"President Trump pushed
through a tax scam that gave unprecedented handouts to billionaires and
corporations—but believes it's too expensive to pay hardworking federal workers
a reasonable wage."
Sunday, September 2, 2018
'This Victory Belongs to the Internet': Big Telecoms on Verge of Net Neutrality Defeat in California
"Big ISPs spent millions on campaign contributions,
lobbyists, and dark ads on social networks, but in the end it was no match for
the passion and dedication of net neutrality supporters using the Internet to
sound the alarm and mobilize."
Closing in on a major defeat for the powerful corporate
interests trying to wrest control of how the internet functions, the California
Assembly on Thursday night overwhelmingly passed SB 822, a bill that proponents
have call "the strongest and most comprehensive state level net neutrality
bill in the country."
Made necessary by the GOP-controlled FCC's decision to roll
back the federal rules that protect large internet service providers (ISPs)
from throttling online content or creating preferential pathways on the
internet, the bill passed with bipartisan support in the
Democratic-controlled chamber by a vote of 58 to 17.
Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced the
legislation, said the lopsided vote was proof that the bill—which explicitly
prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling apps, websites, and other online
services and also bans paid prioritization of data or content—is resoundingly
popularity.
"People want this," Wiener said. "It is not
controversial. The vote today reflected that."
What the final roll call looked like:
"This victory belongs to the Internet," declared Fight
for the Future, one of the leading members of a large coalition that has fought
relentlessly to push back against the FCC's decision, both at the state level
and federally. "Net Neutrality is coming back. It's only a matter of
time," the group said.
“No one wants their cable or phone company to control what
they see and do on the Internet,” said Evan Greer, FFTF's deputy director.
"California just took a huge step toward restoring protections that
prevent companies like AT&T and Comcast from screwing us all over more than
they already do. Big ISPs spent millions on campaign contributions, lobbyists,
and dark ads on social networks, but in the end it was no match for the passion
and dedication of net neutrality supporters using the Internet to sound the
alarm and mobilize."
"We're in the home stretch here. California could pass
a gold standard net neutrality bill, providing a template for states going
forward. California can prove that ISP money can't defeat real peoples
voices." —Electronic Frontier FoundationAfter its passage but detailing
the effort of the major telecom companies to kill the bill, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation in a statement celebrated the organized grassroots
effort—both online and off—that deserves credit for what California lawmakers
are nowon the verge of achieving.
"ISPs have tried hard to gut and
kill this bill, pouring money and robocalls
into California," the group declared. "There was a moment where
that campaign looked like it might have been successful, but you spoke out and
got strong net neutrality protections restored. But that hiccup means that,
although a version of the bill already passed in the California Senate, it's
now different enough from that initial version to have to be re-voted on."
And concluded, "We're in the home stretch here.
California could pass a gold standard net neutrality bill, providing a template
for states going forward. California can prove that ISP money can't defeat real
peoples voices."
The bill nows head immediately to the state Senate, but it
must be passed before a midnight deadline in order to reach the governor's desk
for signature before the current legislative session ends.
"The California Senate must immediately approve this
measure and we hope and expect that Governor Brown will sign it," said
FFTF's Greer.
In addition, Greer added, "other states should then follow
California’s lead, and Congress should pass the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
resolution to restore common sense protections that never should have been
repealed in the first place.
"Net neutrality is not dead," she concluded.
"It's coming back with a vengeance."
Saturday, September 1, 2018
A BRIEF POST-SCRIPT ON THE CASE OF AVITAL RONELL
BY SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK
Now that the (select) details
of the accusation against Avital Ronell have become public, some journalists
and friends (or, rather, “friends”) asked me: do you still stand by your
support for her? My immediate reaction to this question is: do you still
believe in Avital’s guilt? If you do, then we don’t live in the same world. I
didn’t learn anything new in the now available data, so there is nothing that
should make me change my stance. From my perspective, two things immediately
strike the eye in the latest stage of this affair.
First is the breathtakingly
biased reporting in the big (and not so big) media. Not only were my (and
others’) texts defending Avital serially rejected (I was only able to
publish mine in The
Philosophical Salon), but also the letter of support signed by 120 of her
students went unreported – a clear indication where the power resides in this
case. The way the media covered the affair follows a certain pattern. Here is
the title of the report in The
Sunday Times: “Groping professor Avital Ronell and her ‘cuddly’ Nimrod
Reitman see kisses go toxic,” where the specific accusation of “groping” which
was not accepted by the court is highlighted as a fact. Later, it is usually
mentioned that Avital denies this accusation, but this denial is itself
relativized, as in the report in Salon which
first highlights the accuser’s statement:
“’She put my hands onto her breasts,
and was pressing herself — her buttocks — onto my crotch,’ he said. ‘She was
kissing me, kissing my hands, kissing my torso.’ That evening, a similar scene
played out again, he said.”
The report then goes on:
“Ronell has denied that any
such incidents occurred, and NYU’s investigation did not sustain Reitman’s
allegations of sexual abuse and stalking, largely because there were no
witnesses and no physical evidence. (A familiar outcome, let us note, for many
women who make similar claims.) His claim of harassment was sustained, based on
a lengthy pattern of emails in which Ronell addressed him with sexualized pet
names like ‘baby love angel’ or ‘cock-er spaniel,’ or described her desire to
kiss him or cuddle up together on her sofa.”
So, Ronell’s denial is duly
noted, but then it is immediately devalued: there were no witnesses or physical
evidence, so it is his word against hers, and sowing doubt in the victim’s
report is the usual strategy of harassers and their defenders. In short, the
message is clear: although Avital denies it, we all know the accusations are
true…
But what about the “lengthy
pattern of emails in which Ronell addressed him with sexualized pet names like
‘baby love angel’ or ‘cock-er spaniel,’ or described her desire to kiss him or
cuddle up together on her sofa”? Well, the first thing to do here is to situate
these emails in their true “pattern,” which is provided by the entire corpus of
messages, i.e., to include also his messages to her which, as we are getting to
now, constantly use the same language: “Just sending you infinite kisses and
love. Thank you for your being my most precious blessing”; “Mon Avital, beloved
and special one”; “Sending you infinite love, kisses and devotion,” etc.
etc. The eccentric pattern was followed by both parties involved, and when
the accuser claims he “acquiesced because he did not want to anger his
supervisor,” this is simply not convincing enough to explain his language. He
didn’t just tolerate her messages, but was fully caught in the spiral of
mutually reinforcing their tone.
Two questions arise as a
result. First, was this just eccentric talk or a prelude to sex? This question
is not difficult to answer, and not only because one was gay and the other
lesbian. It was a pattern of eccentric rhetoric, which was so excessive
precisely because it was based on the understanding that there is no actual sex
involved. (Incidentally, I know dozens of people who interact in this way.)
Second, how did this exchange function for each of the participants? It seems
clear that Avital participated in it with no ulterior motives, just enjoying
the game, while, as we know now, in his emails to third parties from the same
period, the accuser referred to her as “the monster” and “a witch”. So what
went on?
To explain the accuser’s
participation in the game with Avital through her position of power is
ridiculous. If he effectively felt oppressed and harassed, there were ways of
signaling this, which would have definitely not hurt his position. The only
reasonable explanation I see is that he engaged in (faking) a personal
friendship with her to get her help in promoting his career, and then dropped
her when he didn’t get the desired results because she was ethical enough not
to privilege him over others but continued to treat him professionally in
professional matters – it’s as simple as that. And he is now where he obviously
wants to be: enjoying the media spotlight on a model victim, a position which
gives him (and his supporters) all the actual social power to push Avital, the
figure with “power,” to the brink of social impotence and exclusion.
THE AUTHOR
The Slovenian Marxist
philosopher and cultural critic is one of the most distinguished thinkers of
our time. Žižek achieved international recognition as a social theorist after
the 1989 publication of his first book in English, "The Sublime Object of
Ideology“. He is a regular contributor to newspapers like “The Guardian”, “Die
Zeit” or "The New York Times“. He has been labelled by some the
"Elvis of cultural theory“ and is the subject of numerous documentaries
and books.
Right Wing Robo Calls Tell Citizens to Exterminate Undocumented People
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ4rOLUvVF8
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)