Too bad, so sad.

Mon Dec 18 19:03:47 CST 2017

The Wikipedia entry about the FCC confirms that its commissioners have the same restriction as the FTC — no more than three from a single party. Democrats controlled the FCC under Obama, and it was Democratic commissioners who gave us net neutrality over GOP objections. My former boss was a senior official there during that period. Crucially, Republicans in the Senate surely demanded a net neutrality opponent for their commissioner, and they didn’t have to vote to confirm Obama appointments. Blame Obama for his own acts and omissions, but don’t blame him for Pai. 

Sent from an iPhone; pls xcse typos. 

> On Dec 18, 2017, at 16:43, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> 
> Sounds speculative. Pai replaced Democrat and adamant supporter of net neutrality Michael Copps; but also,  there are no republicans for net neutrality? No one who did not work for a telecom?  This was not a minor issue. This is  a private takeover of what had been deemed a publicly licensed information system similar to Radio or TV.  The power to limit the free flow of information and equality of access is potentially extremely dangerous.
> 
> I will try to track down the actual rules about presidential FCC appointments and am interested if someone else  comes up with something more detailed. 
>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I don't like what Ajit Pai has done any more than the next person, but faulting Obama for it is not right. With many federal commissions, including both the FCC and the FTC but also others, the commissioners are appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, but need to be distributed among the parties to avoid total partisan control. So, for example, to quote from ft.gov, the FTC is headed by five Commissioners, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, each serving a seven-year term. No more than three Commissioners can be of the same political party. The President chooses one Commissioner to act as Chairman. This puts every President in the position of having to appoint commissioners from the the other party and needing commissioners to be confirmed by the Senate. I believe the FCC works similarly. As a result, the appointment of someone like Pai was not Obama's unilateral decision, but rather the result of a customary negotiation between Obama and Senate Republicans to find someone mutually acceptable. 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>> You still buy all that bs. The team of rivals. Yea like appointing Ajit Pai to the FCC. Good move Obama. so subtle, so brilliant. Or maybe just Too bad so sad.
>> 
>>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> A nice clear summary statement showing what Morris meant. "You felt betrayed over the cabinet???"...No sense, never, of the art of the possible and the mastery of it
>>> he did....
>>> Once again, you want a "leader' who could never (have) exist (ed) and exhibit no possible way of comparing to the other possible choice...
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>> There are some good things. He put the brakes on torture.  I don’t think much of the Affordable Care Act but it was an improvement for a lot of people. It just seems obvious that we are living in times when larger changes are needed. In his first presidential campaign he sounded like someone who knew that. When he hired his cabinet I felt betrayed. When he murdered Alaki’s son he joined the ranks of the war criminals. I like him as a person and often as a speaker, but regard him as a failure as a leader for the needs of his time.
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe it's not all black and white, and Obama did some good things and also some bad things. Like, he wasn't perfect, but he could have done worse.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>> Obama never cast a vote against the war authorization. He said he "would have" voted against it , which is rather different ( this was why I voted for him in 2008). He did however vote aginst a war fundng bill that had no timetable for troop withdrawal. Apparently “mental mistakes” were made by Kohut as well as Tracy. I stand by  my core arguments.
>>>>  Generalized statements like “you have never been clear on what a President did and could not do” are your own noxious opinions. I already cut you out of my facebook page because of such insults. Try using some journalistic facts since you say you are so fond of them.
>>>>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, but more of your mental mistakes in clear visibility.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Obama voted against that war and he, alone could not stop the funding...
>>>>> therefore he as you do always stand condemned with a generalized group you despise...
>>>>> You have never been clear on what a President did and could not do.
>>>>> 
>>>>> mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, but this is an oversimplification. The majority of Democrats supported the authorization to war sought by the mass killer  and torturer W. They , including Obama , did not use the power of the purse to deny funding for this war even when it far supassed W’s phony estimate for the cost to the taxpayers.
>>>>>  When Obama inherited the wars he increased spending in Afghanistan, increased drone attacks killing thousands of civilians, allowed the corruption in Iraq to continue, started a war in Libya and armed and financed the Salafists in Syria. That is what decent journalism shows.
>>>>> The militarization of the US is bi partisan.
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> • Third: Preznit Dubya and his criminal administration constructed this entire wasteful, Satanic enterprise upon a foundation of propaganda, forgery, and outright lies. There is no valid ethical, moral or legal justification for it, no matter how "easy" the task might eventually turn out to seem… relatively speaking.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -
>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -
>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>> 
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l