Tag Archives: Ted Cruz

Don’t Feed The Net Trolls!

Net Neutrality

If you like your Internet the way it is then you are supporting “net neutrality.”  As of now corporations like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast cannot charge you (or your company) more for higher speed service. 

Meanwhile  back in the U.S. Senate, Senator Ted “Cuban-Canadian” Cruz is staging a full on frontal attack on Net Neutrality – using a lovely combination of lies, misunderstandings, obfuscation, and downright idiocy to make his points.  Here’s a classic:

“CRUZ: When you regulate a public utility, it calcifies it — it freezes it in place. Let’s give a simple contrast. The Telecommunications Act of 1934 was adopted to regulate these [brings out an old rotary-dial phone]. To put regulations in place and what happened? It froze everything in place. This is regulated by Title II. [pulls out an iPhone] This is not.” [Wonkette]

WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG.  Excuse me, but my smart-phone has an FCC number on the back. It is regulated just as every other phone is regulated, by the provisions of the 1934 Communications Act.  Far from being “calcified” the phones in my life have run the gamut from the Tulip Phone in my grandparent’s hallway to the smart-phone in my pocket.  The old Tulip Phone and my smart-phone are subject to the same Communications Act of 1934.  So, Senator Cruz can haul out Grandma’s Tulip, or the 1957 rotary, or the 1966 Ma Bell wall phone, or the Princess Phone, or the not-quite-portable cellular Bag Phone, or the Flip Top, or the smart-phone … and it’s perfectly obvious that the Communications Act of 1934 didn’t “calcify” anything.  (See Also: Bob Cesca – “Whopper”)

Not that being dead wrong has ever stopped the Tea Party Darlin’ from Calgary before.  So, he goes off some more:

CRUZ: “”Net Neutrality” is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”   [Gizmodo]

Silly, Silly, and Silly.   There’s not much substance here, just an admixture of political cynicism, buzzword rhetoric, and silliness in the service of some very very profitable corporations.   The logic herein is non-existent: If you don’t like the President and you don’t like health insurance reforms then you won’t like Net Neutrality.  Huh?  This is all froth and no beer.

What the President wants is to prevent the corporations from BLOCKING, THROTTLING, OBFUSCATION, AND USING PAID PRIORITIZATION. [White House]   As a consumer, you don’t want to be blocked from the legal content of your choice.  As a consumer, you don’t want the corporations to deliberately slow down some content and speed up others based on the type of service or your ISP’s preference.

As a consumer you want INCREASED not decreased transparency.  There should be no special treatment of points of connectivity between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.  And, as a consumer you don’t want to be “stuck in the slow lane” because you didn’t pay some extra fee to the ISP.

Who’s Opposed to Net Neutrality?  The Daily Dot provides a succinct summary:

Going back to 2005 (when the phrase “net neutrality” first shows up in lobbying disclosure reports), the principle’s biggest opponents (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and their allies) have lobbied against net neutrality about three times as hard as the biggest proponents of neutrality (Level 3, Google, Microsoft and their allies).

It’s not that the Big Three are struggling for money – AT&T reported just under $129 billion in sales/revenue (2013), Verizon reported $121 billion in sales/revenue (2013), and Comcast reported about $65 billion in the same category. {Marketwatch 11/19}

They’re also spending that money on a major lobby effort to end net neutrality, and the following chart (Daily Dot) shows how much from 2005 to 2012:

Net Neutrality spending

Senator Cruz might just as well show up on the Senate floor wearing an auto racing fire-suit bedecked in corporate logos, with the largest sponsorships decaled on his vehicle advertising Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast.

Which side are you on? If you happen to me a multi-billion dollar communications corporation you don’t want to be a “utility,” you want to be “deregulated!”  If you happen to be a consumer – as are most of us – you want Net Neutrality – you depend on it for sending holiday photos to relatives, for looking for job openings, for finding information on topics of special interest, to make vacation bookings, to watch a movie or video, or for all the other things the Internet has to offer.

Comments Off

Filed under Internet, Net Neutrality

A Tale of Two Epidemics

AIDS Ebola

Wake me up when there are more actual cases of Ebola infections in the United States than there are chattering heads on television screens launching uninformed speculative comments.  All this palaver might serve a purpose (other than generating ratings) if it weren’t composed of, and targeted toward, the intellectually disenfranchised.

We’ve seen all this before – Swine Flu, Bird Flu, MERS, SARS – each one a Threat to Humanity! Like never before. Like nothing we’ve ever seen. Except we have. It was AIDS.

By the end of 1981 there were 159 cases of AIDS recorded in the United States, it wasn’t until 1982 with 771 cases reported and 618 deaths that the CDC labeled the disease AIDS and associated it with male homosexuality, intravenous drug use, Haitian origin, and hemophilia A.  The CDC didn’t add women as being a group at risk until 1983, and cautioned blood banks that there might be a problem.  By then 2807 cases had been reported, and 2118 deaths were associated with the disease.

No one was screeching about the need for an AIDS Czar in 1984, and no one was calling for the government to “move faster.” But 7,239 cases were recorded, there were 5,596 deaths, and one Congressional hearing.

In 1985 we were introduced to the tragic story of Ryan White, who was barred from attending school in his Indiana home town. The Department of Defense announced it would screen recruits for AIDS, and actor Elizabeth Tayler, Dr. Michael Gottlieb, and Dr. Mathilde Brim announced the creation of the American Foundation for AID Research in September. There were 15,527 cases reported, and 12,529 deaths.

It wasn’t until 1986 that the U.S. Surgeon General called for a comprehensive program of sex and AIDS education, and more information on condom use. 1986 was also the year in which the National Institutes of Health planned the formation of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group.  Dr. Krim and Elizabeth Taylor testified before Congress about the need for clinical research, accelerated research, and more timely access to experimental HIV/AIDS medication.  In 1986 there were 28,712 cases reported, and 24,559 deaths.

“And the Band Played On” was published in 1987 while the FDA finally allowed condom manufacturers to advertise that the use of their product would reduce the possibility of contracting HIV/AIDS.  50,378 cases were reported, and 40,849 deaths.  In 1988 the federal government finally responded with legislation – the HOPE Act, during that year there were 82,362 cases and 61,816 deaths.  At the end of 1989 there were 117,508 cases of AIDS, and 89,343 deaths.  The numbers were worse in 1990, 160,969 reported cases, and 120,453 deaths.  1991, 206,563 cases, with 156,143 deaths.  Fast forward to another bad year, 1995 with 513,486 cases reported and 319,849 deaths, however the research funded earlier is beginning to pay off in terms of therapeutic drugs and better prevention education.  As of 2011 there were approximately 1.1 million people in the United States living with HIV/AIDs and more than 33 million living with the disease in other parts of the world. [AmFar]

There’s been enough hyper-partisanship about the way the Reagan Administration handled the AID epidemic. However, the President was not one to discuss it publicly – not until a September 17, 1985 press conference. There are conflicting stories about whether Reagan moved Koop to speak out, or if it were the other way round.  Democrats in Congress did manage to move the money, from $8 million in research funding in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983 bumped up to $44 million, and more during the remainder of the decade.  [RCP]   What can be said with some certainty is that the Reagan Administration was painfully slow in addressing the calamity that was HIV/AIDS, and did not adopt a leadership role until late in 1985, some four years after the disease was first noted (1981).

The national media and D.C. press corps weren’t helpful either – Chris Geidner notes 13 instances researched by Jon Cohen during which the press corps erupted in laughter at insensitive comments made from the podium by White House Spokesperson Larry Speakes beginning in  October 15, 1982.

Myth Making

It doesn’t take too many little gray cells to figure out why conservatives are so adamant about “blaming the Ebola crisis” on the current President.  To discuss the executive branch reactions to a public health problem invites comparison to the Reagan years, and the comparison doesn’t polish the lustrous image of the the conservative President.

The Congress passed a budget in January 2014 which severely constrained the budgets for the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, calling for across the board cuts in spending – including research on the Ebola virus. [CNNOn March 23, 2014 Officials in Guinea confirmed 49 cases of Ebola infection, and by March 31 Ebola infections were at an epidemic level. As of May 2014 cases are reported in Liberia, and by the end of the month cases are confirmed in Sierra Leone. [NHReg]

On August 8, 2014 the World Health Organization issued a full-on warning about the spread of the Ebola virus in west Africa, saying, among other warnings, that the infections constituted an “extraordinary event,” and a public health risk to other countries.

The Obama Administration’s response in this instance is to be measured in days, not years. On August 5, 2014 the CDC issued a Level 2 travel alert for travelers to Nigeria, and a Level 3 travel alert notice remained in effect for Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. [CDC]  The agency had also deployed health professionals to the affected area as of August 4th – 6 to Guinea, 12 to Liberia, 4 to Nigeria, and 9 to Sierra Leone.  The CDC also initiated the use of the Epi-Info software tool to determine “contact tracing” to break the chain of transmission. [CDC]  By September 17th the President announced that 3,000 troops would be sent to Liberia to establish a command center to oversee the construction of 17 health care facilities of 100 beds each to isolate and treat victims. The U.S. mission would also be tasked with training 500 health care workers per week. [VOA]

By October 22nd the Administration had launched the deployment of 170 medical professionals from multiple agencies and departments, some of whom were part of the USAID’s Disaster Assistance Response Team to the core of the epidemic area in west Africa; had scaled up the deployment of DoD teams including members from the U.S. Naval Medical Research Center to operate three mobile laboratories providing 24 hour turnaround results on samples.  The Administration had obligated $300 million for fighting the outbreak in west Africa, including funds for the construction of one hospital completed and staffed by U.S. Public Health Service officers.  The efforts also included initiating 65 “safe burial teams” to help Liberians facing the epidemic.  [WH]

The conservative response to these measures was quick and predictable.  One opinion given much air time was that the mission to Liberia wasn’t a legitimate military operation in the commonly held sense of the term, and therefore beyond the scope of “fighting and winning wars.” Another complaint was that the Commander in Chief was sending soldiers, “valuable highly trained war-fighters” just to support health care workers. And, then there was the “why are we sending troops over there when we should be doing something here,” complaint – missing the point that this was precisely the argument for sending more troops to the Middle East in 2003. [MMA]

Meanwhile on the Home Front

Speaking of the domestic front – In March 2014, the Republicans in the U.S. Senate balked at the nomination of Dr. Vivek H. Murthy to be the Surgeon General because the doctor had run afoul of Chris Cox, the head lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.  Dr. Murthy’s experience in hospital emergency rooms caused him to believe that assault weapons do serious damage to human bodies, and that limiting ammunition sales might reduce the number of such fatalities and serious injuries. [NYT]  Right wing pundits called for the “immediate withdrawal of the nomination” in October 2014, so an “experienced professional” could be considered. [PJM]  The ever-media-seeking Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) dismissed Murthy’s nomination saying, “And we don’t have one because President Obama, instead of nominating a health professional, he nominated someone who is an anti-gun activist,” which got an immediate smack down from Politifact.

While the obstructionists in the Senate blocked the nomination, the CDC was adjusting its guideline and issued revised, or “interim,” guidance for hospitals dealing with Ebola infections on August 8, 2014.  The August interim guidance sounds predictive in the case of the Texas hospital which later experienced infections:

“It emphasized that anyone collecting or handling such specimens are to follow standards compliant with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration bloodborne pathogens standards, including wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and implementing other safeguards.

For specimen collection and laboratory testing, PPE recommendations include full face shield or goggles, masks to cover all of the nose and mouth, gloves and fluid-resistant or impermeable gowns. For laboratory testing, the recommendations also include use of a certified class II biosafety cabinet or plexiglass splash guard.”

Politics and Protocols

The CDC tightened the guidelines further, issuing revised guidance to health care workers and hospitals on October 20, 2014.  It also provided more stringent guidance for travel and airline operations, and prospective patient monitoring.

Back in the Senate, Arizona Senator John McCain issued a call for an “Ebola Czar” to coordinate the response to the cases on U.S. soil on October 12-13th. [Hill]  This would be the self-same Senator who decried the Administration’s appointment of “more czars than the Romanoffs.” [HuffPo]  The nomination of Surgeon General Murthy was still the subject of a Republican filibuster.  No sooner than President Obama had appointed an experienced administrator, Ron Klain, an individual with a solid reputation for dealing with complex bureaucratic issues, [CNN] than the GOP lambasted the appointment as “tone deaf and insensitive,” whatever that might mean; and, Senator Cruz criticized the appointment of anyone. [CNN]  The nomination of the Surgeon General nominee remains in Senate limbo.

All this partisan bickering was highlighted by the October 23rd performance of Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) who announced that the Surgeon General needs to be in charge of the efforts to prevent the spread of the Ebola virus, evidently unaware that his GOP colleagues in the Senate were filibustering the nomination of Dr. Murthy. [HuffPo]

While the Republicans squabbled over who should be appointed to what if anyone should be appointed to anything – the Administration continued to ramp up the coordination of public health efforts.

In addition to increasing the stringency of screening measures and travel restrictions,  activating post arrival monitoring, tightening CDC health care protocols, the Administration approved the creation of a Dedicated Response Team to be assigned to any hospital that receives a confirmed case of Ebola, a “Lessons Learned” training and outreach program based on what occurred in Texas, a Northern Command 30 person short notice assistance team to provide service to civilian medical professionals, and the offering of FEMA coordination for federal assistance to meet “needs on the ground.” [WHFS]

Now, imagine what might have been different if the Reagan Administration had adopted the same robust response to those first 159 cases of AIDS in 1981? Little wonder the conservatives are cranky.

2 Comments

Filed under Health Care

Profiles in Squirmage: Heller on Hagel

Heller 2Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) was one of 40 members of the United States Senate to vote against cloture on the nomination of former Republican Senator Charles Hagel as Secretary of Defense. [Senate Vote 21]  Senator Heller’s contribution to Squirmage includes the following statement:

“U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., who voted against advancing the nomination, echoed Republican sentiments, saying Thursday in a statement: “Even after sitting down with Senator Hagel in recent weeks, I still have concerns about his nomination to be secretary of defense. While I have great respect for Senator Hagel’s brave service in the Armed Forces, my colleagues and I are still waiting for additional information from the senator. I do not believe it is appropriate to move forward until that information is provided.” [RGJ/AP]

Additional information? What additional information?  Would Senator like more information about the Benghazi attack?  It’s becoming readily apparent that the GOP would like to keep the Benghazi station tragedy in the headlines until (1) something sticks, or (2) they find some other issue with which to assault the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.   As truly tragic as the Benghazi attack was, it is one of many examples of the perils faced by our diplomats and foreign service personnel around the globe.

On January 22, 2002 radicals attacked the U.S. consulate in Calcutta, India.  Five members of the mission were killed.  On June 14, 2002 our consulate in Karachi, Pakistan was attacked, and 12 people were killed by the truck bomb.  On February 28, 2003 two people died in an attack on our Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan.  June 30, 2004 our Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan was the target of a bomber; two died.  On December 6, 2004 Al Qaeda militants attacked our diplomatic compound in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; nine members of our mission were killed.  March 2, 2006 our diplomats were attacked again in Karachi, Pakistan when a car bomb detonated, killing 2 at the Consulate.  September 12, 2006 gunmen attacked our Embassy in Damascus, Syria, four members of our diplomatic mission were killed.

January 12, 2007 an RPG was fired at our mission in Athens, Greece, fortunately there was no one killed as a result; but the results were different when on March 18, 2008 our diplomats in Sana’a, Yemen were fired on — two died.  July 9, 2008 we lost six members of our mission to Turkey during a armed attack on our diplomatic personnel in Istanbul.   There was worse to come again in Sana’a, Yemen, when two car bombs went off at our Embassy on September 17, 2008 killing 16 people.  [complete list]

The obsessive focus on the Benghazi, which is far more intense than the attention we paid to post attacks in the previous Administration, illustrates little more than the Rule of Shifting Goal Posts.  Republicans would be satisfied if they were briefed — they were in November 2012 when the Intelligence committees were given a closed door classified information briefing on the subject. [CNN]  That was declared insufficient.  Republicans were “troubled.”

One key critic, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) missed the briefing because he was holding a press conference…on Benghazi. [ABC]  Republicans would be satisfied if the State Department offered testimony — it did, they weren’t.  Republicans would be more pleased if Secretary Clinton testified — she did, they weren’t.   At this juncture, the GOP was emitting Whitewater Signals.  No matter what evidence might be provided, even documentation illustrating transparency and accountability, it would always be “troubling,” “insufficient,” “incomplete,” or “incredible.”  If Senator Heller is playing this political game, it’s truly beneath the dignity of the office, and unhelpful toward the end of creating a cogent foreign policy.

The other game is even more deleterious.  Tea Party darling, Republican Ted Cruz (R-TX) stepped into some treacherous territory:

“We do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups,” Cruz told the Senate Armed Services Committee before it voted Tuesday to approve Hagel’s nomination. “It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea.”

The “only reasonable inference” to draw from Hagel’s refusal to provide additional financial information, he said, is “there was something in there that they did not want to make public.” [RCP]

Senator Cruz is “demanding” five years worth of financial disclosure, although Committee rules require only two.   The innuendo, offered without even a nod toward any substantiation, also flies in the face of separate disclosure requirements which call for 10 years worth of disclosure concerning any dealings with foreign nations.   Cruz’s slanderous remarks are well beyond the pale.   Surely, Senator Heller isn’t aligning himself with this line of attack?

There really is NO excuse for a no vote on former Senator Hagel’s nomination.  The first excuse is little more than an exercise in Moving The Football, both hypocritical and a blatant exploitation of the Benghazi tragedy for political points.  The second is an unconscionable reversion to McCarthyite guilt by suggested association; a Republican era to which we ought not return.  Exactly what questions DO you have Senator Heller?

Comments Off

Filed under Foreign Policy, Heller