I don't think you really understand the meaning of your own words when you say "steal the internet"
If you do, please explain what you mean
Right now, the US controls the biggest percentage of the internet, including how domain names are issued. The EU and the UN want in on this action. From the article I linked in the post:
"During a series of meetings organized by the United Nations, ministers from dozens of other countries have raised objections and demanded more influence. Suggestions that have been made include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access," and folding ICANN into the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. agency. As far back as 1999, U.N. agencies have mulled imposing taxes on Internet e-mail."
So yes, I mean that the UN and the EU want to try and force the US to relinquish control of the Internet against our will. Last time I checked, steal fitd this:
Oxford English Dictionary:
steal, n. The act, or an act, of stealing; a theft; the thing stolen or purloined.
Ryan,
Are you registered to vote in Delaware? Senator Joe Biden is the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That's where they've bottled up last week's Senate Resolution 273, "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United Nations and other international organizations shall not be allowed to exercise control over the Internet."
Call Senator Biden's office in Wilmington at 302-573-6345 and tell him what you think.
Good call. My residence is in PA, and I am registered to vote there, but I can pose as a DE resident. After all, I live in Newark 10 months of the year.
Ryan, on the next political go-around, your position will probably be opposite mine. And on the one after that. And on the one after that one, too. And probably on the one after that one as well.
So there's some temptation on my part for me to think: Let this young college sophmore announce to the world that he intends to "pose as a DE resident." We're building up enough momentum on this campaign that those kind of things just become expected, so it won't really hurt us politically if you're outed. And if your ideology lets you get in the habit of striking political "poses" whenever convenient, then we're going to nail your hide to wall sometime later when it counts.
Me calling Biden/Carper's office in support of a piece of national legislation and saying that I live in Newark isn't being exactly honest, but it is far different from me changing my position on an issue whenever the wind changes.
I think I may have found your biggest "hack" related to this issue - Sen. Stevens of Alaska. Apparently he actually threatened to resign on the Senate floor if they took away his money for the "bridge to nowhere." Even if they had, Alaska would still receive more per capita federal spending than any other state.
Check out the Washington Post Editorial today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...5102201040.html
Yes. He is defintately No. 1.
Ryan, rather than talking about your sense of what's honest and what's just a little bit less than honest, let's talk about mine...
One: I would be slightly inconvenienced by not being able to get to http://www.asus.com.tw/. So I have something of an interest in how the .tw domain is run. Maybe not much of one, but a colorable interest.
Two, I'm prepared to start screaming and yelling that Taiwan deserves a seat in the UN (article at .gov.tw) before we can even begin to discuss letting any UN agency influence how the DNS root zone is run. Do I think that's likely? No. In fact, my guestimate of the geopolitical situation is that the PRC is more likely to invade across the Taiwan Straits than they are to fail to veto a seat in the UN for Taiwan. So, my argument on that issue is purely tactical. Does that make my position dishonest?
No. Realistic. There is not a 1:1 correlation between dishonesty and strategy.
What are you getting at?
Do you know how it came about that the PRC has a seat in the UN, and the ROC doesn't?
Because of the esablishment of not pissing off the PRC by calling Taiwan a province of China, possibly delaying a PRC invasion. In the US, this would be the "One China" policy.
Where did the U.S. "one China" policy come from, though? Try going back to the Japanese occupation of Manchuria.
And what I'm indirectly getting at, in case you get impatient, is the context of the relationship between Americans and Chinese.
The "one China" policy came from the wedge between the USSR and Mao (PRC) that the West did not pick up on until late into Vietnam.
Americans did not recognize the differences between USSR and PRC communism, and the antagonism between the two. As long as the US thought of the PRC as a tool of the Kremlin, the longer relations between the USA and the PRC were going to be antagonist. This is why the USA supported Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan, to block another Communist nation form gaining a seat on the UN Security Council.
If you are getting at the fact of our gigantic trade deficit with the PRC and the amount of treaury bonds they own making them able to sink our economy, I'm listening.
No. I'm actually talking more along the lines of this WSJ article, particularly:
"Europe and American have a fundamentally differing philosophies on global governance. Europeans tend to value process more, while Americans prefer results."
Compare the WSJ's analysis of a "a case study in how Europe and the U.S. often end up in transatlantic dustups"
with Carl Bildt's comments:
"What does exactly does this mean? First she [EU Commissioner Reding] attacks the existing mechanisms by misrepresenting the[m], and then she calls for something that would not replace anything of it?"
"Is it just a confused text, or confusing thinking or throuroughly confused policy? I suspect the latter."
And then compare with Bret Fausett's take:
"This is not only wrong, it's irresponsible."
A difference in worldviews? Or a lying politician?
I thought you were getting at US-China relations...now you are talking about the EU again?
In any case, Reding may not be directly misrepresenting her views, because while ICANN is independednt the US government could directly intervene anytime it wanted to.
What she is most likely doing (assuming she understands the system), is called spin. There's nothing wrong with spin if you can play ball.
Coburn's the man, and Coleman should be head of the NRSC.
Laffey looks to be a man in mold of Coburn (or at least 85%)... so hopefully he can take out Lincoln in R.I.
One downside though: It's Toomey all over again with the establishment.
(Btw, sorry I didn't get back to this yesterday.)
The common context that ties both my posts about US-China relations and US-EU relations together is how cross-cultural statements might be interpreted as intentionally dishonest.
But there are other cross-culteral messaging situations. For instance, you just stated that the USG could intervene anytime it wanted to.
Intervene in what? The running of ICANN? Or the control of the "internet press"?
Well both, by extension.
In your best opinion as a student of political science, does the current administration of the United States posess the requisite political power to intervene in the operations of the internet to the extent that China (PRC) currently does?
No, but only for lack of precedent and the outcry after having unrestricted internet access.
The PRC is able to restrict the internet because they restrict everything else. There is no way that the US Gv't could intervene that much in the internet that quickly.
Commenting by HaloScan
