and the deal collapsed.

proselytize \PROS-uh-luh-tyz\, intransitive verb:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's religious faith.2. To induce someone to join one's institution, cause, or political party.

transitive verb: 1. To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like.

Proselytize is formed from proselyte, "a new convert, especially a convert to some religion or religious sect, or to some particular opinion, system, or party,"

from Greek proselutos, "a proselyte, a newcomer," from pros, "toward" + elutos, from eluthon, "I came."

If the word of the day is "CHANGE" there is no better way to describe what Nader can do for us!
Oh, you didn't really mean change? You meant to just lean a little, no REAL change is needed... You are ok with the way things are going? You have accepted that hillary barack and john are really different enough? Click on the Photo caption to listen to what Nader has to say.

Looking for change? Really?

Democracy not = to Capitalism

Democracy is not the same as Capitalism

Democracy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
[French démocratie, from Late Latin dēmocratia, from Greek dēmokratiā : dēmos, people; see dā- in Indo-European roots + -kratiā, -cracy.]
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Capitalism
cap·i·tal·ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

[Origin: 1850–55; capital1 + -ism]
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary


n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.


Yet we do seem to have merged the two into some abhorrent mutant. The point of democracy is to level the playing field, everyone has a voice. Today it seems, more than ever, only people with money have a voice. Many a public policy has been made based on the popularity of an issue or item and this information is based on dollars spent. Many people follow the the two major political party's lead simply because they believe that if they raise that kind of money, many people must agree with them, they can't all be wrong. In basis, this theory will hold a little water, but in fact it will sink in the end as just a few very wealthy people (relatively) contribute huge amounts of cash.

I have a bit of renewed hope with the onset of the internet, we have our voices back. But I am sure there were people just as revitalized by the printing press, the radio and the television. Those mediums did do a lot to bring information to the masses, from hometown to around the world and so did do a lot to raise our voices. The state of those mediums today, all in the hands of the wealthy few twisting, slanting and outright banning certain topics, well... lets just try to get as much from this new medium while it is in our hands.

Recently I went in search of online campaigns for the 2008 US presidential elections. What I found was dismal. The 2 major party's sites were of course flashy, and state of the art but were still really just giant commercials. Not very connected to the people they should have been addressing. The other parties, what I found of them online, were at the bottom of a very deep chasm if the D&R's were on the hill. The Green party's news feed hadn't been updated since dec7'07, spelling errors were noted by me and that's saying something! Ad promo's were dated 2006, including audio and video selections. Nothing from '07/'08 at all. It was hard to find the current candidates and the party seemed very unorganized. Their principals are something I find a lot of people are interested in but with the current mindset of "capimocracy", without the trappings the big money buys, people think there can't be many other people that agree with them, they must be wrong and so am I. In a discussion on the topic with a friend a few days ago, that was the answer he gave. "If people agreed they would put their money behind it".

My folks are on a fixed income, they did a little saving and are pretty well off in retirement however their idea of a donation to the party is about $25. My sister works in health care and has children/grandchildren, though she was recently able to become a homeowner in lieu of a renter she doesn't have it in her budget to make more than a $10-$20 donation. I have another sister who is recently divorced after 15 years and while she was able to head back to school and start a new career she is back in a renting situation and also couldn't afford to donate much more than $50-$100. My friend has 4 children, last year she was in a position to start a business and build for her family's future. She took a huge chance and did a great job, until flooding closed her down for 2 months. One week or maybe even two closed would have been hard but recoverable, 2 months were not. She lost her business and in course her home. She is now an hourly employee and a renter. She cannot afford to donate anything to a political party. Another friend attends a church for recovering addicts. Most have just come from stints in rehab, or are children of addicted parents. Most are unemployed all are renters, mostly of a room in someone else's home. My next door neighbor was injured on the job. He was unable to return to work. He applied for various programs to assist him in keeping a roof over his families head and food in their stomachs. Unemployment runs out, L&I disputes and meetings and hearings go on forever. He lives with his parents now. He cannot afford to donate to a political party this year.

These are the good stories. There are plenty of people who never were as lucky as these, and won't be in the future. There are plenty of good people in circumstances that don't allow them to donate hard earned money to make their valid, hard earned opinions known. Because they can't afford it, does that make them less worthy of a vote? Abraham Lincoln, while his family began relatively affluent, ultimately lived on public land after the death of his mother and issues with land ownership. I doubt he would have had money to spare for a donation to a political party in those days, do you think his opinions were invalid because he didn't have extra cash? Really?


I'm all for capitalism, don't get me wrong. It is not the same as democracy, it should not be mixed up in democracy. If you tend to think, as the mainstream (media) would have you think, that people who make money are smarter and so their votes are of higher quality then please read the above again. We have the opportunity, perhaps only for a time, to take control and have our voices heard regardless of our ability to pay! Set aside time each day to do a little research on your politicians, local and federal. Spend a little more time writing down your thoughts opinions and ideas. Take just a few more moments to make contact with other people to discuss the issues. Donate some time (perhaps taken from watching commercial laden television, trying to convince you your life is not complete unless you have a summer home, or a second car or? requiring you to work more and spend less time at home with family and on issues that effect your family) to spread the word, at meetings and on the internet. Your life is unique, your opinion counts, make sure you are heard!

Isaiah 1:15

One of the questions in a survey taken recently gave me a rare opportunity to try to summarize the major difference for me between the Democrat and Republican parties. The biggest difference for me has long been the R's reluctance and even refusal to develop and fund social programs. A quick look at history, even from an under-educated point of view, tells us that most countries/empires fall to civil unrest stemming from vast gaps in social status. A few haves controlling the mostly have-nots. Even when the have-nots did not openly rebel, low morale bred lack of support in times of national need leading to the downfall of many civilizations.In the few moments I took to ponder my answer for the survey, I considered how religion has been playing it's role in the last few presidential elections. How it seems the R's have claimed religion as theirs. How this seems strange to me, the R's have never been the 'go to guys' in my mind for 'turning the other cheek' or 'forgiving one's trespass'. Then I suddenly had my one word answer. The biggest difference between the parties, for me, is Charity.

I had long been perplexed at governments failure to learn from the past, especially since it has repeated so many times, but now found myself appalled with the realization that so many R's wave the Christian Banner without representing main Christian values. Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers for the injustice. He gave aid and comfort to those others would not approach. I was reminded of Isaiah recently and the following seems almost to have been written in explanation of my issue with the R's waving the Christian flag:

Isaiah 15
9 When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!
16
Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil;
17
learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan's plea, defend the widow.
18
Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red, they may become white as wool.
19
If you are willing, and obey, you shall eat the good things of the land;
20
But if you refuse and resist, the sword shall consume you: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken!
21
10 How has she turned adulteress, the faithful city, so upright! Justice used to lodge within her, but now, murderers.
22
Your silver is turned to dross, your wine is mixed with water.
23
Your princes are rebels and comrades of thieves; Each one of them loves a bribe and looks for gifts. The fatherless they defend not, and the widow's plea does not reach them.
24
Now, therefore, says the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah! I will take vengeance on my foes and fully repay my enemies!
25
I will turn my hand against you, and refine your dross in the furnace, removing all your alloy.
26
I will restore your judges as at first, and your counselors as in the beginning; After that you shall be called city of justice, faithful city.
27
11 Zion shall be redeemed by judgment, and her repentant ones by justice.

I'm not a religious person, I'm barely spiritual, and don't believe religion has a place in politics especially US politics. We have a near perfect list of rules to work with that make it so whatever your religion we can live together fairly and safely with the same opportunity. If you fly a religious banner at me I'm going to expect you to live up to your claim, and R's, you have a bit of work to do.

US Presidency (Minimum Investment $50k)

Did you ever wonder why more people don't run for president? I'm sure you are thinking "It's probably the money", and for the most part you would be right. But we are a rich country bred with loud voices, so there has to be more than a couple dozen, right?
Sure! But you wouldn't really know it by looking. Not even if you type "all candidates" or "presidential candidates" into a search bar. I've clicked through to dozens of sites, from 'candidate matchmakers' to video lists of debates so far and what I have found is that without 13 years of internet research behind me I would have quite a time finding candidates from any other party aside from the D's and R's.

To my ultimate disgust, even turning to the usa.gov search site nets me only "This list includes active campaigns that have raised or spent $50,000 or more, from sources other than the candidate himself or herself. " and promptly goes on to list and link to R and D candidates ONLY! It does note that over 1000 people have filed a Statement of Candidacy and/or Statement of Organization and provides a link to a listing (http://www.fec.gov/press/press.shtml) which simply leads to the general press page, where you must begin the search all over again, as there is no simple link to such a listing on the page. I never did find the list, and sent off an email to the noted address requesting help. (mailto:info@fec.gov) I did finally find what appears to be a comprehensive listing however, it is a wikipedia listing. I have never found any problems with the site, however I am aware that many others have, so even this information may be slanted/tainted/incorrect.

So apparently, there is a cost or a "Minimum Investment" required to even be recognized by the government as an actual candidate. Did I mention disgusted?

There is definitely a problem here! I went in search of some of the other candidates web sites, and mostly what I find is that elections haven't kept up with technology outside of the R&D parties. Simple websites with spelling errors and few if any recent updates, and no real online campaigns to speak of. I did come across one, ONE, exciting professional video for the Green party. It turned out to be from and for another country. Hopefully things will pick up as the election looms, and future elections will take advantage of the internet. I also hope that the rules will be changed to address the situation, that at least the usa.gov search site can contain an easily accessed list of ALL of the declared candidates.

I will list a few websites here for some of the other parties, but please send a request email to info@fec.gov for the link to a full listing of all declared candidates. This way maybe they will make the information more accessible in the future.


Green Party Candidate listing, last updated 12/17/07
Nader 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee
Libertarian Candidates
Constitution Party though I found no candidates there.
Independents A wiki list.

EDIT: I went in search of an email address or blog for Jon Stewart or the daily show in hopes of adding my thoughts on this matter there. Sadly, I found the only candidates and parties featured were the R&D's..... C'mon Jon!

EDIT: 3/12/08 With so many joking about throwing their hats in the ring lately, I decided to renew my search for a comprehensive listing of properly declared candidates. I returned to the FEC site and began looking for the list. The cited page, as noted previously, did not have the list nor a direct link to the list. I entered 'all candidates' into the site search bar and clicked on the only relevant result, 'presidential campaign finance'. A nifty looking interactive US map graphic appears whereby hovering over a circle on the map pulls up the $ spent by that state. A very handy listing of "All Candidates" is provided on the left. It is summarized at the top into Democrat and Republican totals, and goes on to list many of the R&D candidates with their respective dollar amounts. Only R&D parties are included and no independent candidate is listed. I went back to the search results and combed over them again, no luck. It was then that I noticed, near the bottom of the page just above the footer links and legal language, 3 links of which one looked promising! "All Candidates, Current Presidential Filings" Yippee! I'd found it! I placed my cursor over the link preparing to click when I noticed it...the status bar announcing my intended destination... it was not an FEC.GOV address. It was not a .GOV address at all, it was a .COM address. By default I tell myself this must have been an 'ad by google' block, but how could that be on the fec.gov site? I looked again, no, no google logo..no logo at all. I hovered over the other 2 options I'd found lurking at the bottom of that fec.gov search result page, "Receipts of 2008 Presidential Campaign" indeed an fec.gov link. And "Presidential Campaign Finance Summaries: Current and Historical" also another fec.gov link. So, can ANYONE explain to me why the Federal Election Committee cannot or will not post a full listing of Presidential Candidates thus far for the 2008 election? Further, will anyone be able to explain why this .COM site bears the FEC seal?

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M2/ Incidentally, the site is titled a bit differently than the link: "Selected" Presidential Reports for the 2008 February Monthly and contains only 18 names. By poking around on this site, I was able to find a larger if not updated listing of candidates by searching for 2008 financial information: http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/ Again, why is this information being made available through a .COM site!

More info about the site, but please note that a search for "what is nictusa.com" pulled no real results...how very mysterious.. http://ww.quantcast.com/nictusa.com

Then by accident I found more information... it's actually NIC Inc. aka Nicusa.com aka Nictusa.com, the people behind egovernment! http://www.nicusa.com/html/ Huh?!! On the face of it I'm not happy....Stay tuned...

Edit 03/23/08 Thankfully and finally, Grist.org and Glassbooth.org have added an independent/3rd party to their listings! I hope I find more and more instances like this. Cheers guys!

A Better Idea for Microsoft's $45 Billion

So I'm browsing over my home page, a compilation of RSS feeds from various sources (I tend toward off-mainstream news sites in an attempt to 'de-slant' the corporate news sources) regarding world and local news, business and social/cultural over the past few days and I've come across a few articles that were interesting on their own, but viewed all together they gave me an idea. Let me start from the beginning:

The first article was Microsoft: $44.6B for Yahoo , not terribly interesting on it's own but the first thing I thought was, wow, that is way too much money. Until recently I used Yahoo services extensively for personal and social web pages, and a few of their other interactive type services, but did not use their search engine. I never have really. I put them to a side by side test once a few months ago with google when it occurred to me to be a bit more loyal, but yahoo search really doesn't compare for quality results. If the search engine is the main goal of the purchase, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not paid to know anything about any of that.


Next came Lawmaker Worried About Lack Of D-Block Bidding In FCC Sale which peaked my interest, but I couldn't tell you why. It was very much more interesting than you may think however, due to the mass exodus by television broadcasters from analog to digital signals next year. Interesting.


Then the final two, Chinese Begin to Protest Censorship of Internet informs us that while there is a horrible oppression taking place, there is also a huge potential customer base in need of an inventive internet provider. A quote from Pan Liang: "Many people don't know that 300 years after Emperor Kangxi ordered an end to construction of the Great Wall, our great republic has built an invisible great wall," he wrote. "Can blocking really work? Kangxi knew the Great Wall was a huge lie: Just think how many soldiers are needed to guard those thousands of miles."


And finally the kicker FCC Prods Cable companies in Tiff with Indie Programmers which outlines yet another huge market willing to pay for air time. Independent programming is more popular than ever!


If you haven't guessed yet, I think it would be MUCH more wise to spend that cash to secure the newly available, slow to sell Block D! Sure, there are issues with the whole idea as I found out while poking around for info on this blog:License White Space for Backhaul? Google says No but I think it would be a whole new ball game with that kind of cash behind the deal. It opens wide a shiny new frontier for developers while securing a huge multi-media customer base.

Edwards Bid shows Poverty not Big Campaign Theme

By Matthew Bigg
ATLANTA (Reuters) - "The inability of John Edwards to gain traction in his bid for the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination indicates that fighting poverty in America has limited appeal for voters.
Edwards told audiences it was 'the issue of my life.' But he dropped out of the race on Wednesday because too few responded to his anger at inequality, his heart-rending stories of suffering and his passion about combating corporate greed."

Shame on the Media, Again

I woke to the local FOX news station this morning, reporting on the rise in ridership for our local Metro bus system. I was initially excited, but soon aggravated. I thought to myself 'YEAH', people thinking green! Even if it was the higher gas prices that contributed. This station chose to announce the cause as increased employment downtown and increased fuel costs, but then went on to conclude ONLY that this means people can't afford to drive anymore. That's it. Nothing else was discussed. Not that the point had finally been reached where concern for the environment combined with the rising cost of fuel resulted in a greener lifestyle swing, no rational as to how higher employment results in fewer people with money to drive. Appalled, I switched over to the local CBS news to see if they were taking this same stance. Fortunately they were not. They reported the facts as presented by the Metro Transportation media service. Cheers CBS! As a sidenote, if CBS ran watchable late night television I might wake to CBS news. As a second thought, this sort of goes along with a previous blog "Not all is As it Appears".

View the MetroKC News Release Here.