In Response to, "The End of a Free and Open Internet." (12/12)
Ending net neutrality is another move by and for big business to make money at the expense of struggling Americans. The Internet is now a necessary utility for anyone to fully function in society and it needs to be regulated as such, keeping it available to every citizen and giving equal access to every viewpoint.
Without net neutrality, the worst case could happen:
Large corporations will buy priority and small businesses and startups will have a hard time getting customers (as Alberghetti pointed out). This works against free enterprise and the competition available in a free market. The big get bigger and the small get squished.
Not just entertainment but news and information could be affected. The rich buy priority for their political friends and policy makers. Imagine when one political view is mostly (or only) accessible on your news feed.
Include religious views in the above statement. And advertising for anything. Money talks.
While Cappuccino is quoted as saying costs will not be passed along to consumers, have you ever known a company not to do that? They are in business to make a profit, are they not?
As a consumer of Internet, what control will you have? Perhaps your ISP will let you pay to have certain content let through. As Walden says, let business flourish.
Are you thinking I am mixing up the concepts of "blocking" and "throttling"? No, I am not. Any content (ad, podcast, editorial, etc.) that is sufficiently throttled can be considered blocked in effect, even if not technically blocked completely.
— Mathieu Federspiel
In Response to, "Less Waste, More Joy: A Guide to Reducing Waste Around the Holidays." (12/20)
I'm so horrified by the consumerism of the holidays. I do my best to make gifts, buy secondhand, support independent businesses and artists, wrap my gifts in recyclable paper, and not eat/purchase animal products (especially factory farmed meats.)
I just wish the holidays were more about hanging out with friends and family and less about consuming ALL of the things.
— Lindsey Clark, via facebook.com
I haven't bought gift wrap or gift bags in years. I find it a fun challenge to recycle and reuse. It's ok to disagree with me, I just don't like adding to landfills.
—Diana Timmermans, via facebook.com
In Response to, "I for one believe we should be allowed to kill wolves." (12/20)
LET WOLVES LIVE
If you're asking why wolves should be allowed to live, consider that all non-humans have intrinsic value. Instrumental value is that assigned by humans to the things we deem useful for food, clothing, shelter and/or entertainment (conveniently called "resources").
Intrinsic value, on the other hand, is the right of all beings to exist for their own sake, free from human exploitation, torture or wrongful death—because they have value independent of humans whether we use them or not. Humility is prudent because the world is much bigger and more complicated than we know.
Biodiversity is crucial to survival but also makes life more interesting. I consider it an incredible gift to share the planet with other species. I can learn from them. I can be thrilled by them. I can see something other and if I look hard enough I can see myself; the Oneness.
Life wants to live. We should let it. Anthropocentrism should be a choice, not a right. You may have the power but you have no right to decide who lives and who dies. Your short life is too inconsequential in the big picture—the one that took some 5-10 billion years of evolution to create the magnificent web of life in which everything belongs. If you could keep in check your fear of the Other, you might be awed by it. And that is what makes life worth living.
— Vanessa Schulz
Related Wolf Attacks: Wolves are attacking cattle in Southern Oregon. Should ranchers have the right to kill them?
In Response to, "Presidential Preferences. Cascade-Siskiyou: Under attack or saving a way of life?" (12/20)
Where does the author of this junk come from?? He quotes the Antiquities Act but conveniently omits the most important sentence, "The limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected."
Referring to a television ad being run on local stations, they state that 2 million acres of federal land has been wiped off the map. If so where did it go? In fact it has been returned to public use for all Americans, not tied up by big money individuals so no one can enjoy it.
Just like the Mill Creek north of Prineville. That area had (been) logged for 100 years and roads built with taxpayer money. Several campgrounds built by volunteers to be used by everyone. Then someone decided it should be a wilderness (area).
Just how do you roll back 100 years of multiple-use by industry and public recreation use? The Antiquities Act and the ESA have been trashed and misused by the wacko elite for too long. Finally we have someone to fight for the public interests.
I will be very surprised if you publish this letter.
— Mark H. Winger
LETTER OF THE WEEK
Mark, your argument that relaxing federal protections of public lands, "returns it to public use for all Americans, not tied up by big money individuals so no one can enjoy it," is interesting when you consider a recent Washington Post investigation which showed a uranium mine allegedly lobbied to scale back Bear Ears National Monument. The proposed 85 percent reduction was heavily campaigned by the company in order to ease their access to uranium deposits. So what were you saying about "big money..." Oh, right.
Come on in for your gift card to Palate!
— Assistant Editor, Magdalena Bokowa