Artists Draw on Stevens and Astroturf for Inspiration
July 11th, 2006 by tkarr |
Here’s another Pro-Net Neutrality creation by Slowpoke (aka Jen Sorenson) - sent to SavetheInternet.com by Jonathan Rintels, the founder of partner organization Center for Creative Voices in Media.
Slowpoke joins cartoonist Scott Kurtz of pvponline.com among many artists who have created works with Net Neutrality as a theme. (If her cartoon is too small to read above, click here or on the image for a larger version.)
Musicians have joined in as well. Read today’s Boston Herald article on efforts by singers Jill Sobule, Kay Hanley and Michelle Lewis to spread the word about Net Neutrality in song. Here’s a take on that by former Dead Kennedys front man and Alternative Tentacles artist Jello Biafra.
And then check out how others are taking creative license with Senator Ted Stevens’ June 28 Commerce Committee speech. Here are two samples:
Visit Bold Headed Broadcast and Aprigliano for more information. Keep those hits coming . . .
July 11th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I continue to be impressed by the high intellectual level of this blog, and by your valiant efforts to promote thoughtful dialog on the complex and subtle subject of Internet regulation.
July 11th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
We’ll take that as a compliment from the one who “invented the blog.” Please listen, watch and enjoy the wisdom of the crowd that has thrown its creative support behind our genuine grassroots effort.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:37 am
[…] We’re not the only ones who’ve been busy; there’s lots of creative work being produced in support of Net Neutrality. Check out this techno remix of Sen. Stevens’ recent speech, a slew of new clips on the SavetheInternet.com videos page and other artistic output at the SavetheInternet.com blog. […]
July 12th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
[…] We’re not the only ones who’ve been busy; there’s lots of creative work being produced in support of Net Neutrality. Check out this techno remix of Sen. Stevens’ recent speech, a slew of new clips on the SavetheInternet.com videos page and other artistic output at the SavetheInternet.com blog. […]
July 12th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
[…] We’re not the only ones who’ve been busy; there’s lots of creative work being produced in support of Net Neutrality. Check out this techno remix of Sen. Stevens’ recent speech, a slew of new clips on the SavetheInternet.com videos page and other artistic output at the SavetheInternet.com blog. […]
July 12th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I love your neutral language, Tim. “The Wisdom of the Crowd” sounds so much better than “The Justice of the Lynch Mob” and “Genuine Grassroots Effort” sounds so much better than “Tim Karr is paid to blog by Free Press, a 501 (C) 3 Corporation”.
As a genuine grass-roots blogger (I did have the first ever grass-roots activist blog in 1996) I admire your nerve. Keep up the good work, I’m counting on you to save the Internet from the network engineers.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Wow, Richard you’ve got real grassroots cred. I guess one wouldn’t expect any less from the “inventor of the blog.” And nice work trying to turn the tables on SavetheInternet by insinuating that we’re an “astroturf” coalition controlled by evil puppetmasters at Free Press. (btw — Free Press is contributing its staff time free to this coalition — get out your calculator to see how much that amounts to for me).
Check out what 501 (c) 3 really means. Then check the list of more than 800 groups who also contribute their time to this coalition. (Oh, that’s right, you think that we’re all being paid off by Google) How about the more than 7,000 blogs that now support our position (a “lynch mob” for the paranoid). If that’s not enough, check the petition delivered to Congress by more than a million signers (people you characterize as “morons”). I must have brainwashed them all with my hypno-vision.
Please feel free to add any or all of the above to your spittle-flecked list of conspiracy theories.
July 13th, 2006 at 7:17 am
You seem awfully defensive about that Grass Roots claim. Free Press is a foundation-funded organization, not a membership group so anything it does can’t really be called “grass roots” in any meaningul sense.
I’d like to see a list of the 7,000 blogs that support your regulations. When you first made this claim it was on the basis of the Google hits on your URL. As we both know that significant numbers of blogs link this site (which is paid for by the Free Press corporation, as you admit) are actually critical of your pile of new and unprecedented regulations, I assume you have some better basis for this claim. Because we know you would never, ever stretch the truth, not even a little bit, you must have some good evidence for your claim.
You’re welcome to go visit the Wayback Machine to see how my activist blog looked in 1996 to verify my claim to activist blog originality:
Silicon Valley News, circa 1996 COPS is a real grass-roots, member-supported organization, by the way, one that has never taken a dime of foundation money.
There’s my evidence, where’s yours? If you can’t support your claim to 7,000 blogs, I have to wonder if the million petitions claim is real; anybody can sign an electronic petition a thousand times with a little script. How many John Smiths and Howdy Doodys do you have?
July 13th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Nice try, Richard.
1. Free Press is both foundation and members supported. We have over 300,000 of them (involved member-activists that is). Many support us through direct contributions others through both on and offline action.
2. Our list of blogs exceeds 7,000 in fact. Google has nothing to do with it. They have signed up via our online interface and through outreaches by Savethenternet Coalition members. They have opted to be a part of the coalition.
3. You claim to be the “original blogger.” I, frankly, don’t care about any of that other than to suggest that such ridiculous hyperbole raises significant doubts about your overall credibility. Your many demonstrably false claims throughout this blog and elsewhere call you further into question.
4. We use a state-of-the art petition software (Get-Active) that disallows the sort of techno-sabotauge you claim. Our number is now far in excess of a million signers. We have each of the names, emails and addresses of each. These are real people (not “morons”), who care about this issue. We protect their privacy and honor their activism.
5. You seem to have a blindspot for industry. You consistently fail to look critically at the telephone industry but are willing to trumpet any falsehood produced by their astroturf allies and think tanks. Your problem is that you do it in such an off-putting fashion (ad-hominem attacks, arrogant self praise, smears, etc) that no-one takes you seriously.
You might legitimately have something to contribute to the debate but it gets lost in your grade-school delivery. I would have labeled you a corporate shill, but even they are smart enough not to employ someone whose tactics are a liability.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I’ve asked you for evidence, and all you offer is a sleazy personal attack, so I have to conclude that’s the best you have to offer.
The grass-roots and corporate effort to free the Internet of unnecessary regulation is supported with the technical and policy arguments of qualified professionals, but the argument in favor of new and unprecedented regulations is supported by cartoons, songs, and cute little videos.
Builders of network equipment whose livelihood depends on growth in the infrastructure oppose your new regulations; proponents of a government-owned Internet support them.
That’s all the thinking person needs to know.
Free Press’ expertise is in exposing the hidden right-wing control of television news and print media. I submit that the question of Internet regulation requires a different base of knowledge.
But kleep it up, one day you may win a battle.
July 13th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
“Builders of network equipment whose livelihood depends on growth in the infrastructure oppose your new regulations”
Interesting assessment. Your history of posting here seems to suggest that network engineers of the world — of which you are a member — are marching in lockstep to oppose Net Neutrality. I can see why; companies like Cisco will make a killing designing and selling routers smart enough to discriminate. Two problems here:
1. If this is about the livelihoods of the network equipment builders, why aren’t you all clamoring for government subsidies for infrastructure investment, like we’re seeing in places like northern Europe? Certainly cushy government contracts would be good for your pocketbooks, but I don’t recall you championing such a policy approach.
2. If network engineers are so gloriously united in opposition, why is CPSR a charter member of the SavetheInternet.com coalition? I realize they’ve got a lot more than just engineers on board, but certainly this organization has a technical expertise you respect more than Free Press’?
Also — where are all your allies? You’re the only networking guy I’ve seen posting regularly here. Maybe you’re being a bit presumptuous to speak for your entire field?
July 13th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Who needs government subsidies when you’ve got the whole global market to serve, bb? Engineers are mainly libertarians, and we’d prefer the government stick to fighting wars and leave the technology to us.
To say that I respect the technical expertise of CSPR more than that of Free Press! is not to say very much. CSPR is a political organization for programmers, sys admins, and people who love software, not a professional society like ACM or IEEE. The Gun Owners of America web site supports Tim’s regulations, but what do they know about networks?
Most network engineers don’t care to post here for a number of reasons; you’ll have to ask the rest of them for their reasons. There have been others leaving comments here in the past, and many of their comments were deleted, as were many of mine. Tim has a high standard of personal attack where regulation critics are concerned, but not so high for himself. This sort of non-neutrality is perfectly acceptable under the law, of course, as Free Press! is footing the bills.
BTW, the movie “Outfoxed!”, a Free Press production, is a very entertaining piece of cinema, one that I highly recommend. Among other things, it exposes the fact that Dan Rather, formerly of CBS News, took orders from Rupert Murdoch on election night, 2000. That fact needs to get more play, fer sure.
July 13th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Hey Richard,
Check your facts. “Outfoxed” is not a Free Press production. Ever heard of the IMDB?
“Who needs government subsidies when you’ve got the whole global market to serve, bb?”
Well, you’re the one who brought up how livelihoods are at stake here. I’m just trying to understand if your perspective on NN is based on solidarity on others with your industry, or if it’s from a more principled libertarian stand. From your post, it sounds like the latter (which I applaud). That being the case, I’d simply request that you no longer play the mouths-to-feed card and stick to the real principles behind your stance.
“Many” of your posts have been deleted? That’s unfortunate, but if your commitment to truth is a solid as your “Outfoxed” assessment, I suspect “many” is probably a total of one or two.
BTW - I don’t buy your argument (from your blog) that “The network equipment vendors are the closest thing we have to an informed and neutral party in this debate.” They have a very obvious financial interest in changing the rules so they can sell smarter products that discriminate. Hardly sounds “neutral” to me.
July 13th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
RB: Have IEEE or ACM officially weighed in on Net Neutrality? I can’t find anything on the IEEE site, but I might be missing something.
I think NN would be bad for many of the interesting, innovative and important things going on with networking today. However, I also think that having a subway system here in NYC is bad for cab drivers and the interesting conversation that comes with riding in one. But all in all I think the social pros of having a subway outweigh the economic cons of taxi drivers’ bottom lines.
I can see why anyone involved in building out networking would oppose NN, like a cab lobby would oppose subways running when the bars are closing. There’s good money to be bad, and it could be used to buy nicer cabs and hire better drivers. But really that money is more likely to go into different cab companies making more money and buying each other out, rather than in expanding or improving service significantly (much to the chagrin of the mechanics).
Sorry, this metaphor has gone on too long… my point is that there’s more to this than the (very valid) network/technology perspective.
July 13th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
My point is rather simple, drywall: network equipment vendors make money when the network grows; they have an interest in seeing it grow. Advocacy groups, on the other hand, make money by scaring people; they have an interest in scaring people, not in making networks run better.
While neither party is “disinterested”, the equipment vendor’s interests are more naturally aligned with those of the people.
Have you seen “Outfoxed!”, BB? Bob McChesney has more airtime than Rupert Murdoch.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
[…] We’re not the only ones who’ve been busy; there’s lots of creative work being produced in support of Net Neutrality. Check out this techno remix of Sen. Stevens’ recent speech, a slew of new clips on the SavetheInternet.com videos page and other artistic output at the SavetheInternet.com blog. […]
July 14th, 2006 at 8:09 am
So now “Outfoxed” isn’t a Free Press production as you falsely claim above, Richard, but a movie that has been captured by our hypno-beam to mouth Free Press talking points like a brainless automaton.
I outline several points of evidence above to dispute your earlier misinformation … and you boil that down as a “sleazy personal attack.” Boy, Richard, moral high ground must be an uncomfortable spot for someone who makes it his practice to spread misinformation and attack everyone who doesn’t agree with his twisted interpretation of the facts.
I’m short with you because we have generoulsy given you a platform on this blog and you seize the opportunity to make ad-hominem attacks and false claims without the slightest evidence to back them up (there are at least a half dozen instances of this in this blog thread alone).
It’s time that you are called out for every lie. You can rant until your ears bleed about being a victim, but honest debate involves honesty, Richard.
July 14th, 2006 at 9:37 am
“Have you seen ‘Outfoxed!’, BB? Bob McChesney has more airtime than Rupert Murdoch.”
Yes, I’ve seen Outfoxed (and wasn’t impressed, actually). Yes, McChesney appears more than Murdoch. But that’s not what you asserted originally, and doesn’t change the fact that your claim of the film being a Free Press production is, to put it simply, entirely false. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you were wrong?
I’m sure the only reason McChesney appears more than Murdoch is because he was actually willing to grant an extensive interview.
BTW — if you’re looking for an organization devoted to “right-wing control” of the media, look at Media Matters, not Free Press. They’re the ones focusing on content; Free Press focuses on policy.
July 14th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
I didn’t mean “production” in the sense of “production credit”, obviously, but “production” in the sense of “supported by editorial input and money,” so don’t try and twist what I said around.
Tim, as I said on the other thread, show me a lie I’ve told about your regulations or retract your false, ad hominem attack against me.
The bottom line on this issue is that you and your employer don’t understand the damage to the Internet that your proposed regulations will cause. This is an issue outside your areas of expertise, and your involvement is not helping.
July 14th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
According to Richard Bennett:
1. Free Press produced “Outfoxed.” (wrong)
2. Matt Stoller is a paid to blog on behalf of Net Neutrality. (wrong)
3. Google funds SavetheInternet; Google funds MoveOn. (wrong; wrong)
4. Free Press is not a membership group. (wrong)
5. SavetheInternet is a fake grassroots organization. (wrong)
6. SavetheInternet faked its million signatures. (wrong)
And most of those are just in the last 48 hours. I can go on. But I’ll put all that aside to address your two primary complaints.
1. You’re right to debate the QOS issue. We have legitimately different views on how that should be implemented and whether one regulatory solution is better than the other. BTW-This is your strongest suit in this debate.
2. The coalition receives no corporate or political party money to operate this campaign. We have been up front about that from the start. The coalition has spent less than $20,000 on this effort — additional resources have been in-kind contributions like staff time from many of the member organizations.
That pales by comparison to the millions being dumped by AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and others into astroturf orgs like “Hands off the Internet,” “Freedomworks,” “TV4uS” and “NetCompetition.”
Where the telcos spend millions to create a facade of public consensus, we respond with real grassroots organizing. Our unprecedented alliance represents more than 750 groups from across the political spectrum – including the ACLU, the Christian Coalition, the American Library Association and every major consumer group in the country.
Again, SavetheInternet.com hasn’t taken a penny of corporate money from the big Internet companies or anybody else. Yet more than a million real people have signed a petition supporting Net Neutrality at SavetheInternet.com or the Web sites of coalition members, generating hundreds of thousands of calls and letters to Congress.
Thousands of bloggers have linked to the site — many of them posting free ads to counteract the expensive misinformation campaign launched by the Astroturf groups. Creative individuals have submitted their own videos and songs about Net Neutrality — and nobody paid them to do it.
Others have taken it upon themselves to organize others in their communities designing and printing out fliers and handing them out at high school soccer matches, on college campuses and in front of grocery stores.
This is the very definition of a grassroots effort.
The untold story here is of a word-of-mouth campaign that has lifted the crucial issue of Net Neutrality from obscurity and thrown a wrench in the phone and cable giants’ plan to overhaul our telecommunications laws behind closed doors.
You’re free to criticize that all you like, but please don’t just make random sh*t up.
July 14th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Tim, you’re the one who’s lying. I never said most of the things you say I’ve said, and they’re irrelevant to the policy debate in any case.
You and your employer could be as virtuous as Mother Teresa and still be wrong about the policy. And you are. There’s plenty of corporate money on both sides of this debate, and I’m not getting any of it myself.
So tell me why you’re afraid to discuss the policy.
July 14th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Nice dodge Richard. But the record speaks for itself.
And to call a million people “clueless souls” (and I assume you’re referring to yourself on the “man with knowledge” bit) typifies your arrogant approach to this issue.
This is a grassroots issue at its very core. The Internet is the most democratic medium in the history of human communications. We seek to preserve that and foster its growth and openness going forward. We seek to accomplish that through better public engagement in policy making.
This also has long-ranging economic ramifications. To couch it as merely a technical issue best resolved by network engineers is a mistake.
We think our regulations are better — more public-interest oriented — than yours.
July 14th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
What regulations of mine are you talking about?
(I responded to the rest of your personal attack on the newer thread.)
July 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
BTW, the movie “Outfoxed!”, a Free Press production, is a very entertaining piece of cinema…
I didn’t mean “production” in the sense of “production credit”, obviously, but “production” in the sense of “supported by editorial input and money,” so don’t try and twist what I said around.
Sorry, I didn’t realize when you said “production” you meant “The Free press co-founder happened to be interviewed.” I apologize for “twisting” what you said. Free Press didn’t fund the film or provide any editorial input beyond McChesney being interviewed, so far as I know, and that hardly counts as “editorial input.” Can you produce evidence supporting your claim?
On final note: at my last count, you’ve referred to Free Press as a “corporation” no fewer than three times here. Before I twist your words again, could you define what you mean by this term? No one owns any shares in Free Press, because it’s a nonprofit, and thus given the lack of shared ownership it cannot be considered a “corporation.” Is there some other, less commonly known definition of the term you’re using?
BTW — I very much enjoyed your interview with the Register.co.uk. It was informative and clear, and didn’t contain the demeaning language or accusations I’ve seen you post here on occassion. Kudos for an articulate piece.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
bb, the point is that Free Press is a media ownership regulation organization, not a network design shop. The question of regulating Internet access depends on a base of knowledge in both technology and regulation, and very few people have it all. Free Press isn’t among them, but they’re leading this grassroots movement.
Where are they leading? Over a cliff, as far as I can tell.
In the absence of a firm grasp of the issues, the best course of action is to sit back and watch carefully for abuse before proposing new regulations.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
PS: Free Press is a corporation, under section 501 (c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:44 am
bb, the point is that Free Press is a media ownership regulation organization, not a network design shop.
Now THAT is a valid point and one I take no issue with whatsoever. But again, that’s not the assertion you made. You said “Outfoxed” was an FP production, then that the film was “supported by editorial input and money” (things that generally lead to a production credit anyway) from FP. And those things just aren’t true.
Listen, I’ll readily acknowledge that you know a hell of a lot more about networking technology and protocols than I or anyone at Free Press ever will. I think your arguments about the importance and validity of QoS are important and accurate.
If this were strictly a matter of engineering, I’d be all for the libertarian perspective you espouse. I trust the engineers. Thing is, I see all this technology enshrouded and inextricably linked to the capitalistic system in which it operates, and specifically, I see it tied to companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast. These companies may have network engineers, but they also have shareholders and managers who know even less about the technology than Free Press does, and care less about the public interest than Free Press does. I’ve seen the track records of these companies, and they aren’t shining beacons of implementing cutting-edge technology and social improvement. They’re companies that innovate when convenient and stifle technology when it suits them, companies that engage in anticompetitive behavior and exist to make money. And them, I don’t trust.
To me, the harm to the technology that NN provisions would do pales in comparison to the harm these corporations will do without them. That’s how my equation goes.
Lastly — since you seem incapable of actually apologizing for or retracting your ridiculous “Outfoxed” claim, let me show you how to concede a point:
Free Press is a 501(c)3 organization, and that means it is, in fact, a non-profit corporation. So you are correct in using that term.
See? It’s not that hard.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Right, Free Press didn’t make the movie “Outfoxed”, but I doubt it would have been made without their help.
Essentially, the corporate mission of Free Press is to reduce policy debates to sound bites, and that’s what Outfoxed does.
They’re trying to reduce the Internet regulation debate to “discrimination” when it’s a whole lot more complicated than that, and in the process they’ve drafted regulations that have a huge down side to Internet innovation. And the sad thing is that they don’t even know it.
I’m not all starry-eyed about AT&T, but there has to be a better way to hold them accountable than the regulations that have been proposed so far. And frankly, I’m more worried about the effects of Google’s server farms than I am about the phone company.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:09 am
there has to be a better way to hold them accountable than the regulations that have been proposed so far.
If you have something in mind, I’d love to hear it. Would be great to get some constructive criticism into this debate.
July 20th, 2006 at 5:54 am
This would not be the appropriate forum for discussing such things.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:17 am
Actually, I think this forum would be an excellent place for such a discussion. After all, it appears to be an appropriate forum for saying things like…
What if pigs came flying out of your ass, Mike?
And go learn some manners, you idiot.
Don’t be Google’s bitch.
That was a pretty retarded editorial
and my personal favorite,
Voice packets are like underprivileged black lesbian welfare mothers with disabilities.
But I digress. Just to highlight the role of network engineers in the telco world, check out this article from BusinessWeek where the architect of AT&T’s IPTV service declares, “marketing dreams it up, and then I have to design it.”
Seems pretty clear to me their interest is fundamentally in money, not superb engineering.
July 21st, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Right, and it’s pretty clear that your interest is in personal attacks and not policy.
So let’s see, I say: “Google is more evil than Verizon.” and you say: “is not” and I say “is too.”
This is how we save the Internet, you see, by calling names and posing.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
If I have ever called you a name, I apologize. But I don’t think I have.
I’m genuinely interested in learning about policy alternatives that allow network engineers to build smarter, more efficient networks that are not subject to the whims of the corporate owners of those networks. It sounds like you have something in mind that’s not as heavy-handed as NN but would still prevent market-interfering discriminatory behavior, or am I mistaken?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:21 pm
uk swinger…
A married man visits an adult establishment and finds there?s more to The View than he expects…
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:07 am
vicodin…
\”I\’ll be out of the office tomorrow, which is Tuesday, and the following day, which is Wednesday. Does that make sense?\”…
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:20 am
alprazolam…
\”Would you jack off to that piece of shit?\”…
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:24 am
jbhffg…
gdfsgv fsdaf fafdsafas…
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:26 am
swinger story…
Im still in shock major league, brain-cell frying disorientation type shock! Fact is, I have now a whole new slant on the education system or at least, the HOME-education system. Problem is, I now have to make one gynormous decision …
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:15 pm
swinger party…
Jennifer reached down to touch it. She ran one finger over the firm, hard surface. Brandon leaned over and growled against her skin….
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
gay man sex toy…
gay man sex toy gay man sex toy gay man sex toy gay man sex toy gay man sex toy gay man sex toy gay man sex toy gay man sex toy ozqgzmxdidq…