To Senator Rubio (Net Neutrality)

            At the beginning of the year I wrote to one of my state’s senators, Marco Rubio.  The letter dealt with the awful treatment of refugees and immigrants into the United States.  Senator Rubio’s office replied to that letter shortly thereafter, with a reply I found lacking.

            A couple weeks ago, I wrote another letter to Senator Rubio concerning Net Neutrality.  I thought to write another on the topic of Healthcare, and another still on the topic of the Russia, but decided on Net Neutrality as the first to prioritize.

            As I explain in the letter, and this was a physical letter, not an email, it will take up some space on a desk before being read by an underappreciated staffer, and then responded to by an underappreciated staffer.  As I explained in the letter, Net Neutrality is important to keeping the internet the free and open space that is it, and by not enforcing its status as a natural monopoly a dangerous status quo would emerge.

            I made comparisons to the Enron crisis which emerged as a result of a natural monopoly like power supply being turned into a “free market” boondoggle, and how little faith I have in the current head of the FCC.

            Feel free to utilize my letter as a template and send it to the elected official of your choice on the issue.  I am sure there are many state regulations that could be utilized to prevent Net Neutrality from rolling up completely in many areas and many federal officials that could slow the dissolution of current protections.  The Letter is presented below.

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

------------

(Name)

Masters of Applied American Politics and Policy

Masters of Urban and Regional Planning

Masters of International Affairs

(Address)

(Contact Information)

July 13, 2017

Senator Marco Antonio Rubio

Junior United States Senator of Florida

284 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington DC, 20510

To Senator Rubio,

Senator, I am filled with a growing concern for the state of net neutrality in the United States.

It is my sincere belief that greater protections for the internet as a utility is necessary for small businesses to thrive within it, and to maintain the free movement of information and commerce thru it.

Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Ajit Varadaraj Pai strikes me as an untrustworthy guardian of net neutrality.  If he dissolves the current protections it will hand a tremendous amount of power to large firms in the telecommunications industry.  Far more power than any government or citizen should be comfortable with them having.

The internet, much like water and electricity, should be viewed as a natural monopoly and regulated as such.  Limited competition and price regulation insure a stable and uniform experience for users and preventing internet providers from extorting web based companies for access to their customers.

Control of communications, ranging from what news people can read, to what shows they can watch, and even to what stores they can shop from is a tremendous power.  It would be dangerous to trust this power entirely to the open market without oversight.  The only comparison I could make is to the Enron fiasco, during which the trade of energy was chaotic and resulted in costs exploding and service being erratic.

While I know, that on a philosophical level, choice is lauded by the Republican party and regulation is seen as a burden.  I feel that the choices that would be offered without proper regulation would be no choice for many people.

Regulation in this instance should be seen less as a burden and more analogous to brakes and seatbelts.  Attributes that are needed to ensure greater control and safety.  Regulations should be clear, uniform, and efficient, but not abolished.

One only need look at how Comcast has provided such limited and pricey options for their cable, phone, and internet service to envision how abusive an untethered industry would become.

Ultimately, I would prefer the internet to become as ubiquitous in this nation as phones and TV.  For it to continue to grow into the completely accessible source of information that people can depend upon.  The government should work to make sure the internet is provided to all citizenry in a uniform manner, as an open marketplace of ideas and products, not to be manipulated by those industries who provide access to it.

Thank you for your time,

(Name)

Masters of Applied American Politics and Policy

Masters of Urban and Regional Planning

Masters of International Affairs

Response from Senator Rubio (Refugees)

            A few months ago, I sent a letter to the office of Florida Senator Marco Rubio.  I wrote a blog which includes the full text of the letter and you can find it at this link.  The reason I am bringing this up is that today I got a response from Senator Rubio’s office.

            It is as well written as a standard answer to my criticisms can be and I am sure the staffers who have had to write these responses are working hard.  Working hard for a terrible… terrible end.  Regardless, I present the letter below and would like to point to the two largest sections (outside of the platitudes).

            First, there is the section pointing to “…the United States has always provided a safe haven to those escaping unthinkable atrocities, ethnic cleansings, and other horrors.”  I do not find this assessment to be entirely honest, the United States has been rather lax with its treatment of refugees, most notably those fleeing the early stages of the Holocaust.

            He then follows this up with, “We must balance this honorable tradition of America’s generosity with the recognition that the federal government’s first responsibility is to protect the safety and security of American citizens…. That is why I have supported enhanced vetting.”  To respond to this, I would like to point to the video of John Oliver from “Last Week Tonight” pointing out the extreme depths that already exist to the process of vetting.  As I see it as enough of a rebuke to any calls for more extreme forms of vetting for those seeking refugee status.

            Maybe I am being unfair to Senator Rubio.  I do seem to be asking a lot from a grown man who holds a prominent elected position from one of the most populated states.  If you feel that I am, feel free to leave scathing comments, or block me from your life.  If you agree with me I invite you to go back to my original letter to the Senator, retouch it to speak to your representative of choice, print it out, and MAIL IT IN.

            Do not stop making calls, sending letters, protesting, or just tweeting or commenting to those in power.  There is only so much noise they can willfully ignore.  Make them listen to what concerns you, be it Healthcare, Refugees, or the fate of our Republic.

            Thank you.

 

Click for full size.
Apologies for this scan having so much detail in the form of folds.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

To Senator Rubio (Refugees)

            Several weeks ago I was so repulsed by the executive actions taken by President Trump in regards to banning travel and refugees from numerous Muslim majority countries that I did something I tend to view as the activity of only loner kooks, I wrote my senator.  Unfortunately, I am from Florida and the senator I had to contact was Marco Rubio-R.  (Our senior senator, Bill Nelson-D I took for granted as not supporting the idiot flailing of our current president).

            I did the somewhat crass thing of pointing out how Rubio had run against Trump specifically because of policy positions like this one, and how he is a child of Cuban parents who under a ban of this type in their era would have been kicked out of the US.  I am playing the bigotry card, but I also think that in debating a bigoted policy that is allowed.  I then posted some select parts of a speech he gave with emphasis on certain parts added.

            I am disappointed that he has taken no initiative in the past few weeks.  His absence from the public eye or public ridicule/feedback has been conspicuous and noted.  I take issue with such behavior.  Presented below in the letter I sent to his Washington office.  Feel free to criticize me, feel free to copy the text and send it to protest the Muslim Ban Order, or feel free to shrug and continue living your lives.

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

            Whatever.

______________________________

(My Name)

Masters of Applied American Politics and Policy

(My Address)

(My Email)

(My Number)

January 30, 2017

Senator Marco Antonio Rubio

Junior United States Senator of Florida

284 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington DC, 20510

To Senator Rubio,

Senator, I would like to express my deepest disgust with the current treatment of refugees by the executive branch of the United States.

President Trump has begun dismantling carefully and deliberately constructed diplomatic institutions and has allowed white nationalist sentiment to dominate his policy decisions.  This is untenable.

To turn away those in need violates every moral consideration that the Republican Party claims as its guiding stars.

These people are homeless, they are made to go thru thorough vetting, and there is no reason to believe they are any threat.  Pointing out that they share the faith of a current enemy and to claim that as a reason why to turn them away is bigotry.

Up until last year I had been registered as a Republican my entire adult life.  But when I saw that now President Trump had gained the nomination of the party, I turned away in disgust.

You did your best to draw people away from Trump, and I ask that you do your best to draw them away again.

Your family, as you have often stated, left Cuba.  Had this sort of ban existed at the time you would not be an American citizen today.  Your family would have been turned away.  To claim otherwise would be dishonest.

You can justify to yourself that there are some fine differences between the two situations, I can draw a few myself, but that sort of hair splitting is dishonest.

I ask that you hold and display convictions you have professed to have.  I ask that you position yourself as the future of the Republican party that does not turn away homeless children.

I beg of you to not let the fears and bigotry of white supremacy and nationalism destroy the Republican Party and the country.

Does it not worry you, that the act of me sending this letter perhaps will result in me being put on a list somewhere?  That the idea of speaking opposition to persecution of the innocent and the abandonment of the helpless may harm me and others like me?  This is not noble.  This in not normal.

Citizens are being asked for their papers.  People are being held against their will because of the nation of their ancestry.  This is not normal.  This is not okay.

With sincere hopes,

(My Name)

Masters of Applied American Politics and Policy

(My Address)

(My Email)

(My Number)

“So, from a political standpoint, the easiest thing to have done in this campaign is to jump on all those anxieties I just talked about, to make people angrier, make people more frustrated. But I chose a different route and I'm proud of that.

“That would have been -- in a year like this, that would have been the easiest way to win. But that is not what's best for America. The politics of resentment against other people will not just leave us a fractured party, they are going to leave us a fractured nation….

“…I ask the American people: Do not give in to the fear. Do not give in to the frustration. We can disagree about public policy, we can disagree about it vibrantly, passionately. But we are a hopeful people, and we have every right to be hopeful. For we in this nation are the descendants of go-getters. In our veins runs the blood of people who gave it all up so we would have the chances they never did. We are all the descendants of someone who made our future the purpose of their lives. We are the descendants of pilgrims. We are the descendants of settlers. We are the descendants of men and women that headed westward in the Great Plains not knowing what awaited them. We are the descendants of slaves who overcame that horrible institution to stake their claim in the American Dream. We are the descendants of immigrants and exiles who knew and believed that they were destined for more, and that there was only one place on earth where that was possible. This is who we are, and let us fight to ensure that this is who we remain. For if we lose that about our country, we will still be rich and we will still be powerful, but we will no longer be special.”

            -Senator Rubio, March 15^th, Miami

Changing the Federal Structure

            Well the last blog I did was somewhat political so I figure I will talk about what I think is wrong with government again.  Not that the last post got a lot of views, just that I have had this on my mind being that it is everywhere.

            I do not like the structure of the United States government as it currently stands.  I think that it has failed to be amended in a long time and needs to be cleaned up a good bit to be more reflective of the nation it is supposed to represent, and to eliminate a lot of the institutional memory within it.

            I think that each state should have three Senators, each serves a 6 year term, so every election will include a Senator from every state, think of them as the Red, White, and Blue Senate seats.  A Senator serves 2 terms or 14 years (if she was appointed to take over for a senator who moved on).  This way the Senate has consistent role over, and the Senate is always a concern for a voter, because no matter what year it is, or what state they are in, they have a senator up for reelection.  I also think three Senators should exist to represent the collective territories of the United States, meaning that Washington DC and Puerto Rico would have representation (this is not perfect as the two areas are far apart and have distinct needs, but it is a step up from having no representation in a federal body that they are required to enlist in to defend, if they would like stronger positions then Statehood should be considered).

            I heartily dislike the way the House of Representatives is constructed.  The terms as so short that Representatives are allowed no time to pen legislation and set them into motion before they again have to justify their existence.  What is more the districts are horrifyingly Gerrymandered, creating a political class that will safely live out their lives in office because they safely trimmed out a section of the map that does not pay attention to how poor a job they are doing.  What is more the Speaker of the House has no real power and no real voice in the public sphere, meaning they have no way to spur action toward meaningful legislation.  To replace this system wholesale would be for the best.  What is more, they are afforded a level of local anonymity that only disappears when they commit a scandal, if you don't know who is representing you, then why have a direct local election for a Representative?

This is a Gerrymandered Congressional district.  This cannot be defended as democratic.

            The House should be replaced with a Parliament.  Each state allocated a number of seats based on their population, counting the territories as a state for purposes of representation (again this is not perfect as Puerto Rico and Guam are very different from DC, but it is better than the zero and a half they get now, and if they desire more representation they can advocate for Statehood).  Every four years an election is held (these are the off years from the Presidential Election, so on the same years as the Winter Olympics rather than the Summer Olympics) to allocate the seats of each state to members of the parties they vote for, the Party members vote along party lines and pen legislation individually.  We have a National Minister that takes the place of the Speaker but with more power and focus.  No one can serve more than 8 years as National Minister, and they can be removed by their party should they be found too close to crazy town.  No one should be allowed to serve more than 12 years in the Parliament in any party.

            The Presidency needs their role to change, with a lot more power being given to the Minister, a lot needs to be taken away from the President.  He should remain the center of the military and diplomatic channels, and should still appoint Judges, but should not be the source of legislative initiative, and should not be in direct talks with the Parliament and Senate committees over national programs.  The President's power to veto things should also be restrained, only using the ability if a new law threatens the President's ability to maintain peace and security, or if the President thinks that the law in question is unconstitutional and needs the Supreme Court to take action.  Furthermore we need to eliminate the Electoral College and have a one man, one vote, first past the post election.  He should also remain limited to his current term restrictions, and Vice Presidents should have their place as Senate leader continue.  This is more the Presidential role in France, where they have both a Minister and President.

Two Videos why the electoral college does not work.  And where I got this picture.

            The Supreme Court needs to be expanded to 15 members.  This should happen slowly, so that it does not suddenly become insanely conservative or liberal all at once, but by doing this more points of view can be considered, and less impact is made with each member's moving on.  It allows for more diversity.

            So you have a President in charge of foreign affairs, a Minister in charge of domestic affairs, a Senate that acts as a check on the Minister and Parliament, a Vice President that helps put a check on the Senate, and a Presidential Veto which helps put a check on both Legislative bodies.  The Courts are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and checks everyone else against the Constitution.

            Beyond these things I think that a clearer structure for creating states needs to be put into place.  That way if a state like New Jersey feels that its northern and southern half's are too different and populous to be represented by just their three current Senators then they can divide themselves for cleaner presentation.  That extends to other massive and populous states and territories, and to foreign countries seeking a place in the Union.