ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, November 07, 2005

Kos Joins the Libertarian Right?

At least when it comes to free speech and Campaign Finance Reform, Kos doesn't like his party's approach to the matter:

Kill HR 4194
by kos
Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:35:46 AM PDT

Well, the same geniuses that killed the first attempt to pass HR 1606 -- the Online Freedom of Speech Act -- are at it again. This time, they are pushing HR 4194, which would do more to harm the medium than help.

HR 4194 is sponsored by Shays and Meehan, and only those two, as they honestly have no clue what they've gotten into. Their complete lack of understanding of this medium would be quaint and cute, for two old out-of-touch luddites, if it didn't have such real-world repercussions. Yet on issues of campaign finance these two have a well-earned reputation, one which allowed them the use fear, uncertainty and doubt to kill HR 1606.

Now, HR 1606 would've protected blogs from regulation by the FEC under the existing campaign finance regulations. While we don't get funding from candidates (all our juice required to keep a blogspot weblog alive comes from Karl Rove himself), we are consistent when it comes to political speech, regardless of the medium - DE-REGULATE!!!

When 1606 was defeated, Kos went into a tirade on his site, but thanked the Democrats that supported teh bill. It's interesting that Kos, true to form, did not mention that most of the Left in the Congress voted against him, while the Right voted to support 1606. He didn't provide a breakdown of the vote by party... Here's the roll-call vote (Note that due to House Rules, 2/3 vote, or 290 Yeas, were required for passage):
HR 1606 2-Nov-2005 8:08 PM
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
BILL TITLE: Online Freedom of Speech Act
Republican 1793813
Democratic46143 13
TOTALS 22518226
Perhaps if Congress had more conservative Republicans than Leftist Democrats, Kos' 1606 would've passed... No doubt Kos will start campaigning for the GOP now. (It's also intereseting to note that Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) who is a darling of the Left (and the most liberal congressman) voted against HR 1606. No doubt Kos will support Bernie's candidacy for Senate.

This is precisely why those of us on the Right opposed McCain-Feingold, since it is a regulation directly aimed at restricting political speech - something that the first amendment explictly protects. It's frankly hilarious to see Leftists like Kos (who was surreptitiously on the payroll of the Dean campaign last year) to suddenly find that their political speech should be protected while still agreeing with the underlying provisions of McCain-Feingold that restrict speech for other organized groups.

Now that Kos is such a big name in the blogosphere and has even formed KosMedia LLC, why should his speech be any different than that of the NRA? Alas, Kos now understands the bitter reality that his side of the aisle is not on the side of free speech.

Another instance where the Lefty-side of the Blogosphere probably runs counter to their usual "principles" is the UN takeover of the Internet. For more information on the UN's attempts, see this WSJ editorial by Sen. Norm Coleman or this article from Tech Central Station
Will the Internet become the UNTERNET?
By Carroll Andrew Morse

The United Nations wants control of the internet. At its November 2005 meeting in Tunis, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) will deliberate its "second phase" of creating a bureaucracy to manage internet governance. The WSIS is run by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a specialized agency of the UN. At the WSIS Preparatory Commission meeting held this past September in Geneva, the European Union joined with countries like China and Iran in rejecting the concept of not fixing what is not broken and decided that increased international supervision -- maybe even international control -- of the internet has become necessary. Why the United Nations should have a special right to manage "internet governance" is unclear. The claim -- like most UN claims -- is based on the idea that, because it has the form of a government, the UN can grant itself whatever government-like powers it desires. In this case, the UN has decided it has an information age power of eminent domain and can take over any communications network of international scope.

No doubt the Kossacks, who extol the virtues of the UN and all multinational organizations will applaud this attempt by the UN to get the Internet out of the grasp of the overly capitalistic (and overly free) US. No doubt such a move will placate the "Arab Street" and show that America is much more willing to accomodate the wishes of others... why, I'm sure that Kos & Co will even tailor their musings so that they do not offend the sensibilities of Muslims around the world.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler